Sludge Watch ==> Threat from Antibacterial Soap Chemicals

[maureen.reilly at sympatico.ca]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Here is another toxic compound (one that has been hyped to the public but is 
useless according to experts) that accumulates in sludge.  The regulator of 
sludge ..the EPA...is totally in its reaction.

The issues are:

1.  The USA and Canada allow the creation and distribution of novel chemical 
compounds into the environment with no idea about the final fate of those 
compounds....recommendation: chemicals should be registered before use and 
registration should require an analysis of the products of breakdown and 
environmental fate.

2.  This compound, triclocarban, may be sterilizing the farm soils where the 
sludge is applied, which may have far reaching effects of soil biota, 
mycrorrhizal fungi (for more info see:
http://commtechlab.msu.edu/sites/dlc-me/zoo/zdrmain.html) , earthworms, etc.

3.  Antimicrobial resistance: as the sewage contains the virulent bacteria 
and viruses from hospitals and laboratories and mortuaries these pathogens 
meet the antimicrobial compounds in the sewers and in the sludge digestion 
process.  As the pathogens are stressed, the antimicrobials will kill off 
some of the population.  Those bacteria that have antimicrobial resistance 
are favoured and reproduce.  We are essentially farming antibiotic 
resistance in our sewer systems.

Are there studies being done on the impact of these antimicrobial agents on 
soils and on antibiotic or antimicrobial resistance....?

No


These issues are fundamental to our survival as a species (and the survival 
of other life species as well).  It just doesn't make sense to risk our food 
lands by using them for waste disposal.


..........................................................................

Threat Seen From
Antibacterial Soap Chemicals

The compounds end up in sewage sludge that is spread on farm fields across 
the country.

By Marla Cone
L.A. Times Staff Writer
5-11-6

Tons of chemicals in antibacterial soaps used in the bathrooms and kitchens 
of virtually every home are being released into the environment, yet no 
government agency is monitoring or regulating them in water supplies or 
food.

About 75% of a potent bacteria-killing chemical that people flush down their 
drains survives treatment at sewage plants, and most of that ends up in 
sludge spread on farm fields, according to Johns Hopkins University 
research. Every year, it says, an estimated 200 tons of two compounds -- 
triclocarban and triclosan -- are applied to agricultural lands nationwide.

The findings, in a study published last week in Environmental Science & 
Technology, add to the growing concerns of many scientists that the 
Environmental Protection Agency needs to address thousands of 
pharmaceuticals and consumer product chemicals that wind up in the 
environment when they are flushed into sewers.

>From dishwashing soaps to cutting boards, about 1,500 new antibacterial 
>consumer products containing the two chemicals have been introduced into 
>the marketplace since 2000. Some experts worry that widespread use of such 
>products may be helping turn some dangerous germs into "superbugs" 
>resistant to antibiotics.

Triclocarban, an ingredient of antibacterial bar soaps and toothpaste, is 
"potentially problematic" because it breaks down slowly, which means it is 
accumulating in soil and perhaps water, said Rolf Halden, an assistant 
professor at Johns Hopkins' Department of Environmental Health Sciences, who 
led the study.

"What we are finding is this chemical is building up in the environment," 
Halden said. "This is an example of an emerging contaminant. It has been in 
the environment for almost five decades, and we manufacture large volumes of 
it, but we don't know what happens to  it."

The scientists calculated that a large, modern East Coast sewage treatment 
plant spreads sludge containing more than 1 ton of triclocarban onto farm 
fields every year. The plant was not identified by the researchers, but data 
in the study indicated that it was in Baltimore.

Southern California's sludge has not been analyzed for antibacterial 
chemicals. But households in the Los Angeles region are likely to be a major 
source, because sewage plants in the area produce hundreds of thousands of 
tons of sludge every year.

Sludge is the solid waste that is left when sewage is processed in treatment 
plants. Billions of pounds are produced annually in the United States -- 47 
pounds per person -- and two-thirds is hauled to agricultural fields for 
disposal. Federal regulations limit metals and pathogens in sludge, but not 
other chemicals.

Triclocarban is used in bar soaps, deodorants, toothpaste, kitchen supplies 
such as cutting boards and countertops, and baby toys. Triclosan, which is 
more abundant because it is used in liquid soaps, has been detected in human 
breast milk and fish in streams in Europe.

Toxicological tests have shown that the chemicals seem safe for human 
exposure, even in the high doses applied to skin. However, in water, 
triclosan can react with chlorine and turn into chloroform and dioxins 
linked to cancer. The chemicals also might kill microbes beneficial to 
ecosystems or promote new pathogens that resist antibiotics.

Allison E. Aiello, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University 
of Michigan's School of Public Health who has studied antibacterial soaps, 
calls the new report an important finding that "suggests these types of 
chemicals are persistent and prevalent in the environment."

"From these findings, it seems likely that microorganisms in the environment 
are often exposed to these chemicals at various concentrations," Aiello 
said. The next step, she said, is to assess whether these microbes show 
reduced resistance to antibiotics.

Previous research by Halden suggested that triclocarban was among the top 10 
contaminants in waterways, while triclosan was among the most prevalent in a 
national analysis of streams by the U.S. Geological  Survey.

Yet no one knows whether the chemicals are contaminating crops or 
groundwater. Drinking water also is not monitored for them. The EPA is 
exploring the prevalence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in 
the environment, but it has nowhere near enough data to consider regulations 
for sludge.

Rick Stevens, national biosolids coordinator at the EPA's Office of Science 
and Technology, said the discovery of triclocarban in the plant's sludge was 
"of interest" to the EPA, but "at this time, the agency cannot determine 
what significance [the concentrations found] may represent to humans or the 
environment due to the limitations in the database."

Stevens said there were no national data -- not even an accepted, 
standardized technique for measuring the chemicals. "One facility is not a 
nationally representative sample," he said.

Triclocarban in the plant's sludge averaged 51 parts per million, considered 
a high concentration for an environmental contaminant. But Stevens said 
people regularly rubbed triclocarban into their hands at levels 100 times 
higher. Also, the chemicals would be degraded and diluted on farm fields, he 
said.

Hans Sanderson, director of environmental safety at the Soap and Detergent 
Assn., which represents manufacturers, said the new research was "important 
and analytically sound" and was helping address what happens to the 
chemicals in soaps and other household products.

But Sanderson said it was wrong to assume that the presence of them in the 
sludge meant that they were posing risks. Most sludge is applied to fields 
and forests that do not produce food crops, he said.

"It is clear that the majority of exposure to triclocarban is direct 
exposure, when you actually use these materials in hand soap or toothpaste 
or whatever," Sanderson said. But, he said, laboratory tests have shown that 
even those exposures have no effects on animals, are not toxic to aquatic 
life and pose no known threat to people.

Ann Heil, a senior engineer at the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles 
County, said many environmental precautions were required on lands where 
sludge was applied. The material is plowed into soil within 24 hours and no 
runoff is allowed.

Heil said it probably was better that treatment plants removed the 
antibacterial chemicals from wastewater and concentrated them in the sludge, 
because otherwise the chemicals would be discharged into streams where they 
could harm wildlife.

Farm disposal of sludge is controversial in California. On June 6, residents 
of Kern County, which takes in one-third of the state's sludge, will vote on 
whether to ban its use on farms. If the measure passes, as expected, 
Southern California will have to ship more sludge to Arizona at an extra 
cost of millions of dollars a year in Los Angeles alone.

About 37% of the 160,000 tons produced last year by the Sanitation Districts 
of Los Angeles County was applied on land. The county's sludge is subjected 
to an extra process called thermal treatment, which Heil said probably 
removed more antibacterial chemicals than the East Coast plant studied in 
the report.

But, Halden said, even newer tests, yet to be published, showed that the 
heat treatment was "not very effective" in eliminating antibacterial 
chemicals. So this "Type A" sludge, the type used on food crops, still could 
contain high amounts.

In October, an advisory panel of the Food and Drug Administration reported 
that there was no evidence that the household products protected people any 
better than regular soap. The panel urged the agency to study their risks 
and benefits. The American Medical Assn. has opposed routine use of 
antibacterial soaps since 2002.

"The bottom line," Halden said, "is [that] we are mass-producing chemicals 
in the environment that are not helpful and potentially are harmful."

But Sanderson of the Soap and Detergent Assn. said it would be foolish to 
eliminate products that could stem the spread of diseases when there was no 
evidence they posed a threat.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na- 
antibacterial10may10,0,3219699.story