Ciba, however, will continue to use the chemical in soaps and other personal care products and medical equipment, “where the proven safety and efficacy of triclosan is most clearly valued by our customers and supported by customer demand,” according to a statement by the company, now part of chemical giant BASF. Those products come under the control of the FDA, not the EPA.
Paul DeLeo, director of environmental safety for the Soap and Detergent Assn., which represents companies with products that contain triclosan, says that the amounts found in dolphins and other animals are too small to have any effect.
In the new study, the levels in 26 dolphins tested in Charleston, South Carolina, and in Indian River Lagoon in Central Florida ranged from 0.025 to 0.27 parts per billion.
Researchers say it’s how triclosan behaves, not the amount, that is critical. As little as 0.03 parts per billion has disrupted the endocrine system of frogs in the laboratory.
“It sounds like a very, very little bit, but in biology that’s in the range that normal hormones work,” said Catherine Propper, an endocrinologist at the Northern Arizona University who studies amphibians exposed to chemicals in wastewater.
The levels found in the environment concern scientists because of triclosan's remarkable biological structure. Triclosan is strikingly similar to thyroid hormone, so it might bind to hormone receptors, said Helbing, author of the frog study. Because frog and mammal endocrine systems are similar, triclosan can potentially “affect how hormones work in ways that aren’t intended” in dolphins, and maybe even humans, she said. Altering thyroid function in humans and animals might cause abnormal brain development and other developmental defects.
But making the leap from bullfrog studies to dolphins, or even humans, is not so simple. Rarely is triclosan the only chemical found in an ecosystem, so pinpointing cause and effect in the wild is a daunting challenge. But scientists say further lab testing can confirm these early findings and paint a clearer picture of triclosan’s long-term effects.
“Dolphins are mammals just like us," Helbing said. "They are telling us about potential health effects. We need to perk up and listen."
Even without triclosan, dolphins carry a chemical cocktail of toxic substances in their bodies. Several other compounds that have built up in ocean animals already have been banned because of concerns about their persistence in the environment and potential health effects in wildlife and people.
In 1990, high levels of PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, which can suppress the immune system, were found in striped dolphins in the Mediterranean at extremely high levels. The pesticide DDT, brominated flame-retardants, perfluorinated compounds and mercury also contaminate dolphins around the world. Wildlife experts say these chemicals place dolphins at risk of reproductive failure and disease. PCBs may have contributed to large die-offs of dolphins in the Mediterranean and along the East Coast of the United States in the 1980s and 1990s.
While most animal studies have focused on these so-called persistent organic pollutants, newly emerging pollutants found in pharmaceuticals and personal care products are under increasing analysis.
“A lot of these compounds are in the environment and they do have impacts on [animals’] physiology. But whether they’ll have impacts on fitness and survival, that needs longer term study,” Propper said.
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentDoes it matter anymore? People don't stop doing destructive things until they see other people dying instead. ...and even then, many prioritize money over life anyway. Most people care little about life beyond the lives of humans, even if the lives of humans depend on the lives of other species continuing to function.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there's a difference anymore between being pessimistic and being realistic, I don't know what it is. Life's pretty well boned.
I avoid the stuff whenever possible. It gives me rashes. If I was my hand with soap made with it my skin will blister. I have to wash new clothes that were never worn. Can't be good for anybody.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with hotblack above. Plain old fashioned soap and running water will remove 90% of the transient bacteria from your hands. There is no need for antibacterial soaps except to make money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhere the proven safety and efficacy of triclosan is most clearly valued by our customers and supported by customer demand,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBullshit ? As if (final) customers were aware of this. If they knew of the frog study I doubt they'd be that enthusiast about having a potentially very hazardous component in their soaps and food.
Not to mention that many of them may care a little more about the other species than hotblack does.
I am suprised that everyone or every manufacturer involed in this stupid has word to hide their fenal purpose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey always want money not caring about your life of safety.
To be honesy, our naked eyeball will never tell that what and what is in the hazardous food before you take in it and then, you died.
Should who be responsible for the incident that is happening all around us?
ourselves.
Thank you for spreading the truth about triclosan. Food & Water Watch is working to ban the use of triclosan in personal care products.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf any readers in the DC area are interested in trading in triclosan containing products, Food & Water Watch will safely dispose of them! Just come to the P St. Whole Foods Market on Saturday September 12, 2009 from 10am-2pm!
To learn more: http://action.foodandwaterwatch.org/t/5915/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1866
We need to be more aware of what is added to the products we consume. Many food companies use dyes and lakes made from petroleum and insects. Many foods and drinks that are red is causing allergic reaction in people. The food labels do not mention that the dye comes from a beetle from South America. The F.D.A. says it is safe but I really do not think ingesting petroleum based products on a daily basis is good for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to be more aware of what is added to the products we consume. Many food companies use dyes and lakes made from petroleum and insects. Many foods and drinks that are red is causing allergic reaction in people. The food labels do not mention that the dye comes from a beetle from South America. The F.D.A. says it is safe but I really do not think ingesting petroleum based products on a daily basis is good for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe need to be more aware of what is added to the products we consume. Many food companies use dyes and lakes made from petroleum and insects. Many foods and drinks that are red is causing allergic reaction in people. The food labels do not mention that the dye comes from a beetle from South America. The F.D.A. says it is safe but I really do not think ingesting petroleum based products on a daily basis is good for me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems lots of hot air here. Triclosan or any compound that is used in consumer products flourished because it is in demand. It is found to be beneficial to the users, otherwise nobody would pay for them. So to say it harms the environ and call for its ban is plain ignorant. Why not ban the fertilizers, pesticides and so forth? One must be aware of the pros and cons before making a stand. So suddenly the triclosan readings in dolphins raises the alarm, but similar levels in human are not worth the salt. Are you human or what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto sunny Shade-human or not? humane or not is the better question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisassuming that triclosan is a good anti-bacterial, why does it need to be in almost every product from hand soap to underwear? humans have lived, successfully, in less than sterile conditions for tens of thousands of years, and if it were not for marketing, most of use wouldn't know or care that we needed "extra protection".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe argument that people buy it, therefore it must be good, is a non-starter. people bought thalidomide... and how many consumers have ever seen a "germ", other than the animated, anthropomorphic kind in the commercials? marketing's primary purpose is to create demand for products that we didn't even know we needed.
triclosan brings up, once again, the flaws in our funding model of science and basic research. if all funding is left to industry, who will fund a basic study on the negative health effects? surely not the same companies that are making money hand-over-fist from the product.
and unless there is a competitor with an axe to grind, or a class-action lawsuit against the product, who will fund a study that will never lead to commercialization or make money for someone?