Not all threats to our well being come in the form of genetic engineering. Some are the result of "good" old-fashioned chemical mixes. Chemical use is so widespread today that literally no one knows all the possible side effects of ingredients — even in toothpaste. One result, however, is beginning to make itself felt: a free-floating anxiety resulting in bizarre new forms of urban legend.
If you get e-mail, you’ve received one of these: an urgent, nearly hysterical "exposé" about a government action, corporate product, or environmental threat that is coming your way. Not so many months ago, an anti-microbial ingredient was the focus of some controversy, in part because of an e-mail complaint making the rounds. According to this now largely debunked e-information, someone’s tropical fish died when the aquarium was cleaned with a product containing triclosan.
The credibility of the missive dissolves when you do some market research and learn that the accused company doesn’t make antibacterial sponges, much less wantonly kill off tropical fish.
Nonetheless, the legend is based in real research. A report from Quantex Laboratories, in Edison, New Jersey, states, "Triclosan is an antibacterial/anti-microbial agent approved for use in anti-gum-disease toothpaste and also used in deodorant soaps, deodorants, antiperspirants and body washes, detergents, dish washing liquids, cosmetics and anti-microbial creams, lotions, and hand soaps. It is also used as an additive in plastics, polymers, and textiles to give these materials antibacterial properties. It is manufactured in the U.S. by Ciba-Geigy, under their trade name Irgasan DP300, and by several other manufacturers outside of the U.S."
In the manufacture of triclosan, the report continues, "there is the potential for the formation of small amounts of unwanted trace by-products which are of concern.... It is possible that several polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxins (dioxins) and polychloro-dibenzofurans (dibenzofurans) can be found in varying low level amounts, as synthesis impurities in triclosan. Their presence or absence is dependent upon the type and purity of the starting materials used to synthesize triclosan as well as reaction conditions such as temperature, pressure, and the like. If present, their relative concentrations as impurities can vary from batch to batch. This raises concerns because of the toxicity of dioxins and dibenzofurans."
Eventually, the report goes on to reveal that Quantex Laboratories has an interest in the possibility of dioxin in triclosan: they claim to be the only laboratory capable of analyzing a particular batch of the substance to see if it does have dioxin in it.
The FDA responds that it is possible that triclosan may sometimes contain dioxin, but it would be in such minute quantities as to pose no danger to human beings. But then, that’s the FDA, supporter of such neutral substances as saccharine, Nutrasweet, and rBGH.
So what if triclosan continues to gain acceptance? Will you — along with millions of others — be dumping dioxin as you brush your teeth? And will it accumulate to harmful levels in the environment? According to Connie Wells at the U.S. EPA anti-microbial division, triclosan, along with many other substances, is undergoing a re-registration process, expected to conclude in 2000. The research about the dioxin possibility "may" be taken into account in this process, and public participation "may" be permitted.
You "may" not want to wait for the findings to declare your own moratorium.
The National Anti-Microbial project at Oregon State University reports that there is, as yet, insufficient information to really answer the environmental question. Funny; there’s sufficient incentive to use it, despite its alarming potential.
And that’s the real problem, e-mail hysteria or no.