Summary:The Florence Statement on Triclosan and Triclocarban documents a consensus of more than 200 scientists and medical professionals on the hazards of and lack of demonstrated benefit from common uses of triclosan and triclocarban. These chemicals may be used in thousands of personal care and consumer products as well as in building materials. Based on extensive peer-reviewed research, this statement concludes that triclosan and triclocarban are environmentally persistent endocrine disruptors that bioaccumulate in and are toxic to aquatic and other organisms. Evidence of other hazards to humans and ecosystems from triclosan and triclocarban is presented along with recommendations intended to prevent future harm from triclosan, triclocarban, and antimicrobial substances with similar properties and effects. Because antimicrobials can have unintended adverse health and environmental impacts, they should only be used when they provide an evidence-based health benefit. Greater transparency is needed in product formulations, and before an antimicrobial is incorporated into a product, the long-term health and ecological impacts should be evaluated. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1788

No abstract

No abstract

Background Environmental health agencies are critical sources of information for communities affected by chemical contamination. Impacted residents and their healthcare providers often turn to federal and state agency webpages, fact sheets, and other documents to weigh exposure risks and interventions. Main body This commentary briefly reviews scientific evidence concerning per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for health outcomes that concern members of affected communities and that have compelling or substantial yet differing degree of scientific evidence. It then features official documents in their own language to illustrate communication gaps, as well as divergence from scientific evidence and from best health communication practice. We found official health communications mostly do not distinguish between the needs of heavily contaminated communities characterized by high body burdens and the larger population with ubiquitous but substantially smaller exposures. Most health communications do not distinguish levels of evidence for health outcomes and overemphasize uncertainty, dismissing legitimate reasons for concern in affected communities. Critically, few emphasize helpful approaches to interventions. We also provide examples that can be templates for improvement. Conclusions Immediate action should be undertaken to review and improve official health communications intended to inform the public and health providers about the risks of PFAS exposure and guide community and medical decisions.

Dear editor,We have concerns about the Blais et al. paper ''Comparative Room Burn Study of Furnished Rooms from the United Kingdom, France and the United States'' in the March 2020 issue of Fire Technology [1]. The study compared fire growth and smoke toxicity in mock burn rooms each containing a couch and chair purchased from either the United Kingdom, France, or the United States. The authors use the results to draw conclusions about the efficacy of the countries' furniture flammability standards. Unfortunately, the paper was plagued by a number of design flaws, omissions, and conflicts of interest. Our main concerns are summarized briefly here and described in detail below.