Anti-Bacterial Products

2841

2842

INDUSTRY SNAPSHOT

Anti-bacterial products have enjoyed rising popularity as consumers aspire to eradicate germs from their surroundings. Between 1996 and 2002, the number of new anti-microbial products in the U.S. market grew from 150 to more than 700. According to one estimate, the consumer market for disinfectants and anti-microbials rose 6.1 percent a year in the early 2000s, compared to three to four percent growth in more established soap and detergent lines.

Heading into the late 2000s, the global fear of bacteria and germs continued to drive sales of products designed to neutralize them. In fact, health scares such as the Avian Flu (H5N1 virus) were causing large organizations to examine their level of emergency preparedness in the event of a pandemic. Some were developing business continuity strategies that included the use of equipment like masks and respirators, but also anti-bacterial cleaners for hard surfaces and hands.

In its June 2006 issue, Office Products International reported that U.S. sales of sanitizers and disinfectants were expected to reach $700 million in 2007. In particular, alcohol-based products led the sanitizer category, while anti-bacterials held a commanding position among disinfectants. Data from the firm Information Resources Inc., reported in the September 18, 2006 issue of MMR, revealed that sales of alcohol-based hand sanitizers in drug stores, discount stores, and supermarkets (excluding Wal-Mart) were $73.9 million in August of 2006, up a hefty 25.8 percent from the year before.

Today the mix of products with anti-bacterial properties extends well beyond household cleaners and hand sanitizers to a surprising array of merchandise, including everything from pillows and diapers to toothbrushes and touch screen displays. While manufacturers of these products sometimes shy away from making overly specific claims for fear of regulatory headaches, the marketing behind anti-bacterial products assures users that their homes and businesses will be cleaner, safer places thanks to embedded germ-killing agents.

Some medical and health experts caution, however, that the flood of anti-bacterial products could be encouraging development of more resistant strains of harmful bacteria. This assertion has been challenged by some researchers. Still, the American Medical Association issued a warning to consumers regarding the use of anti-microbial or anti-bacterial soaps and washes in 2001. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration continued to research this issue, and by 2007 the debate over the safety and effectiveness of anti-microbial and anti-bacterial products continued. Nevertheless, the industry continued to produce a broadening range of innovative materials and products, some of which were potential tools in the effort to detect and destroy biological weapons.

ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the production of pharmaceuticals or any products that include regulated, approved medicinal or health benefits. With such a product as soap, for instance, the FDA has very clear guidelines. According to the FDA Office of Cosmetics Safety, there are two categories of soap: "true" soaps, made up solely of fats and an alkali, and synthetic "detergent products." "True" soaps are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not the FDA, so they do not require labeling. Most synthetic soaps come under the regulation of the FDA, as do any "true" soaps that make a so-called cosmetic claim, such as having moisturizing or deodorizing properties. Words such as "anti-bacterial" push a product into the drug category, which is subject to additional regulation.

Products with disinfectant qualities that are used on inanimate surfaces (in other words, not on or in the human body) fall under the purview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). That agency's involvement stems from the federal government's classification of disinfectants as pesticides, which are also under the EPA's jurisdiction. Disinfectants are thus registered through the Anti-microbials Division of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs. The agency has been criticized for taking too long to review products and costing manufacturers too much. On the other hand, the EPA was also criticized for allowing disinfectants with questionable merits on the market. In the late 1990s, the EPA took steps to improve its record on both counts, and therefore some of its policies (or at least their enforcement) were in flux.

Anti-bacterials classified as homeopathic, or alternative medicine, are not regulated by the FDA. In essence, they are unregulated and could make any claim, valid or questionable, regarding their effectiveness in fighting bacteria. In the area of plastics that use anti-bacterial protections, all industry standards pertaining to their occupational safety, along with consumer protection guidelines, direct production.

BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT

The market for anti-bacterial products owes its success to the origins of bacterial study and Sir Alexander Fleming, a Scottish researcher who joined the research department of St. Mary's Hospital in London in 1906. Fleming's experiences during World War I as a soldier in France presented him with the terrible reality of infectious wounds.

World War I brought horrors that other wars had not due to modern artillery, machine guns, and bombs. Physical disfigurements, infections, and wounds that resulted from the new technology inspired many medical...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT