21 May 2012
Germ
Warfare
Germs!
Streptococcus, e. coli, salmonella, oh my! We live our lives in fear of the
unseen enemy and strike back with potent chemical warfare. At the first hint of
a cough or ache, out comes the Lysol and bleach; we soak and scrub and scour to
exterminate the dreaded foes. Following our certain victory, we return to lives
of peaceful sterility. We’ve certainly come a long way from the days our
ancestors were sewn into their long underwear for the winter; or the medieval
period when bathing, accused of spreading the plague, was avoided like,
well…the plague.
In
fact, some think we may have come too far, like the consumer watch groups, Food
and Water Watch and Beyond Pesticides. In 2010, Food and Water Watch and Beyond
Pesticides petitioned the FDA to ban triclosan, an antimicrobial used widely in
hand soaps, from further use in non-medical products citing immediate and
eminent threats to health. They claim that triclosan is an endocrine disrupting
chemical that causes thyroid, reproductive, and immune system problems, breaks
down into carcinogenic dioxins that build up in the environment, and finally,
leads to the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria (Sedlak).
In direct opposition to these
claims, the industry group, the American Cleaning Institute reaffirms its
position that triclosan has a long history of safe and effective use. They are
confident that it does not disrupt the endocrine system, it does not pose a risk
to the environment and it does not lead to the development of antibacterial
resistant bacteria (Sedlak). In fact, they believe triclosan use contributes to
public health by killing germs and that banning it would cause an increase in
illness. So, which is it? Would banning triclosan protect or injure public
health?
Before
we can address any health effects, we need to first understand what triclosan is
and how it works. Triclosan is a potent and broad-spectrum antimicrobial. It
kills a variety of bacteria, at fairly low doses by inhibiting an enzyme
necessary for the bacteria to reproduce and build cell membranes (Smith 160). This
is a complex biological process in comparison to how alcohol (in most hand
sanitizers) or bleach works, which is by killing on contact by denaturing all
of the proteins. These antimicrobial properties of triclosan have been
documented repeatedly in lab experiments (162). Both parties to the argument
would agree that triclosan is effective at killing germs, but is it safe?
The
American Cleaning Institute claims that triclosan has been in use for over 30
years, with a proven safety record and if there were any problems with it we
would know it by now. However, longevity of use is not an adequate predictor of
safety. Even DDT wasn’t banned until after more than 30 years of heavy use, and
its toxicity is now well established. Additionally, triclosan was initially
approved in 1972 for limited use in hospitals and only recently has its use
become widespread. It is usually not until a chemical has been in wide use that
its effects become apparent. Also, prior to the discovery of endocrine
disruptors in 1994, chemicals were considered safe if they didn’t cause acute
illness. They were tested for high dose toxicity only. But now we know that
serious chronic health problems can occur from very low doses of certain chemicals
that mimic hormones in the human body.
But
is triclosan one of these endocrine-disrupting chemicals? Its similar chemical
structure to bisphenol-A, probably the most studied of the endocrine-disrupting
chemicals, would indicate that it is likely. And recent laboratory studies do
indicate that triclosan can mimic estrogen in the body of animals and cause
changes that may lead to chronic health problems. In one study, triclosan
significantly increased the size of the uterus in immature rats. In another study,
the thyroid gland of rats underwent subtle changes in the presence of triclosan
(Smith 165). While these are not human studies, and some may question whether
these results are applicable they do indicate the ability of triclosan to mimic
hormones in mammals and continued testing should be done to see if these
results carry over to humans. The American Cleaning Institute’s claim that
there is no evidence of endocrine disruption in humans is technically correct
but is misleading to consumers because of all the animal studies that do show
harm.
Just
this past year, however, a study involving human subjects provides evidence
that triclosan negatively effects the immune system. Researchers of public
health at the University of Michigan compared urinary levels of triclosan to
diagnosis of allergies and hay fever and found that the higher the levels of
urinary triclosan, the more likely the patient was to have allergies and/or hay
fever (Aiello 395).
Another
issue worth investigating further, relates to what happens to all that
triclosan after it goes down the drain? Some research indicates that when
triclosan and chlorine combine, as in tap water, that chloroform can form,
which can cause cancer in humans. In addition, when the sun degrades triclosan
in surface water, it deteriorates into dioxins (Rule 3178). Research implicates
dioxins in a host of chronic health problems from cancer, learning
disabilities, diabetes, and heart disease, among others.
The
ubiquitous use of these products, may also be leading to the development of
antibiotic resistant bacteria. Aiello, in her review of triclosan research,
concluded that 7 out of 11 laboratory studies demonstrated the development of
cross-resistance to at least 1 antibiotic (Aiello 139). If this is true, then
how can the American Cleaning Institute claim that there is no evidence of
cross-resistance, you may be wondering. It all has to do with carefully
selected word choice. These studies indicate that resistant bacteria have
developed in a laboratory setting but, so far, none have been documented in a
real life setting, even though we know the mechanism is there. By focusing on
this difference, the ACL can lead consumers to believe there is no risk.
But
still you might be thinking that since you know for sure that these soaps
reduce illness while all of these other risks are largely unproven, maybe you
should continue to use them anyway. But wait--do we actually know that they
reduce illness? We agreed early on that that triclosan has been proven to kill
bacteria but this doesn’t necessarily translate to reduced illness. A few
studies have shown that hospital grade preparations used in hospitals along
with other hygiene protocol may reduce hospital infections but this does not
carry over to the typical household. Many studies have been performed comparing the use of antimicrobial soaps
against plain soap and water. Some of these studies compared the frequency of
illness and symptoms to gauge the effectiveness of these soaps. Allison Aiello,
a professor of public health at Michigan University, compared several such
studies and found that, “All 4 studies showed no significant reduction in
illness symptoms among household members associated with the use of the
biocide-containing soap versus plain soap” (139).
In
light of all the evidence presented here, you might want to reconsider your use
of triclosan-containing antibacterial products. What you had thought of as a
simple precaution to protect your family from contagious illness, may in fact
be the cause of much greater long term health problems in the form of
antibiotic resistant bacteria, depressed immune system function, possible
thyroid and reproductive disorders, and issues resulting from dioxin pollution
of our waterways. This doesn’t mean you need to give up your fight against germs,
just use good old soap and water and when you need some stronger weapons, those
with alcohol, such as hand sanitizers, or those with bleach will give you the
germ fighting power that you want without the other potential health risks. With
this extensive list of potential health threats we should all additionally encourage
our government and the regulatory bodies to conduct further research into the
use of triclosan and regulate its use more closely; even ban it if necessary.
Germs! Sometimes the enemy is less dangerous than the weapons we use against it.
Works
Cited
Aiello,
Allison E., et al. “Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky?” Clinical Infectios Diseases 45 (2007) :
137-147. Web. 20 May 2012.
---.
"The Impact Of Bisphenol A And Triclosan On Immune Parameters In The U.S.
Population, NHANES 2003-2006."
Environmental Health Perspectives 119.3 (2011): 390-396. Health Source -
Consumer Edition. Web. 20 May 2012.
Rule
KL, VR Ebbett, and PJ Vikesland. "Formation of Chloroform and Chlorinated
Organics by Free-chlorine-mediated Oxidation of Triclosan.” Environmental Science Technology 39
(2005): 3176–85. Web. 21 May 2012
Sedlak,
Richard. “American Cleaning Institute comments on Petition for a ban on Triclosan
EPA Final April 8 2011.” Cleaning Institute. n.p. 8 April 2011.
Smith,
Rick and Bruce Lourie. Slow Death by
Rubber Duck. Berkeley: Counterpoint, 2009. Print
And here is the second paper:
1 June 2012
Urban
Agriculture: Hope or Hype
Community gardens, school gardens,
community-supported agriculture, and urban homesteading—these are all a part of
the growing movement of urban agriculture and local foods. To many it may seem
like a regression of civilization. After all, in the mid 1800s over 50% of the
American population worked in agricultural jobs whereas today that number is
less than 3% due to increasing mechanization and industrialization. However,
researchers are discovering that gardening has more effects than simply
providing food for the masses. Those becoming aware of these benefits and this
increasing trend in small-scale food production may be wondering about the
costs involved—monetarily as well as in time and resources. So the question is,
do the benefits of gardening outweigh the costs?
One's first thought
when thinking about community gardening, or gardening in general, may be “that’s too expensive, it’s not for
me.” Between the garden tools, soil, land, seeds, fertilizer, etc. creating a
garden can seem like an extremely costly endeavor. These thoughts may be
validated if large amounts of money are invested in a garden that never
produces but often times gardens, especially community gardens, have many
economic benefits. For example, studies have demonstrated that for every dollar
that is put into an urban garden there are six dollars sown in vegetables alone
(Bellows 4). One particular study focusing on community gardens in Newark found
that a combination of 1900 community gardens spread out over thirty acres
produced about $915,000 in food a year and almost four million total over a
period of five years. (Bellows 4) Consider for a moment how much it actually
costs to produce a garden, most of the costs after the initial preparation of
the garden come from man hours of pruning, weeding, and harvesting. In fact,
one study stated that 80% of a garden’s cost is due to the labor required (3).
Conversely, effort is required in planning what produce to buy and picking it
out at the grocery store. There is efficiency in choosing produce for dinner
each night from the local community garden especially in places where produce
isn’t easily accessible at the local grocery store.
This
growing of produce in cities and towns helps meet the burgeoning demand for
local foods and increases food security. Food security, as defined by the World
Health Organization, exists, “when all people at all times have access to sufficient,
safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life” (“Food Security”).
Because of our dependence on food shipped from far distances, in the event of a
fuel shortage, natural disaster, or any other disruption to the food shipping
industry, it is commonly believed that grocery store shelves would be emptied
in as little as three days (source). Having access to locally grown food can
alleviate the effects of such events.
Some
critics of the local foods movement claim that it is based, erroneously, on the
idea that local food is better for the environment because of a reduced carbon
footprint. They are right in some cases; as explained in the New York Times
article, “Food That Travels Well,” lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped
11,000 miles to England actually has a smaller carbon footprint than British
raised lamb due to a multitude of complex factors related to feed and pasture
inputs (McWilliams). However, as relates to produce grown in small urban plots
or home gardens, where most of the labor is manual, without the use of
gas-guzzling machinery, and the crops are typically raised organically by
recycling household wastes, the inputs are small and the carbon footprint is
indeed reduced as compared to industrially raised vegetables.
Urban gardening has
grown in popularity in big cities such as New York. A large study surveyed 300
urban gardens in New York City and evaluated their cost. These costs included
sweat labor, initial development of the site, and one-time expenses. They
concluded that the average total cost of a community garden was about $279,000
for twenty years (Bellows 4). Naysayers may be feeling validated at this point,
seeing that these are large numbers. But let’s evaluate the cost benefits of
urban gardens. Each garden from the study generated roughly two million dollars
worth of produce. Using this data, the reader can see that gardening in urban
areas is very beneficial in an economic sense, although this is not the only
arena where urban gardening has a positive effect.
Nutrition is also an
important consideration. Grocery store produce can lack nutrients. There
is at least a 5-10 day space between food production and consumption, most of
which is shipping time. Certain nutrients decrease by about 30-50% due to this
time lapse (Bellows 4). Loss of nutrients is not the only problem related to
non-local nature of food production; accessibility should also be considered.
People
living in urban areas, especially inner city dwellers don’t have close access
to grocery stores, often they are surrounded by convenience stores chock full
of high density, unhealthy food choices. In fact, in the United States, thirty
one million people live in areas where they have limited or no access to proper
nutrition (6). Having a community garden within their vicinity makes it easier,
and cheaper for them to choose healthy, low density fruits and vegetables over
convenience store foods. Some may say that inner city dwellers have no use for
urban gardening or that they won’t choose to eat the fruits and vegetables even
if they are in close proximity but data shows that gardeners have a higher
intake of vegetables and fruits as compared to the average American population
(Bellows 3). This is especially important data given the fact that obesity is
rising, especially in people of low socioeconomic status. A big reason for this
rise is that low density fruits and vegetables are being replaced with high
density foods such as hamburgers, chips, etc. due to their accessibility and
cheapness (Bellows 4). If America can increase the amount of urban gardens we
have, we can increase low density food consumption and decrease high density
food consumption thus impacting health in a positive way and mediating, in
part, America’s obesity epidemic.
In addition to
improved eating habits, higher activity levels reduce risk of obesity;
gardening is a great source of exercise. Often times scientists will combine
bicycling, walking, taking the stairs, and gardening in the same category of
exercise. In fact, “gardening has been connected to reduced risks of obesity,
coronary heart disease, glycemic control, and diabetes.” (Bellows 6). Also,
gardening is often considered to be a leisure activity. Research shows that it
is a source of exercise that is preferred over others. In addition to being an
enjoyable source of physical activity, studies show that gardening can increase
strength and endurance in people of reduced activity levels. (Bellows 7)
In addition to increased activity levels as a
positive advantage of gardening, just spending time outdoors, whether
exercising or not has its own benefits. Vitamin D is created through the skin
from the sun and being outdoors is good for a person’s mental well-being.
Research shows that working outdoors improves mental health, personal
wellness, reduces stress, and induces relaxation (Bellows 7). Gardeners spend
an average of 2.8 hours a week outdoors which is more than most people.
(Fosdick). This increased exposure to the sun increases the risk for skin
cancer. This may be a concern and deterrent for some people but with the proper
use of sunscreen and protective clothing this risk can be reduced
significantly. For example one study showed that using both sunscreen and
protective clothing greatly decreased risk of skin damage from the sun.
(Edlich).
Through community
gardens these public spaces become not only a way to reduce carbon footprints,
but they beautify and make great use of abandoned lots, parks, and other
spaces. Additionally they provide a place where the community can gather.
Neighbors can meet neighbors. Children can learn and play safely. These gardens
create a public space for important community social interaction, and
they become “non-traditional learning labs [where] youth become familiar with
good and healthy food, especially the fruits and vegetables critical to
reducing obesity and chronic diseases” (Bellows). As teenagers, children, and
adults work together to grow food the community grows stronger as old
relationships are strengthened and new ones blossom.
Objectors to
community gardens acknowledge a reality that grocery stores provide more
efficient food services to communities already, thus rendering community
gardens as insignificant food-suppliers. While it is true that community
gardens cannot supply the same quantity of food to whole communities, they
provide many other important opportunities for people. To meet neighbors,
beautify the community, and work together for greater, common good. Scholars
have outlined how community gardens empower participants by “bringing people
together, building community, and improving neighborhoods” (Bellows). Along
with efforts to provide nutritious food, community gardens sustain “social
capital – trust, civic engagement, the development of community leaders, and the
sharing of goods, service and information” (Bellows). Each of these benefits
work to increase the economic sense of supporting a community garden regardless
of literal seed-to-table costs. And while there certainly exist other ways for
communities to become involved and grow closer together–no other way allows
participants to take home a basket of produce to share with their families.
Urban agriculture.
Idealistic? Practical? Necessary? Finding reasons to support urban agriculture
is simple, but trying to prove that the benefits of a community garden outweigh
the costs becomes more challenging. We propose that the costs of starting,
maintaining, and supporting a community garden—within any community—will pay
off economically, as well as emotionally, and physically. Furthermore,
participation in community gardens beautifies, cleans, and provides social
interactions. Community gardens not only contribute to healthy nourishment of
communities, but it strengthens them as a social unit. Upon hearing our
arguments, we hope that your answer to whether community gardens are practical
and necessary will now be an emphatic yes!
Works
Cited
Bellows,
Anne C. et al. “Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture.” Community Food
Security Coalition. 18 Dec 2004: 1-27. Web. 20 May 2012.
Edlich,
R. F. "Result Filters." Journal of Long Term Eff Med Implants
14.2 (2004): 95-106. National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S.
National Library of Medicine. Web. 31 May 2012. (Bellows 7)
“Food
Security.” World Health Organization. 1996. Web. 20 May 2012.
Fosdick,
Dean. "The Dark Side of Summer Gardening." Today Health. Web. 31 May
2012.
McWilliams,
James E. “Food That Travels Well.” The New York Times 6 August 2007.
Web. 20 May 2012
