Naysayers and science sceptics might say"you can't predict what happens in nature based on lab studies". This is a fair point. Certainly,one of the problems in making policy out of science is that it is difficult to quantify these kinds of phenomena and to make accurate predictions about complex systems. However,studies under real-world conditions such as wastewater treatment plants are beginning to show similar outcomes to lab studies,such as an increased frequency of antibiotic resistant genes in systems receiving greater amounts of triclosan in the incoming sewage.

The FDA decision appears to be based in part at least on the precautionary principle i.e. the threat from antibiotic-resistant bacteria is too dire to wait any longer for more conclusive and quantitative evidence.

Another line of evidence which informed the FDA ban relates to the lack of effectiveness of these antibacterials.One of the most surprising findings was the evidence that these products were not significantly more effective at removing germs than soap and water. While alone this would be cause for concern,when this is combined with the knowledge that these highly chlorinated antibacterial chemicals have a questionable chemical safety profile (some evidence exists for endocrine disruption for example),the response becomes obvious:why would we subject ourselves to these chemicals in our homes? There is a place for strong antibacterial compounds,and that is in hospitals,where they are genuinely needed.

The FDA's decision to ban antibacterial compounds such as triclosan for household uses is the right one,and Australia's regulatory authorities should follow suit. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria do not respect international borders,and the fight against antibiotic resistance must be waged as a global community.