Edit: Think of the difference between "lack of safety" and "lack of proof of safety".
> Many liquid soaps labeled antibacterial contain triclosan, an ingredient of concern to many environmental, academic and regulatory groups. Animal studies have shown that triclosan alters the way some hormones work in the body and raises potential concerns for the effects of use in humans. We don’t yet know how triclosan affects humans and more research is needed.
> In addition, laboratory studies have raised the possibility that triclosan contributes to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Some data shows this resistance may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of medical treatments, such as antibiotics.
I feel like you're just being pedantic. The FDA has literally banned triclosan from hand soaps because they feel it does more harm than good, but calling it "unsafe" to you is simply "misinformation."
Plus there's a difference between "proven safe" and shown in animal studies to be unsafe. In this case not only has triclosan not been proven safe but animal studies have suggested it is unsafe.
They're also looking at: banning benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, chloroxylenol, and triclosan from hand sanitizers.
So you can be on any side of this issue you want, but the FDA sides with me. Triclosan is bad, likely unsafe, and definitely never proven safe.
[0] http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.ht...
The animal studies indicate that it alters the way hormones work. Is that sufficient to be unsafe? Wouldn't you have to show that the alterations cause negative health outcomes?
I also don't think the bacterial resistance issue is proven to the point where we should be so confident assessing that the triclosan is unsafe.
Rather, we should see it as no known benefit and some cousin-instances where it could be unsafe.
"We don't know" is most accurate in my book.