In recent years, there has been a small bit of backlash against the ubiquitous use of antibacterial soaps. Indeed, research beginning in 2002 has continued to confirm that based on both effectiveness and potential negative side effects, there really is no reason to use these soaps and plenty of reasons not to.

The active antibacterial agent in question is triclosan. The only real question that can result from numerous scientific studies about triclosan is whether or not its potential negatives are strong enough to stop using it. (Indeed, the only piece (opinion) questioning the validity of the research showing both potential resistance problems and toxic byproducts of triclosan (Swofford, 2005) was written by a member of the soap industry.) However, given unambiguous results showing that soap containing triclosan is indistinguishable in its effectiveness against bacteria as regular soap (and, frankly, given that most illnesses most household users of antibacterial soaps are concerned about are actually caused by viruses, which do not respond to antibacterials) any potentially negative side-effects of its use should be unacceptable.

Here is the problem. Humans are dumping all kinds of chemicals into our (and other organisms') water supply, that are not removed during sewage treatment (even when the water properly goes through sewage treatment). Among these is triclosan (Gomez et al., 2007), which has been found in large proportions of human urinary samples (Calafat et al., 2008). Not only do we know nothing about how ingesting all these various chemicals may be affecting us over the long term, we cannot begin to know the complex ways in which they are interacting with each other to create new, and potentially more toxic compounds. Both laboratory (DeLorenzo et al., 2008) and field research (Kinney et al., 2008) suggests that triclosan bioaccumulates, which means its concentration could increase up the food chain (the same phenomenon responsible for the crash of bald eagle populations a few decades ago, due to DDT). Other laboratory studies suggest that it reacts with light and chlorine (ubiquitous in our drinking water) to form types of dioxin, a toxic compound (Sanchez-Prado et al., 2006). These studies are just scratching the surface of potential interactions between triclosan and other ubiquitous pharmaceuticals such as painkillers and sex hormones from birth control. Laboratory studies have also demonstrated that bacteria such as E coli and Salmonella can become resistant to triclosan (Yazdankhah et al., 2006).

Proponents of antibacterial soaps claim that none of these studies have shown that toxicity is common in the field, and resistance also has only been shown in the laboratory. So, let's get this straight: we should continue to use this completely useless agent, because research has not yet shown that it is definitely harmful in the short term. Brilliant reasoning. The abstract of a recent review paper sums up the state of our knowledge quite nicely:

Abstract (Aiello et al., 2007)
Background. Much has been written recently about the potential hazards versus benefits of antibacterial (biocide)-containing soaps. The purpose of this systematic literature review was to assess the studies that have examined the efficacy of products containing triclosan, compared with that of plain soap, in the community setting, as well as to evaluate findings that address potential hazards of this use-namely, the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Methods. The PubMed database was searched for English-language articles, using relevant keyword combinations for articles published between 1980 and 2006. Twenty-seven studies were eventually identified as being relevant to the review. Results. Soaps containing triclosan within the range of concentrations commonly used in the community setting (0.1%-0.45% wt/vol) were no more effective than plain soap at preventing infectious illness symptoms and reducing bacterial levels on the hands. Several laboratory studies demonstrated evidence of triclosan-adapted cross-resistance to antibiotics among different species of bacteria. Conclusions. The lack of an additional health benefit associated with the use of triclosan-containing consumer soaps over regular soap, coupled with laboratory data demonstrating a potential risk of selecting for drug resistance, warrants further evaluation by governmental regulators regarding antibacterial product claims and advertising. Further studies of this issue are encouraged.

If the only weapon we have to stop this idiotic dumping of even a potentially harmful chemical into our water systems and environment is consumer demand, then let's use it. Stop using anti-bacterial soaps now, and maybe the fools producing them will stop, because it is no longer profitable.

References

Aiello, A.E., Larson, E.L. & Levy, S.B. (2007) Consumer antibacterial soaps: Effective or just risky? Clinical Infectious Diseases, 45:S137-S147.

Calafat, A.M., Ye, X., Wong, L.Y., Reidy, J.A. & Needham, L.L. (2008) Urinary concentrations of Triclosan in the US population: 2003-2004. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116:303-307.

DeLorenzo, M.E., Keller, J.M., Arthur, C.D., Finnegan, M.C., Harper, H.E., Winder, V.L. & Zdankiewicz, D.L. (2008) Toxicity of the antimicrobial compound triclosan and formation of the metabolite methyl-triclosan in estuarine systems. Environmental Toxicology, 23:224-232.

Gomez, M.J., Bueno, M.J.M., Lacorte, S., Fernandez-Alba, A.R. & Aguera, A. (2007) Pilot survey monitoring pharmaceuticals and related compounds in a sewage treatment plant located on the Mediterranean coast. Chemosphere, 66:993-1002.

Kinney, C.A., Furlong, E.T., Kolpin, D.W., Burkhardt, M.R., Zaugg, S.D., Werner, S.L., Bossio, J.P. & Benotti, M.J. (2008) Bioaccumulation of pharmaceuticals and other anthropogenic waste indicators in earthworms from agricultural soil amended with biosolid or swine manure. Environmental Science & Technology, 42:1863-1870.

Sanchez-Prado, L., Llompart, M., Lores, M., Fernandez-Alvarez, M., Garcia-Jares, C. & Cela, R. (2006) Further research on the photo-SPME of triclosan. Analytical And Bioanalytical Chemistry, 384:1548-1557.

Swofford, W. (2005) Triclosan research misreported? Environmental Science & Technology, 39:271A-272A.

Yazdankhah, S.P., Scheie, A.A., Hoiby, E.A., Lunestad, B.T., Heir, E., Fotland, T.O., Naterstad, K. & Kruse, H. (2006) Triclosan and antimicrobial resistance in bacteria: An overview. Microbial Drug Resistance-Mechanisms Epidemiology and Disease, 12:83-90.

Labels: environmental toxins, health, humans

This is a comment, based on personal experience in this area, on the latest news about Vioxx - that Merck hired "ghostwriters" to write the scientific papers about Vioxx and thus were perpetrating "fraud."

A new freely available report (Ross, J.S., MD, MHS; K.P. Hill, MD, MHS; D.S. Egilman, MD, MPH; H.M. Krumholz, MD, SM. 2008. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to Rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents From rofecoxib litigation. Journal of the American Medical Association 299(15):1800-1812) suggests that methods employed by Merck to use scientific journals to promote its products show just how scummy this company is, in case you didn't already believe it.

This is an issue that interests me because I was once a paid ghostwriter of a paper for a biotech company (which shortly after went belly up, and apparently the paper was never published). Based on the report's definition, ("Ghostwriting has been defined as the failure to designate an individual (as an author) who has made a substantial contribution to the research or writing of a manuscript") it is my impression from my own experience that biotech companies (including pharmaceutical) routinely pay "ghostwriters" to write papers intended for publication in medical journals. In my own case, the doctor whose name was to go on the paper did supposedly collect the data, and I was provided with a brief summary of the findings which I expanded into a full paper, which was then edited further by staff at the company.

Is such a process unethical? The way I saw it at the time, it was more an instance of the doctors collecting the data being too busy and/or subpar writers who could not be depended on to get the research written up and submitted to a journal for review in a timely manner, which is in the interest of the company promoting the product. On the one hand, this didn't seem to be a big deal given that the doctor who "authored" the paper did actually collect the data, and even contributed discussion points in the summary, which made him a valid author on the paper. On the other hand, the experience did make me cynical about papers in medical journals, which from then on I viewed as rather poorly conducted and reviewed advertisements for industry products (a common theme on this blog). In my mind, the question of who actually wrote the words of the paper to present the data is insignificant compared to the fact that papers published in medical journals are held to an incredibly low standard of scientific rigor compared to, say, those published in ecology journals. Part of the reason for this is obvious - scientific rigor is much more difficult in human studies, in which researchers are ethically more limited than ecologists in the types of manipulations available. Somewhat of a lower standard is probably necessary for progress in the field.

But another reason never discussed for poor medical studies is that journals and the medical industry seem to have a reciprocal back-scratching arrangement: the journal gets a lot of press coverage when it publishes yet another "significant" paper, and the biotech industry gets the promotion of their products. The authors and reviewers, by the way, are tied up in the same knot as well; they are scientists who need to publish to progress in their career, and are also often funded by the biotech industry. "Conflict of interest" probably doesn't begin to describe the complex web of interactions among all these parties.

A big problem with this system is that it creates a slippery slope. There certainly may have been instances when Merck's methods were less defensible, for example:

Documents were found describing Merck compensating investigators with honoraria for agreeing to serve as authors on review manuscripts ghostwritten on their behalf by medical publishing companies. Honoraria varied, ranging from $750 to $2500. One author refused his honorarium from Scientific Therapeutics Information stating, "I really do not feel it is appropriate to be paid for this type of effort."

Unfortunately, when you are so close to the line to begin with, crossing it becomes almost unavoidable. Paying the printed authors to put their name on any publication would certainly be crossing it.

Still, one wonders what planet Dr. Ross and the other authors have been on, given that they seem to imply that Merck should be singled out for using these methods to promote its products - they are shocked, shocked! to find what they did. Perhaps their disclosure statement sheds some light:

Although every effort was made to present this information objectively and fairly, it is important to note that all of the authors of this article have been compensated for their work as consultants/expert witnesses at the request of plaintiffs in litigation against Merck related to rofecoxib [Vioxx].

OK, they finally then admit that they may have heard of something like this before:

...it is reasonable to expect that the authorship practices observed in this case study may be used by other pharmaceutical companies as well. A recent press account seems to confirm as much, as does the presence of an industry specializing in medical writing.

They end with the extremely ironic statement, "We are hopeful that our findings encourage discussion of ways in which to improve the integrity of research." Simply, the "integrity" of medical research is a joke, and has been for a long time. Companies and journals will continue this charade as long as it stays profitable.

Labels: health, humans

Time to start getting your omega-3's from plants. We are long past the golden age of fish production and quickly approaching a complete crash of most fisheries, in case you had not noticed. Probably it was inevitable, but over a decade ago, a couple of biologists figured it was worth a shot to point out that policy changes actually taking the future into account, rather than simply pretending to, needed to be made. (Roughgarden J, Smith F, 1996. Why fisheries collapse and what to do about it. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U S A. 93(10):5078-83 [open access].)

Apparently no one making the regulations even tried to implement their idea, which admittedly would probably not go over well in the real world, because it involved taxing, rather than subsidizing, fishermen.

To make their point, the authors first list some of the various rationalizations for the collapse of the Newfoundland cod industry:

Many causes have been cited for this collapse, including a lack of political will to impose adequate quotas, overoptimistic stock assessments by fishery scientists, poaching from foreign fleets, exceptional mortality from natural predators, climate change, subsidies to fishers, and overcapitalization...

Do any of these sound familiar to those reading a recent NY Times article about chinook salmon?

Of course this problem with the salmon fishery is not an isolated crisis in which we cannot possibly imagine the causes, despite such mind bogglingly out-of-touch utterances as this: "It's unprecedented that this fishery is in this kind of shape," said Donald McIsaac, executive director of the [Pacific Fisheries Management] council, which is organized under the auspices of the Commerce Department.

Perhaps it is unprecedented for that particular fishery, but why would anyone expect an outcome different from nearly every other heavily exploited fish species? For example, consider the crashed Newfoundland cod - historically it was one of the most abundant fisheries. No one could imagine the possibility of depleting it. There are now also warnings about tuna, another historically abundant species.

Ultiimately the issues cropping up are probably the tip of an iceberg that has repercussions not just for mere fisheries, but for the health of the entire planet, which remember is mostly ocean. This leads some to pin the blame on climate change for crashing fisheries. But they are missing the point. The problem specific to fisheries remains one of overexploitation - it just has not been correctly defined.

We now must face up to admitting that fishing limits, even those that have been faithfully adhered to, have been based at best on significant lack of ecological information, and at worst, on mostly short-term economic criteria.

As Roughgarden and Smith point out:

May et al. (May, R. M., J. R. Beddington, J. W. Horwood, and J. G. Shepherd. 1978. Exploiting natural populations in an uncertain world. Mathematical Biosciences 42:219-252) concluded that "What seems really needed is not further mathematical refinement, but rather robustly self-correcting strategies that can operate with only fuzzy knowledge about stock levels and recruitment curves."

For thirty years at least, it has been clear that fishery management has needed to focus on how to incorporate ecological complexity (compounded by complexity introduced by detrimental environmental impacts by all sorts of human activity), rather than crunch numbers based on the last available year of data for catch. Is there truly anyone in this business who can possibly be surprised that any fishery is collapsing now?

Of course, Roughgarden and Smith's analysis is naive in its economic assumptions such as this, when they state that after a crash "...the industry must contract anyway, and by managing for ecological stability the prospects of subsequent collapses are minimized." Unfortunately, for most natural resources, long-term gain is completely overshadowed by short-term profit, to an irrational degree, which will not emerge out of traditional economic models.

Still, the authors have a proposal that makes a little more sense for helping fisheries last a little longer:

(i) Establish a target stock at 3/4 of the average unharvested abundance [i.e., harvest much less than what appears to be ecologically sustainable].
(ii) Tax the revenues from any fish caught when the stock is below target.

As they discuss it, condition (1) essentially builds in insurance for fisheries, which only makes sense given our deep and continuing lack of understanding of the complex interactions of habitat loss and climate change, combined with only vague estimates for rates of increase, habitat carrying capacity, amount of predation, etc. And yet current practice ignores the environmental factors, and pretends that our numbers for the rest are accurate.

Condition (2) makes sense too, but seems unlikely to be successfully implemented. The point of it is to make it more costly, rather than more profitable, to fish when stocks are depleted below a sustainable level. Unfortunately, the current situation is that the harder it becomes to catch a certain species of fish, i.e. as it becomes depleted, the more rare it becomes, and thus more expensive. A tax would have to be severe indeed to cut into the profits of fishers catching the rarest fish, and thus politically probably impossible. If implemented it would surely increase poaching and the black market even beyond what it already is.

The damage is done. Fishing limits have been set historically (when they were set at all, usually belatedly) based on faulty ecological assumptions influenced by strong economic pressures, while ignoring the continuing fluctuations (many with unknown cause, such as in the case of the chinook salmon) that change the sustainable catch - and thus can crash a seemingly healthy fishery quickly after a series of below-normal population years. The mistake is similar to that made by authorities making Western water allocations during an unusually wet period there, and steadfastedly sticking by them even when a fraction of that water is now available. Perhaps moratoriums on fishing some populations such as the Newfoundland cod will give us a second chance to make saner policy. But it would be a foolish bet to make.

Labels: ecology, economics

There is a fallacious argument commonly held and cited by pro-private-property advocates. The argument goes that interested parties having private property results in the reverse of the "tragedy of the commons," which holds that public resources are over-exploited because they belong to nobody, and thus are not worth protecting; if I do not grab the resource now, someone else will. The reverse argument is thus that if I alone hold the resources and their future value is also mine alone, then it is worth my while to protect them and not overexploit them.

Of course the main problem with this argument is that it assumes rational economic behavior by human beings, which over the last decade or so has been increasingly shown to be a false assumption. Economic models thus have to be rewritten to take into account that most of us do not act in our best interest, a lot of the time.

This is true in many arenas. There are many versions of the following experiment:

...the ultimatum game. You are given $100 to split between yourself and your game partner. Whatever division of the money you propose, if your partner accepts it, you each get to keep your share. If, however, your partner rejects it, neither of you gets any money.

How much should you offer? Why not suggest a $90-$10 split? If your game partner is a rational, self-interested money-maximizer -- the very embodiment of Homo economicus -- he isn't going to turn down a free 10 bucks, is he? He is. Research shows that proposals that offer much less than a $70-$30 split are usually rejected.

Meaning: humans are a social species, and no one lives in a bubble. Context is everything, even when it comes to financial gain.

Land-use is a different matter however. Private-property enthusiasts will assert that a rancher will happily overgraze public land he is leasing. But if his ranch is all private, he will manage it to ensure a healthier ecosystem, because this makes sense for the long term, right?

In practice this is not so. Certainly, the tragedy of the commons does hold here; public land is routinely overgrazed. But the opposite is not true, because ranchers routinely overgraze their own land, too, even though that is clearly bad for ranch productivity in the long term. Why does this happen?

It happens because decisions regarding land-use are much more complex than a simple formula for maximizing profits over the long term. First of all, ranchers behave as if their leased public land is private anyway; usually these leases have been in place for generations, and are essentially giveaways (often $1/acre), and thus the ranchers have a strong sense of entitlement to the land. Any attempt by the feds to change anything about how the leases currently work is met with outrage because the government is going to "ruin" the rancher. Nowhere is there any publicly stated acknowledgment that the rancher is getting a great deal.

Second, ranching practices (at least in the northwest) have been handed down for generations after being developed in a much wetter era. Economic theory predicting rational behavior makes the enormous assumption that the knowledge is available to make rational decisions. A few progressive ranchers in this area are waking up to the fact that the "drought" the west is suffering is here to stay, and are learning how to change their methods to keep the land healthy in the current environment. For many ranches, this can be as simple as changing grazing practices from using fences to using herders. But for those who do not have the cultural knowledge, this can be a daunting shift.

On top of this, any subsistence ranching or farming is concerned much more with maximizing profits in the immediate future, without worrying about the long term. The most obvious example of this is farms in the deforested tropics. Everyone knows the soil in tropical forests is extremely poor, and after just a couple years of farming, the nutrients are fully depleted and the farms are abandoned. Does this keep people from cutting down forests for subsistence farms? No, because when you are living hand-to-mouth, you are focused on getting through the current year. Economists call this "discounting" the long term effects of decisions, so that a benefit obtained years from now is worth much less than one obtained now. This is a rational position, but it is arguable that for most people (such as those who obtained adjustable-rate mortgages in the last few years) the future is discounted much more highly than is mathematically "rational."

Although the threats facing ranchers are not equally severe, the idea of having to quit production on a family ranch that has been working for generations is nothing less than disaster to those who face it. Their culture and tradition, and thus their entire sense of self, is wrapped up in that ranch. In Texas, for example, it is common for a "rancher" to keep a few cows on an overgrazed piece of family-owned land at a loss, while working a full time job in the city to actually make a living. It makes no financial sense to keep the ranch going, but it saves cultural face which is obviously much more important.

Finally, there is the obvious difference between individuals trying to make a living and corporations which need to maximize short-term profits at all costs. Our financial system seems to reward this corporate strategy, because the actual individual making a decision can jump ship before it is time to pay the piper for a bad one. They themselves do not own the resources they are exploiting, so making the resources privately owned (by the corporation) makes no difference to their protection. It is much easier for a corporation to run a ranch into the ground and then sell it off in parcels for development (although many private ranch owners do the same thing eventually) because a corporation has no cultural connection to the land.

The value of federal lands is that although they can be overexploited, there are mechanisms in place, such as regulation and public comment, to put a halt to their destruction. A hundred years ago, certainly the attitude was that the National Forests were there precisely for maximizing exploitation - after all, some private landowners might not want their land to be logged. Today, though, the ethic is different. Ecosystems have an inherent value to many more people than they once did, and this has changed forest service policy to include preservation as a mandate. Though the inertia to bring it about might be extreme, there is at least the possibility that public pressure can change federal land-use policy to better reflect the majority's conservation values. Naturally, those who make a living exploiting federal land view such policy changes as a "taking." But it is really a taking-back for the taxpayers who supplied that land for free in the first place.

Labels: economics, environment, humans