Triclosan, Ingredient In Toothpaste, Sanitizer, Bad For The Environment: Study

First Posted: 03/30/2012 2:41 pm Updated: 03/30/2012 6:07 pm

OTTAWA - A government study has found that a common anti-bacterial agent found in everything from shampoo and toothpaste to toys is harmful to the environment, but safe for humans.

Health Canada and Environment Canada are proposing that industry voluntarily cut the amount of triclosan it uses, particularly in personal-care products that tend to get rinsed away into lakes and rivers.

The preliminary report under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was published in the Canada Gazette on Friday, setting off a 60-day public consultation period.

"We are challenging industry to come forward and look at ways where they can put in voluntary measures to limit the amount of triclosan used and eventually released into the environment," Dr. Robert Chenier of Environment Canada said in an interview.

"Certainly the concentrations out there are sufficiently high where they could be having effects."

Triclosan is a bacteria-killing agent that's being added to a growing list of every-day consumer products, including liquid soaps, hand sanitizers, cosmetics, laundry soap and pesticides.

Concerns have been raised that its widespread use may be triggering hormonal changes, or causing anti-microbial resistance that could lead to super bugs.

However Dr. Paul Gully of Health Canada said the preliminary report — which runs to 137 pages — found no evidence of any direct health impacts.

"There's no evidence in any of the data that's been looked at by Health Canada, in North America and Europe and elsewhere, that there are any direct health effects to humans," said Gully.

Nonetheless, Gully said consumers can reduce their environmental impact by checking the labels of common products for triclosan, and using alternative products. Hand washing with regular soap, he said, is "highly effective" and alcohol-based hand sanitizers work well without the antibacterial agent.

And he stressed that the public consultation period is an opportunity for the collection of new information — including any evidence of anti-microbial resistance — that could influence the government's ultimate decision.

Some environmental groups would like to see the agent banned, but say they're satisfied the government is moving in the right direction.

Maggie MacDonald, toxic program manager at Environmental Defence, said triclosan is used in a huge array of products, sometimes for puzzling reasons. She cited socks, garden hoses and iPhone cases as a few examples.

Apart from its high toxicity to algae, invertebrates, fish and frogs that can be critical to local ecosystems, triclosan can also break down into dioxins and can react with chlorine to make chloroform, said MacDonald.

Studies in animals have suggested triclosan mimics hormones and interferes with reproduction, she said, and this has not been properly examined in humans.

"What we have is a gap in the research, and the gap in the research is being treated as reassurance, which it should not be. We should be finding out answers to those questions," said MacDonald.

In 2010, Canada became the first country to declare bisphenol A, or BPA, a toxic substance and banned its use in baby bottles. And last year Canada sharply restricted the use of phthlates, a family of chemicals used to soften plastic and vinyl.

MacDonald hopes the preliminary assessment of triclosan puts the anti-bacterial agent on the same track.

"We think this is a fantastic start to a process that could see this substance eliminated from household use," she said.

The last time Ottawa did a full audit of triclosan in 2000, if found industries had imported 54,000 kilograms that year. The current level of use is not known and that too will be examined before the final assessment is made in 2013.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA LIVING

Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 7
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opprobrious
More speech. Less Flagging.
10:13 PM on 03/30/2012
Get your stop watch out 'cause it's time to see how long it'll take Harper to bury this study. Make sure it can measure in milliseconds 'cause it's already gone.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sunnyokanagan
Increase compassion. Decrease suffering
08:42 PM on 03/30/2012
Right on time, after Harper has announced severe cutbacks to Health Canada and product content labels will no longer be subject to review.

Go ahead, Colgate (and the rest), make whatever you want. Our Government has chosen not to protect us from you.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
MyTake
Release the Hydrogen Economy now!
08:07 PM on 03/30/2012
And just another splendid "post" from Canadian Press that HuffPo refuses to cross reference to the names of the authors that wrote this up.

Gee, one LOOMING question comes to mind.

WHAT CORPORATION MANUFACTURES THIS CHEMICAL?

AND WHAT IS THE FEED STOCK FROM WHICH THIS CHEMICAL IS PREPARED OR EXTRACTED FROM?

You see, I get antsy when I hear the CEO of Chevron Corporation in the States saying at his annual shareholders meeting that his "CHEMICAL DIVISION WAS MORE PROFITABLE THAN THE OIL AND GAS DIVISIONS!

When you COOK a barrel of oil, what's left over after the fuels are extracted then becomes FEEDSTOCK sold into the Pharmaceutical Cartels, Corporate Food Cartels and many other industry's and end up as toxins and pollutants to all living things within the environment.

Kind of important information.

When the "Pink Slim" story broke, it was only a short while later that the CORPORATION, who manufactured this KRAP, suddenly closed down two of its FACTORIES.

Give us the names of WHO MANUFACTURES this chemical and the enraged public will take care of them as well!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wendyweb47
Keeping an open mind
07:32 PM on 03/30/2012
I don't understand the logic of this substance being unsafe for the environment when its diluted by water and flushed down a drain, but safe for humans when put into our mouths undiluted?? This doesn't make sense to me.
yer
Stop the Alberta Taliban
09:10 PM on 03/30/2012
Long term exposure. How long it stays in an environment. Effects on that environment and all the little species.

Even heat is okay for humans, but not in water. Add too much heat to the lake and oxygen escapes leading to dead zones for species. Hence cooling pools around nuclear reactor areas as requirements.

This one is about chemistry, it's about environmental factors, temperatures and reactants.

It really doesn't take much.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wendyweb47
Keeping an open mind
11:07 PM on 03/30/2012
Thanks for the information.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
05:04 PM on 03/30/2012
I find the logic unsound. Why not make all laws merely suggestions? We suggest you do not murder someone. We strongly suggest you do not rape that parrot. We vociferously suggest that you do not drive against traffic on the highway. Why not eh? If the environment that we all share has the protection of suggestions we should all feel as safe as a rapist in a nunnery, where it is suggested that he not touch any of the nuns...no worries, we will rely on the honour system.