To Get Help Now
Click Here
Today's Date:

Triclosan Studies Counter Dial Complete Claims

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

As the result of Dial Corporation’s continued claims that its line of Dial Complete products are safe and better than regular soap and water, we offer the following timeline representing the introduction and subsequent findings regarding Dial Complete’s active ingredient Triclosan and its use by the general population.

Triclosan was introduced to the health care industry in 1972 as a surgical scrub. Studies released in 1999 showed that though M. smegmatis was susceptible to triclosan, M. tuberculosis was not.

In August of 2000, the Dial Corporation receives a patent relating to antibacterial composition that provides a substantial reduction in bacteria in less than a minute. The following year a surfactant is added to the formula and tested on four bacterial strains. The results show the formula achieved an increased bacteria kill when some of the bacteria were exposed to the formula for 60 seconds.

In June of 2001, a study published in Emerging Infection Diseases, showed that when used correctly, antibacterial products inhibited bacterial growth, and did protect vulnerable patients from some infectious disease causing organisms. However the antibacterial household products did not demonstrate usefulness in healthy households, and were associated with resistant microbial strains when overused.

In August 2003, an article titled “Antibacterial Cleaning and Hygiene Products as an Emerging Risk Factor for Antibiotic Resistance in the Community” was published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases recommending regulation by the FDA for antimicrobial products that contribute to the problem of antibiotic resistance. The article also suggests educating the public about hygiene and cleaning products that may contribute to antibiotic resistance.

A study published in April 2004 in Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy claims little evidence that the “use of a 0.2% Triclosan soap reduces infectious symptoms, bacterial counts, or types of bacteria on the hands of individuals within the household setting in the developed world.” The study goes on to recommend investigations into the continued impact of prolonged use of Triclosan-containing products within the home environment and increased levels of resistant organisms in the community.

In October 2005, an article titled “Antibacterial Cleaning Products and Drug Resistance” published in Emerging Infectious Diseases cited no evidence that soap containing 0.2% triclosan was more beneficial than plain soap in reducing bacterial counts and infectious symptoms in the homes of healthy people. The authors went on to recommends more studies on the effects of long term use of antibacterial products and antimicrobial resistance.

Less than a year later, researchers confirmed the widespread use of triclosan and the potential of E.coli and Salmonella resistance as a potential public health risk.

Again, in August 2007, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the article “Consumer Antibacterial Soaps: Effective or Just Risky” which concluded that the lack of health benefit of Triclosan containing soaps over regular soup, coupled with data suggesting potential health risks by drug resistance warranted further governmental evaluation.

In March 2008, Dial issues press release discussing how Dial is different from other soaps.

One month later, the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy published an article that warned that the “increasing use of Triclosan in an expanding range of applications including those in food processing should be considered carefully.”  As triclosan resistance would likely be found in more species of bacteria than just the ones studied.

March 2008: Dial issues press release discussing how Dial is different from other soaps.

In April 2010, The Food and Drug Administration published a news release with the disturbing information. Animal studies had shown that Triclosan altered hormone regulation. The FDA was continuing its scientific and regulatory reviews of Triclosan in hygiene and cleaning products, and said that though it didn’t have enough information to change the use of the products, it also did not have evidence that triclosan containing products were any better than plain soap and water.

Five months later the Natural Resources Defense Council filed an action against the FDA for not taking Triclosan off the market.

September 2010: The first class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois against Dial.

A study published in the November 2010 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives showed that Triclosan might negatively affect human immune function as measured by CMV antibody levels, and allergy and hay fever diagnosis.

February 2011: Class action lawsuit filed in Ohio U.S. District Court alleging failure to warn.

In April 2011, the FDA issues a warning letter to soap manufacturers regarding the he product labeling for Safe4Hours Hand Sanitizing Lotion, a OTC topical antimicrobial hand antiseptic with the active ingredient Triclosan, 1%, and the statement  on its label: “KILLS 99% OF GERMS”  The FDA said “We are not aware of sufficient evidence demonstrating that this product is generally recognized as safe and effective as a topical antimicrobial that can prevent infection from E. coli, Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), Staphylococcus aureus; or prevent “Occupational Hand Disease;” or mitigate, prevent, treat or cure the H1N1 Flu Virus in people.”

May 2011: A class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Miami by Parker Waichman Alonso LLP against the Dial Corporation for deceptive and unfair claims, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, tortious breach of warranty, negligent design and failure to warn. disclaimer: This article: Triclosan Studies Counter Dial Complete Claims was posted on Monday, May 23rd, 2011 at 8:51 pm at and is filed under Misleading Information Lawsuits.

« »

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.