Washing your hands with endocrine disruptors

A new study came out of UC Davis this week titled: "Triclocarban enhances testosterone action: A new type of endocrine disruptor?" This article, published in the journal Endocrinology, describes new evidence that triclocarbon, one of the primary active ingredients in "anti-bacterial" household products, acts as an endocrine disruptor. The authors found that triclocarban increased expression of genes normally responsive to testosterone (in human cells) and increased the size of testosterone-responsive organs such as the prostate (in mice).

Studies like this often rely on unrealistically high doses of their drug of choice in order to elicit such dramatic effects. These authors assert that their dosage was no more than 3 times higher than a human would receive from washing with a triclocarban-containing body wash product, which is remarkable. Considering how trivial the inclusion of these compounds in personal products is, I see no reason to continue using them.

I already avoid these anti-bacterial products because they're a crass marketing ploy that plays on one of the many paralyzing fears that control Americans. Washing with warm water and soap is already extremely effective at decontaminating skin from bacteria and viruses. Most of the microbes out there are harmless in the first place. In the meantime, these anti-bacterial chemicals contribute to antibiotic resistance and distract people from the truly important tactics in public health. Anti-bacterial chemicals have also been found to accumulate in agricultural fields, as they're not broken down in water treatment. It's anybody's guess what consequence that could have...

The science is still out on whether there's any real danger from casual exposure to these chemicals, but like the putative endocrine disruptors that leach from microwaved plastic, I see no reason to take the chance. These aren't game-changing technologies and I can easily do without them. It's little inconvenience for me to drink my coffee out of a cup made of something besides polycarbonate. Something, incidentally, that won't make my coffee taste weird.

How meat and GMC FlexFuel are starving the 3rd world

The current issue of The Economist has some interesting articles on damage done to global economies and the rural poor by 1st world subsidies.

"The end of cheap food" sums it up pretty well and "Cheap no more" elaborates.

The facts and chain of logic square with what I know about ag systems. I especially appreciate their repeated point that if you want to subsidize the poor (e.g. by making sure the poor in the US can afford food), you should do it directly, not by monkeying with the market. Coincidentally, an ad on NPR today remarked that US subsidies are focused on food that aren't especially healthy either, which is true. I think Talk of the Nation tomorrow is actually focusing on the Farm Bill, so I'll likely write more then.

At any rate, I've heard multiple arguments against our ag subsidies but only two for them. I think I can pretty much discount the first; that we need subsidies to keep food affordable. Americans use to spend a much greater proportion of their income on food than they do today, and our middle class rose all the same. The second argument, that we need subsidies to ensure a domestic food supply, I doubt strongly. North America has pretty remarkable ag resources (good soils and climates) and already dominates world markets in many non-subsidized "specialty crops," e.g. almonds. The US does a lot more with ag than grain.