The Antibiotic Apocalypse Advances

It's the largest, most thorough review of the problem to date and the findings aren't pretty: by 2050, this growing problem will claim the lives of 10 million people each year, more than those currently dying from cancer.

20 September 2016

Story at-a-glance

• Bacteria can quickly develop extreme resistance to antibiotics, surviving antibiotics at a dose 1,000 times higher than they could initially survive in a matter of 11 days
• Application of manure from swine CAFOs can spread drug-resistant bacteria and other viral pathogens into watersheds, thereby threatening human health. Drug-resistant CAFO bacteria are also spread by winds
• Tens of thousands of illnesses and deaths from drug-resistant infections go uncounted as federal and state agencies do not systematically track them. This suggests the problem is FAR greater than currently thought

By Dr. Mercola

The featured video is a fascinating visual demonstration of how bacteria develop resistance to increasingly high doses of antibiotics. In this experiment, E. coli bacteria develop increasing resistance, ultimately surviving antibiotics at a dose 1,000 times higher than they could initially survive, and they do so in a matter of 11 days!

Tami Lieberman, an evolutionary microbiologist at MIT who developed the experiment, told NPR:1

"Getting more people to understand how quickly bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance might help people understand why they shouldn't be prescribed antibiotics. The drug resistance is not some abstract threat. It's real."

Indeed, an estimated 23,000 Americans die each year from drug-resistant infections, and the death toll will continue to rise until or unless the underlying causes are properly addressed.

Sobering Report Predicts Startling Increase in Deaths From Drug-Resistant Illness

According to the largest, most thorough review of the drug resistance problem to date, by 2050 antibiotic-resistant disease will claim the lives of 10 million people around the world each year. As noted by The Atlantic:2

"The report's language is sober but its numbers are apocalyptic. If antibiotics continue to lose their sting, resistant infections will sap $100 trillion from the world economy between now and 2050, equivalent to $10,000 for every person alive today ...

[R]oughly one [person will die] every three seconds, and more than currently die from cancer.

These are conservative estimates: they don't account for procedures that are only safe or possible because of antibiotics, like hip and joint replacements, gut surgeries, C-sections, cancer chemotherapy, and organ transplants.

And yet, resistance is not futile. O'Neill's report includes 10 steps to avert the crisis ... seven of his recommendations focus on reducing the wanton and wasteful use of our existing arsenal. It's inevitable that microbes will evolve resistance, but we can delay that process by using drugs more sparingly."

Factory Farms Are Hotbeds for Dangerous Pathogens

The indiscriminate use of antibiotics in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) significantly contributes to the development of drug-resistant pathogens, which can then migrate into the human population via a number of exposure routes.

One route of exposure is water contaminated with runoff from CAFO manure, which is commonly applied to fields. As noted by the U.S. Geological Survey:3

"Animal manure harbors not only animal-specific pathogens but also zoonotic pathogens (HEV, Campylobacter jejuni) capable of infecting humans …

Increased concentrations of indicator bacteria after manure application that exceeded Iowa's State bacteria water quality standards suggest that swine manure contributes to diminished water quality and may pose a risk to human health."

The study looked at how the application of manure from swine CAFOs impacted the occurrence of bacteria, protozoa and viral pathogens in the South Fork Iowa River — an area that has an estimated 840,000 hogs.

An "abundance" of HEV and other pathogens, including Escherichia coli, Enterococcus spp., Salmonella sp., and Staphylococcus aureus, were found in the water and bottom sediment collected.

Since these same pathogens were also found in the hog manure, the scientists say this is "evidence that such swine manure applications may play an important role in the spreading of zoonotic pathogens to the surrounding environment."

Pathogens Blowing in the Wind

Drug-resistant pathogens incubated in CAFOs are also spread by winds. As noted by Texas Monthly:4

"After Texas Tech Researchers discovered that windstorms may be spreading antibiotic-resistant bacteria from local feedlots, public health experts stood up and took notice."

Nearly 80 percent of the cattle raised in U.S. feedlots — some 8.2 million cows — are congregated on the Southern Great Plains.

Contaminated manure not only runs out into holding ponds the size of lakes in some instances, it can also make its way into nearby waterways and watersheds. Whatever is left to dry on the ground also gets swept many miles in whatever direction the wind blows. 

Tests showed genes from bacteria that are resistant to tetracycline antibiotics were an astonishing 400,000 percent more prevalent downwind than upwind, and in some locations 100 percent of air samples were found to contain drug-resistant microbes.

Antibiotics are but one danger here. CAFO cattle are also routinely given steroids, and scientists have found that when steroids get blown into the surrounding environment, they can disrupt the endocrine systems of aquatic wildlife.

FDA Admits Failure

The FDA issued a long-awaited guidance on agricultural antibiotics in December, 2013. However, it didn’t go nearly far enough.

The agency simply asked drug companies to voluntarily restrict the use of antibiotics that are important in human medicine by excluding growth promotion in animals as a listed use on the drug label.

They said this would prevent farmers from legally using antibiotics such as tetracyclines, penicillins and azithromycin for growth promotion.

But the number of loopholes in the guidance made it clear it would not be an effective strategy, and data shows that between 2009 and 2014, sales of medically important antibiotics — 70 percent of which are thought to be used in agriculture — increased by 23 percent.

Now the FDA has decided to try to close at least one of the loopholes it left wide open. As reported by STAT News:5

“The [FDA] has signaled it wants to take action to plug a major loophole in the rules governing antibiotic use in livestock to try and slow drug resistance.

The agency published a request for comments on a plan to establish treatment time limits for a number of antibiotics that currently do not come with any instructions on how long they can be used …

That lack of guidance leads some analysts to fear producers may be dosing their animals for substantially longer than they need to.

The FDA document notes some of the labels say “feed continuously” or “feed continuously as the sole ration.” … Karin Hoelzer, who works on antibiotic resistance and food safety issues at the Pew Charitable Trusts [says] ‘They can be used indefinitely … It’s a big problem.’”

A number of advocacy groups, including the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), are also petitioning the FDA for additional restrictions on the antibiotics that can be given to livestock, pointing out the agency’s failure to quell their use with its voluntary program.6 How long it will take for the FDA to finally take meaningful action remains to be seen.   

Infection Rates Remain Poorly Monitored

While it's become quite clear that antibiotic-resistant disease is taking its toll on human health, the U.S. is still dragging its feet when it comes to monitoring the situation.

A heart-breaking Reuters report7 reveals an increasingly common situation: Parents take their child to the hospital, where the child succumbs to a drug-resistant infection and dies. One of the more common infections spread in hospitals is methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

Last year, a MRSA outbreak in the neonatal unit at Chippenham Hospital in Richmond, Virginia, infected nine infants before the outbreak was curtailed. Yet strangely enough, the children's death certificates do not even mention MRSA.

"[A]fter being contacted by Reuters earlier this year about the outbreak, [Shala] Bowser went to Virginia's Division of Vital Records to get a copy of Josiah's death certificate," Reuters states. "The cause of death: 'Sepsis due to (or as a consequence of): Prematurity.'

Sepsis is a complication of infection, but there was no mention of MRSA. 'My heart hurts,' Bowser said, sobbing. 'I saw what this did to him. And then they just threw a bunch of words on the death certificate' …

Fifteen years after the U.S. government declared antibiotic-resistant infections to be a grave threat to public health, a Reuters investigation has found that infection-related deaths are going uncounted, hindering the nation's ability to fight a scourge that exacts a significant human and financial toll."

According to Reuters, tens of thousands of deaths from drug-resistant infections, plus tens of thousands of illnesses from which the individual eventually recovers, go uncounted. Federal and state agencies simply aren't tracking them. Not even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is tracking antibiotic-resistant infections, and as Ramanan Laxminarayan, director of the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics and Policy, told Reuters:

"You need to know how many people are dying of a disease. For better or worse, that's an indicator of how serious it is."

How Does One Address a Health Crisis With Guesswork?

According to Reuters, the CDC statistic of 23,000 Americans dying from drug-resistant infections is actually more akin to a guess opposed to hard data.

"Reuters analyzed the agency's math and found that the estimates are based on few actual reported deaths from a drug-resistant infection. The agency leaned heavily on small samplings of infections and deaths collected from no more than 10 states in a single year, 2011. Most didn't include populous areas such as Florida, Texas, New York City and Southern California.

From those small samples, the CDC then extrapolated most of its national estimates, introducing so much statistical uncertainty into the numbers as to render them useless for the purposes of fighting a persistent public health crisis. Describing the estimates to Reuters, even CDC officials used words like 'jerry-rig,' 'ballpark figure' and 'a searchlight in the dark attempt.'"

New Superbug Emerges

Meanwhile, a strain of E. coli resistant to not just one but two of our last-resort antibiotics has now emerged in the U.S. The sample was collected from a patient in 2014 but was not tested and identified until 2016, when a larger analysis of hospital germs was performed. The E. coli in question is resistant to colistin and carbapenem, two antibiotics used when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

I've previously written about the emergence of mcr-1, a bacterial gene that convers resistance to colistin; the gene blaNDM-5 is similar in that it confers resistance against carbapenem. As reported by STAT News:8

"Researchers and health officials have feared the joining of these two genes in a single bacterial strain, as it could set the stage for the rise of superbugs that can't be treated with our current arsenal of drugs. The combination has been detected before in other countries, including Germany, Venezuela, and China, but until now, it has never been seen within the United States.

Fortunately, although the E. coli in this case was resistant to carbapenem and colistin, the strain was susceptible to some other antibiotics … But finding mcr-1 and blaNDM-5 together is still concerning. Each gene is carried on a separate bacterial plasmid, a segment of DNA that has the potential to hop around between bacteria of different strains. Detecting the combination once in the United States means there's likely more out there."

United Nations to Hold Global Summit on Superbug Explosion

Antibiotic resistance is not just an American problem. Far from it. There are no borders when it comes to drug-resistant bacteria, and they can spread far, fast. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), drug-resistant pathogens are now present across the globe. They're everywhere and no one is safe.

Recognizing the situation as a global threat of massive proportions, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly will hold a special meeting to discuss antimicrobial resistance on September 21 in New York City.9 Health topics have only been the focus of a General Assembly meeting three times in the UN's history. Previous topics were HIV, non-communicable diseases and Ebola. As reported by Scientific American:10

"The meeting 'is a clear recognition that this is a worldwide threat to everyone and worldwide action is what we need to address it,' says Ezekiel Emanuel, chair of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania …

'The fact we are so concerned about colistin resistance is a sign of how desperate we are,' says Lance Price, a microbiologist and director of the Antibiotic Resistance Action Center at The George Washington University. 'It's a shitty drug. It's toxic and doctors don't like to use it, but now they have to use it because it's the only thing that treats some of these drug-resistant infections' …

Yet the actions that are hoped for as a result of the meeting remain meager. No binding agreement is expected. What may be more realistic … is a political declaration of commitment to coordinate further on this issue."

Triclosan Banned for Use in Soap

Besides agricultural and medicinal use of antibiotics, common household products containing antimicrobial ingredients also contribute to growing drug-resistance. Triclosan is one such ingredient, and I recommended avoiding triclosan for many years before the media picked up on it. 

Now, after a four-decades' long delay, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has finally decided to ban the chemical from use in commercial soaps, citing potentially harmful side effects (drug resistance and hormonal effects) and lack of proven effectiveness.11,12 In a September 2, 2016, press release, the FDA said:13

"Companies will no longer be able to market antibacterial washes with these ingredients because manufacturers did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both safe for long-term daily use and more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections …

This final rule applies to consumer antiseptic wash products containing one or more of 19 specific active ingredients, including the most commonly used ingredients — triclosan and triclocarban. These products are intended for use with water, and are rinsed off after use. This rule does not affect consumer hand "sanitizers" or wipes, or antibacterial products used in health care settings.

Triclosan Ban Does Not Go Far Enough to Protect Human Health

Unfortunately, while this is a step in the right direction, it's an exceedingly small one. Triclosan and other antimicrobial chemicals will still be permitted in a great number of other products, including Colgate Total toothpaste,14 deodorants,15 dish washing liquid, laundry detergents and much more.

In fact, triclosan and triclocarbon are so ubiquitous these chemicals show up in household dust — and according to researchers, this dust may also contribute to the drug-resistance problem. According to UPI:16

"The chemicals triclosan and triclocarbon, as well as four other antimicrobial chemicals, were found in house dust by researchers at the University of Oregon, Harvard University and Arizona State University, according [to] a study17 published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, suggesting their use in cleaners is contributing to antibiotic resistance …

The researchers then studied dust microbes, finding antibiotic resistance genes, which can be passed between bacteria, linked specifically to the six cleaning chemicals detected in the initial analysis. Samples with higher amounts of triclosan … had higher levels of genes linked to bacteria resistant to multiple drugs … "

How You Can Help Stop the Spread of Antibiotic-Resistant Disease

In light of the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant disease, it would be wise to employ techniques and strategies that will not only reduce your own risk of falling victim, but also help curtail the spread of antibiotic resistance in general. While the problem of antibiotic resistance really needs to be stemmed through public policy on a nationwide level, the more people who get involved on a personal level, the better. Such strategies include:

Using antibiotics only when absolutely necessary Antibiotics are typically unnecessary for most ear infections, and they do NOT work on viruses. They only work on bacterial infections and, even then, they're best reserved for more serious infections. Taking an antibiotic unnecessarily will kill off your beneficial gut bacteria for no reason at all, which could actually make it more difficult for you to recover from your illness. If you do take a course of antibiotics, be sure to reseed your gut with healthy bacteria by eating fermented foods or taking a supplement. As an all-around preventive measure, make sure your vitamin D level is optimized year-round, especially during pregnancy, along with vitamin K2. A number of other natural compounds can also help boost your immune system function to help rid you of an infection, including vitamin C, oil of oregano, garlic, Echinacea and tea tree oil. High-quality colloidal silver may be a valuable addition to your medicine cabinet to treat cuts and scrapes in lieu of antibacterial creams. Colloidal silver has been regarded as an effective natural antibiotic for centuries, and research shows it can even be helpful against some antibiotic-resistant pathogens.18,19,20 Manuka honey can also be used for topical applications. Clinical trials have found that Manuka honey can effectively eradicate more than 250 clinical strains of bacteria, including some resistant varieties, such as MRSA.

Avoiding all antibacterial household products This includes items such as antibacterial hand sanitizers and wipes, toothpaste, deodorants and detergents, as these too promote antibiotic resistance.

Properly washing your hands with warm water and plain soap, to prevent the spreading of bacteria Be particularly mindful of washing your hands and kitchen surfaces after handling raw meats, as about half of all meat sold in grocery stores around the U.S. is likely to be contaminated with potentially dangerous bacteria.

Purchasing organic, antibiotic-free meats and other foods Reducing the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a significant reason for making sure you're only eating grass-fed, organically raised meats and animal products. Besides growing and raising your own, which may not be an alternative for most people, buying your food from responsible, high-quality, and sustainable sources is your best bet, and I strongly encourage you to support the small family farms in your area.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/09/20/stop-antibiotic-resistant-bacteria.aspx?

Antibacterial soaps banned in US amid claims they do 'more harm than good'

The Food and Drug Administration has washed its hands of the products, saying there is no scientific evidence that they are better than plain soap and water

Friday 2 September 2016 18.54 BST

Manufacturers had failed to show either the safety of ‘long-term daily use’ or that the products were
‘more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections’.
Photograph: Andy Crawford/Getty Images/Dorling Kindersley

Antibacterial soaps were banned from the US market on Friday in a final ruling by the Food and Drug Administration, which said that manufacturers had failed to prove the cleansers were safe or more effective than normal products.

Dr Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s center for evaluation and research, said that certain antimicrobial soaps may not actually serve any health benefits at all.

“Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap and water,” she said in a statement. “In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long term.”

Manufacturers had failed to show either the safety of “long-term daily use” or that the products were “more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections”.

The new federal rule applies to any soap or antiseptic product that has one or more of 19 chemical compounds, including triclocarbon, which is often found in bar soaps, and triclosan, often in liquid soaps. It does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers and wipes, which the FDA is still investigating, or certain healthcare products meant specifically for clinical settings. The FDA has given manufacturers a year to change their products or pull them off shelves.

The FDA first proposed a rule about the chemicals in 2013, following research that they might affect human hormones or change natural resistance to bacteria. The agency requested research from the producers to back up their health claims, but in the three years since has found that data lacking or their requests ignored.

Triclosan has been proven effective at killing bacteria if used at sustained length – far longer than the few seconds most people spend washing their hands – and was once only found in healthcare settings.

Recent studies have linked triclosan to a series of disruptions in human and animal health. A University of Chicago study released in July found that triclosan changed the microbiome inside human guts, and its researchers suggested that exposure could damage developing fetuses. A study from earlier this year found that overuse could also be contributing to antibiotic resistance, and a 2015 study found that antibacterial formulas were not more effective than soap and water.

Triclosan can be found in 93% of liquid soaps labeled “antibacterial” or “antimicrobial”, according to the FDA, though some companies, including Proctor & Gamble, have already begun phasing the chemical out of products. There are partial triclosan bans in the European Union and Minnesota, but the chemical remains common in toothpaste, as it is believed effective against the bacteria that cause gum disease.

People should still keep their hands clean, the FDA noted. “Washing with plain soap and running water remains one of the most important steps consumers can take to avoid getting sick and to prevent spreading germs to others,” the agency said. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that if people need to use a hand sanitizer, it should have at least 60% alcohol.

Professor Patrick McNamara, who has published research on antimicrobial soaps, called the ruling “logical” because research shows “there is no added benefit to having these antimicrobial chemicals in soaps”.

He added that triclosan could play a part in driving antibiotic resistance, saying, “after these chemicals are used in our homes they go down the drain to wastewater treatment plants and eventually to the environment where they can select for antibiotic resistance genes”.

“In short, triclosan and triclocarbon present a risk towards propagation of antibiotic resistance,” he said. “Since they do not offer added benefits when washing hands, their use is not worth their environmental risk.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/sep/02/antibacterial-soaps-banned-us-fda

Why Ditching Antibacterial Soap Is a Good Idea

December 03, 2014

This post is on Healthwise

Story at-a-glance

• Triclosan, an antibacterial chemical used in a wide variety of consumer products, has many potentially harmful effects, especially for children
• Triclosan can alter hormone regulation and may interfere with fetal development. An increased cancer risk has also been suggested
• Triclosan was found in 100 percent of urine samples taken from pregnant women in Brooklyn, NY

By Dr. Mercola

Washing your hands is at the top of the list when it comes to effective contagious disease prevention, but many still make the mistake of assuming you have to use antibacterial soap to get the job done right.

The same goes for other household cleaning. Routinely disinfecting your body and surroundings may actually cause far more harm than good in the long run.

Not only does it promote the development of drug-resistant bacteria, but antibacterial compounds such as triclosan have also been linked to a number or harmful health effects, especially in young children.

For example, research has shown that triclosan can alter hormone regulation and may interfere with fetal development in pregnant women.

This is a potentially serious concern, as researchers recently discovered traces of triclosan in 100 percent of all urine samples collected from pregnant women1,2, 3, 4 (all of whom were residents of Brooklyn, New York).

Triclosan was also found in 51 percent of cord blood samples. Yet another antibacterial compound, triclocarban, was detected in 87 percent of urine samples, and 23 percent of the cord blood samples.

A second study5 found the presence of triclosan in nearly 75 percent of doctors and nurses tested. Considering the hazards, I strongly recommend ditching antibacterial soaps and any other product containing triclosan, such as triclosan-containing toothpaste.6

Warm water and a mild soap is really all you need to scrub off the germs. Even the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated7 that "there is currently no evidence that [antibacterial soaps] are any more effective at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water."

The Many Health Hazards of Triclosan 

As noted in the featured article in The Atlantic,8 the reasons for avoiding triclosan are far from few... This antibacterial ingredient has been linked to:

• Allergies
• Thyroid dysfunction
• Endocrine disruption
• Weight gain
• Inflammatory responses

Most recently, triclosan was found to aggravate the growth of liver and kidney tumors, which came as a surprise to the researchers. According to one of the authors:9

“We aren't saying that triclosan causes cancer. We're just saying that with constant exposure, this environmental agent, which is extremely ubiquitous, can promote development of tumors. If one can avoid it, I would avoid it."

In another interview he clarified by saying:10

"If you have a damaged cell that's been attacked by a mutagen, triclosan promotes the development of the tumor. The compound also causes inflammation, which means that all the ingredients necessary for developing cancer are present.”

Personally, I believe there’s plenty of evidence suggesting triclosan is an unnecessary hazard that is best avoided, especially if you have children, due to its adverse effects on the endocrine system.

Triclosan Can Wreak Havoc on Hormone Function

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are a serious concern, as they can promote a wide variety of health problems, including: breast, ovarian, prostate, and testicular cancer, preterm and low birth weight babies, precocious puberty in girls, and undescended testicles in boys.

According to Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who specializes in how chemicals affect the endocrine system, triclosan is one of the top 10 endocrine-disrupting chemicals used on a regular basis by most Americans. Hence, removing triclosan from the market could have a substantial impact on public health.

As noted by Professor Caren Helbing Ph.D. at the University of Victoria in Canada, the chemical structure of triclosan is similar to both thyroid hormones and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This similarity allows it to attach to your hormone receptors.

Helbing’s research shows that tadpoles exposed to triclosan suffered stunted development and leg deformations. The metamorphic process these frogs undergo is mediated by thyroid hormones. 

Her findings were published in the Journal of Aquatic Toxicology11 in 2006, which concluded that: “Exposure to low levels of triclosan disrupts thyroid hormone-associated gene expression and can alter the rate of thyroid hormone-mediated postembryonic anuran development.”

Triclosan has also been found in community water supplies. There, it breaks down forming certain forms of dioxin, which are toxic to aquatic life and humans alike.

Are You Brushing Your Teeth with Triclosan?

Besides hand soaps and products specifically marketed as antibacterial, triclosan can also be found in a number of other household and personal care products, including cutting boards, toys, acne cream, and even toothpaste.

At present, Colgate Total is the only triclosan-containing toothpaste sold in the US, but it’s a best-seller—chances are you have a tube in your bathroom right now. If you do, consider this: if triclosan can cause serious health problems when used topically, using it in your mouth is likely even worse, as chemicals are readily absorbed into your oral tissues.

Colgate claims its product is safe,12 of course, citing a Cochrane Review13 as supporting evidence. But the review in question actually focused on the Colgate Total’s effectiveness in fighting bleeding gums and inflammation; not its long-term safety... Cochrane analyzed more than 30 studies published between 1990 and 2012, and found “moderate quality evidence” that Colgate Total is more effective than other toothpastes with respect to reducing gum bleeding and inflammation. However, the authors, Philip Riley and Thomas Lamont, specifically noted that the studies did not allow them to assess any long-term side effects.14

40 Years of Regulatory Inaction...

A number of other countries have regulations for triclosan, but the US does not. Back in 1978, the FDA said it could not make a ruling on the safety of triclosan due to insufficient evidence. In 2010, the National Resources Defense Council filed a lawsuit against the FDA over the matter. In response to growing concerns, Minnesota recently passed legislation banning the chemical in products sold within its state lines.

The state-imposed ban will not take effect until January 2017, however. There’s still no FDA ruling on triclosan, but the FDA has promised it will address the matter in 2016. However, as recently revealed by Bloomberg,15, 16 the FDA knew, or should have reasonably suspected, that there are safety problems:

“Colgate’s Total application included 35 pages summarizing toxicology studies on triclosan, which the FDA withheld from view. The agency released the pages17 earlier this year in response to a lawsuit over a Freedom of Information Act request... The pages show how even with one of the US’s most stringent regulatory processes -- FDA approval of a new drug -- the government relies on company-backed science to show products are safe and effective.

The recently released pages, taken alongside new research on triclosan, raise questions about whether the agency did appropriate due diligence in approving Total 17 years ago, and whether its approval should stand in light of new research... Among the pages were studies showing fetal bone malformations in mice and rats. Colgate said the findings weren’t relevant. Viewed through the prism of today’s science, such malformations look more like a signal that triclosan is disrupting the endocrine system and throwing off hormonal functioning...

Colgate’s application materials also show that the FDA asked questions about the thoroughness of cancer studies, which are partly addressed in recently released documents... ‘We have created a system where we are testing these chemicals out on the human population. I love the idea they are all safe,’ [biology professor Thomas] Zoeller said. ‘But when we have studies on animals that suggest otherwise, I think we’re taking a huge risk.’”

Proper Hand Washing Techniques

Hand washing is a simple way to reduce your exposure to potentially disease-causing germs and reduce your chances of getting sick. While not the only factor, it can drastically reduce the germs that get access to your body, especially when you do it at key times, such as before eating or touching your mouth, eyes, and nose, and after using the restroom or visiting public areas. You do NOT need antibacterial soap however, and this has actually been scientifically verified.

Hand washing needs to be done correctly, however, in order to be truly effective for disease control. Simply rinsing your hands with water, or giving a quick scrub with soap, is not enough to remove germs. In one recent study,18 only five percent of people washed their hands in a way that would actually kill infection and illness-causing germs. So, to make sure you’re actually removing the germs when you wash your hands, follow these guidelines:

• Use warm, running water and a mild soap (avoid antibacterial soap)
• Work up a good lather, all the way up to your wrists, scrubbing for at least 15 or 20 seconds (most people only wash for about 6 seconds)
• Make sure you cover all surfaces, including the backs of your hands, wrists, between your fingers, and around and below your fingernails
• Rinse thoroughly under running water
• In public places, use a paper towel to open the door as a protection from germs that the handles may harbor

Keep in mind that your skin is your primary barrier against germs, so obsessive-compulsive washing, especially in dry environments that typically exist for most in the winter months when the heat is on, can actually increase your risk of getting sick by drying out your skin. So keep a balance—avoid washing your hands to the point of irritating your skin, as dry, cracked areas are a perfect entryway for germs.

Keeping Yourself and Your Home Clean, Safely

I strongly encourage you to ditch all of your chemical disinfectants, including your antibacterial soaps, laundry detergents, and bath and kitchen cleansers, in favor of more natural alternatives. No study has shown that a vigorous program of home disinfection leads to a reduction of illness in a family. They have, however, shown that disinfectants can cause harm. Ideally, it’s best to limit your use of soap on your body as it removes the sebum, which contains beneficial fats designed to protect your skin from infection. Using soap will remove not only dirt but also these useful fats.

For those times when you need to do a bit of cleansing, one of the best non-toxic disinfectants is a mild soap and warm water. You can use this for washing your hands, your body, and for other household cleansing. Another all-purpose cleanser that works great for kitchen counters, cutting boards, and bathrooms is 3% hydrogen peroxide and vinegar. Simply put each liquid into a separate spray bottle, then spray the surface with one, followed by the other.

In tests run at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, pairing the two mists killed virtually all Salmonella, Shigella, and E. coli bacteria on heavily contaminated food and surfaces when used in this fashion, making this spray combination more effective at killing these potentially lethal bacteria than chlorine bleach or any commercially available kitchen cleaner. The best results came from using one mist right after the other -- it is 10 times more effective than using either spray by itself and more effective than mixing the vinegar and hydrogen peroxide in one sprayer.

Coconut oil also has potent disinfectant properties, and can be used to disinfect wooden cutting boards. Sunlight is another powerful disinfectant, and drying your laundry in the sun is one of the best ways to save energy and wind up with fresh, clean linens and clothing. Truly, there’s no need to expose your family to dangerous chemical disinfectants. As an added bonus aside from the health benefits, using this type of natural homemade cleanser is much less expensive than commercial varieties.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/12/03/triclosan-antibacterial-soap.aspx

Go to Healthwise for more articles