Triclosan and Bad Journalism – Which is Worse?

Soap is carcinogenic? What next? Air?

So, every week there appears to be a new carcinogenic substance lurking in our midst, which we have been using for years; but never knew it could kill us. This week on the cancer scare list; hand sanitizer and antibacterial soaps. 

Many news sources, including the beloved Daily Mail,  show the story of how additives found in soap, toothpaste and shampoo are linked to cancer and liver disease. These problems are down to a substance called ‘Triclosan’.

 Source

 

“Their study, published by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that triclosan causes liver fibrosis and cancer in lab mice. Liver fibrosis is where persistent inflammation causes fibrous scar tissue to form around the liver cells and blood vessels. Over time, it can cause cirrhosis which in turn can make the liver stop functioning.However the researchers stress the findings are also relevant in humans, due to the processes they observed while conducting the study.”

-Daily Mail

After locating the study, it is evident something amiss with the reporting. In the study they FEED mice triclosan for six months, yes; feed. Now, how much soap is consumed daily by humans? How is it extrapolated to humans washing their hands? Unless you are consuming bar after bar of antibacterial soap, then this study is cannot be applied to humans. 

Last year a finding such as this was promoted in the media with regards to triclosan in toothpaste, I suppose, there is a chance of having a small amount being swallowed from toothpaste, but not at the amounts seen to cause effects in the study. The toothpaste I currently hold in my hand contains 0.4% triclosan. Assume the average tooth paste dose is about 1g. That gives a total of around 4mg of triclosan in the toothpaste per brush. This is severely less than the dose fed to the mice. Also, this is assuming you are eating your toothpaste. Don’t eat your toothpaste. The point of this research is to pave the way for more research, not to be used to fear-mong by mainstream media. Adverse effects in mice should be looked at with caution, extrapolation is often highly unscientifically inaccurate.

Why do we have such bad journalism?

I constantly read of reporters hitting back at skeptics and bloggers on their reporting of the actual science behind it. Saying how they don’t have the time to research effectively and they are not scientists. It took me around 20 minutes to research and write the above paragraphs. Probably took me longer to locate a suitable picture, yes, I have a scientific background, but not in the area of soap or product manufacturing. It doesn’t take a biologist to work out and human and a mouse are different. It doesn’t take a mathematician to work out that the amounts being consumed in animal models are not the same amounts consumed in day-to-day basis, facts that were direly overlooked or ignored. In fact, the guardian had something to say a few years ago, basically admitting scientific journalism was wrong and scientists shouldn’t criticize it. Also showing us nine ways that scientists don't understand journalism (as though that's the issue with bad scientific reporting):

“The purpose of the headline is to pique the interest of readers without lying”

Which is quite frankly, hilarious. More here.

  Source

Transparency is a good thing, especially when citing studies. There many news articles that are dangerous, one in particularly by the independent themselves on the consumption of a bottle of alcohol a day being good for you. There are many stories on the relationship of alcohol inducing hypoglycemia in diabetics. None of these publish actual studies that can be traced, and reviewed. This is dangerous reporting, surely? People who blindly read articles and trust them because they are published, can be hurt. Although, I did find the study by Dr Kari on how a bottle of wine a day is good for you, he had absolutely no agenda to publish that work. Oh, if you minus the fact he is trying to peddle his book on drinking? Yeah, no conflict there. I’m currently compiling research into the evidence of red wine and diabetes control, as I thoroughly enjoyed wine and I unfortunately am diabetic, which I will hopefully publish soon. 

I understand the potential cause of bad journalism, but as opposed to defending it, why not change it? Extend deadlines for scientific articles, hire people with scientific backgrounds and think about the risks of publishing your work. Remember, long words, bad studies and fear-mongering do not make a news article believable. Always question and read around what you hear in the media. More often than not; the primary source tends to say nothing about that which is being reported.