Readers Write (April 7): Triclosan, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Southwest light rail, e-cigarettes

  • Updated: April 4, 2014 - 6:39 PM

Two studies found positive effects in neonatal care; the EPA cites no risk to children.


Photo: ., Tribune Media Services

CameraStar Tribune photo galleries

Cameraview larger


Indeed, research does show triclosan benefit

Dr. Michael Osterholm’s March 21 counterpoint on the antibacterial ingredient triclosan (“Antimicrobial hucksters can’t be trusted”) contained some regrettable errors, especially his claim that there’s no research showcasing any health benefits.

Research published in the American Journal of Infection Control (1995) showed that the use of a triclosan hand wash had a direct and positive effect in the eradication of a continued outbreak of MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) in a neonatal nursery.

Separate research published in the Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health (1994) reported that, following the introduction of a triclosan hand wash in a neonatal intensive care unit, there was a gradual elimination of MRSA in the unit, and lower antibiotic use and hospital-acquired infections were recorded.

And while triclosan has been found in trace amounts in sediments in aquatic environments, there is no evidence of significant risk to humans or the environment. Research has consistently shown that triclosan and its breakdown products do not pose a risk to aquatic or terrestrial environments, nor do they pose a threat of accumulation in drinking water or food.

Also, there is no evidence that triclosan is a threat to children. The Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the levels to which children are exposed and has found wide margins of safety.

Paul DeLeo, Washington, D.C.


The writer is associate vice president for environmental safety at the American Cleaning Institute in Washington.


In trade deal, beware corporate right to sue

Ongoing letters between former congressmen Mark Kennedy and Tim Penny and U.S. Reps. Rick Nolan and Keith Ellison regarding the secret negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) still do not shed light on special rights and privileges granted corporations. Specifically, pro-investor tribunals run by corporate lawyers — known as the investor-state dispute resolution (ISDR) system — give “investors the right to sue governments for compensation over rules that affect their expected profits.” This trade-agreement language provided by the reputable Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) warns that corporations representing the energy, pharmaceutical, agriculture and chemical sectors are granted the right to sue governments over the loss of future revenues due to public health, safety and environmental regulations.

With tobacco company lawyers suing the Australian government through the ISDR tribunals for huge sums of money, where does that leave Minnesota with higher renewable-energy standards and U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s product and child safety legislative achievements? Advisers at IATP warn against the powerful influence of industry lobby groups and caution that future trade agreements will “set the standard for future trade agreements.”

Civil society requires that elected officials be given full access to the TPP with opportunities for public response and amendment. The future of democracy demands no fast-track authority on passing the TPP.

Julie French Holmen, St. Paul


Would Mary mind Kenilworth route?

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters