Yetanother worry
Russell Grenning
We have a newtoiletdisinfectant.
It prominentlyassertsonitsplasticbottle thatit “Kills 99.9% of germs”which,I assume,issupposed
to provide userswithsome reassurance –confidenceeven –thattheyare safe fromall toilet-lurking
nastiesthatcouldcause illnessorevendeathif thismiracle breakthroughinthe never-endingwar
againstbacteriaand its filthy relativesisusedaccordingtoinstructions.
Thisnotice iscontainedwithinaredcross which,againI presume,issupposedtoremindusthatit is
like,well,the RedCrosswhichdoessuchmarvellousworkworld-wide.Nodoubtitisthe resultof a
lotof high-powered customer-focusresearchbyanadvertisingagency.
Of course,the flipside tothisannouncementisthatthe product “Allows 0.01% of germsto live”
whichwouldn’treallyendearittopotential consumers.
Now,I am notsome sort of hypochondriacbutamI right to worryaboutcatching somethingquite
awful whenIperchon the porcelainbecause 0.01% of germs there are alive andkicking?
No doubtwe can all when Domestos,thatall-purpose bleachandcleanerboldly statedwithoutany
fearof contradictionthatit “Kills all germs – DEAD”. Justwhatsomethingisotherthandeadafterit
has beenkilledapparentlynevereverbotheredthe Domestos folksbackthenbut,today,their
sturdydefence of theirproducthasbeenqualifiedto “Domestoskillsgermsdead”whichisfollowed
by a fine printlistof the germsthat itdoesallegedlykill.
Are there newgermsthat itdoesn’tkill?Couldthere be more than0.01% of germsthat escape the
destructive force of today’s Domestos?
There mustbe lotsandlots of newgermsaroundnowadaysthanwhenI was a ladbecause there are
germ-killingproductsnowthatdidn’texistthen.Everythingfromhand-sanitizingtissues toanti-
bacterial wipesnowonthe market allegedly ensuresthatwe have agerm-free house. Those who
put theirlovedonesatriskbynot usingthese products shouldbe ashamedof themselvesisthe clear
message.Imustremembertotell mymothertohang her headinshame for onlyusingsoapwhenI
was a kiddie –it’snothingshortof a miracle thatI survived.
The SeniorBrand Manager forPlaytex ProductsInc,the makersof Wet Ones,Ms Maria Lovera,has
beenquotedby TheWall Street Journalas saying, “The99.99% messageis more powerfulamong
consumersthat‘antibacterial’or‘germ kill’ alone.”
The Universityof Ottawa(Canada) testedthree hand-sanitizerproductsona groupof 13 year-olds
and foundthattheyonlykilledbetween46% and 60% of microbesontheirhandsdespite the
99.99% claim. MicrobiologistJasonTetrowhoundertookthe testspointedoutthatthere isa vast
difference betweenkids’dirtyhandsandlaboratorytestingwhichis,he said, “theoptimal
environmentforthehand sanitizerto work” and, of course,this “differsgreatly fromthe real-world
setting.”
“Real-world application is completely subjectto interpretation and nothing isguaranteed,” saida
spokesmanforone of the productstested. “Nothing guaranteed”????Butwhataboutthe 99.99%
strike rate againstthe nastiesclaimedbythese products?
The Wall Street Journalarticle citedearliernoted, “To cite a 99.9% fatality rate, manufacturersdon’t
haveto kill 99.9% of all known bugs.Regulationsdon’trequirethemto disclose which bugsthey
exterminate,justthattheproductsareeffective againsta representativerangeof microbes.For
instance,many productscan’tkill ‘clostridiumdifficile’, a gastrointestinalscourge,orthehepatitis A
virus,which inflamestheliver. Yet by killing other,morecommon bugs,they can claim 99.9%
effectiveness.
While thisreferstoUS standards,Australianstandardsare similar.
Andone sneakylittle waythe manufacturersof productsclaiminga99.99% successrate can get
aroundexplainingademonstrablefailure of theirproductistosay that itwas because of human
error. For example,formanyhand washerstowork as claimed,youwouldhave tokeepscrubbing
for the time ittakesto sing Happy Birthday twice.
What productadvisesyouto dothis?None as far as I am aware because half of theirappeal isthat
theywill wipe outthe nasties instantly.
Dr JeanSchoeni whoundertakesproducttestinginthe USA saysit is “highly likely” that usersof
cleaningproductsdon’tgetthe optimal benefitbecausemanyneedtositonsurfacesto be cleaned
for at leasttenminutestoattaindesiredkill rates.Whowaitsthatlong?
I’m99.99% certainthat mostof us don’t.

Yet another worry

  • 1.
    Yetanother worry Russell Grenning Wehave a newtoiletdisinfectant. It prominentlyassertsonitsplasticbottle thatit “Kills 99.9% of germs”which,I assume,issupposed to provide userswithsome reassurance –confidenceeven –thattheyare safe fromall toilet-lurking nastiesthatcouldcause illnessorevendeathif thismiracle breakthroughinthe never-endingwar againstbacteriaand its filthy relativesisusedaccordingtoinstructions. Thisnotice iscontainedwithinaredcross which,againI presume,issupposedtoremindusthatit is like,well,the RedCrosswhichdoessuchmarvellousworkworld-wide.Nodoubtitisthe resultof a lotof high-powered customer-focusresearchbyanadvertisingagency. Of course,the flipside tothisannouncementisthatthe product “Allows 0.01% of germsto live” whichwouldn’treallyendearittopotential consumers. Now,I am notsome sort of hypochondriacbutamI right to worryaboutcatching somethingquite awful whenIperchon the porcelainbecause 0.01% of germs there are alive andkicking? No doubtwe can all when Domestos,thatall-purpose bleachandcleanerboldly statedwithoutany fearof contradictionthatit “Kills all germs – DEAD”. Justwhatsomethingisotherthandeadafterit has beenkilledapparentlynevereverbotheredthe Domestos folksbackthenbut,today,their sturdydefence of theirproducthasbeenqualifiedto “Domestoskillsgermsdead”whichisfollowed by a fine printlistof the germsthat itdoesallegedlykill. Are there newgermsthat itdoesn’tkill?Couldthere be more than0.01% of germsthat escape the destructive force of today’s Domestos? There mustbe lotsandlots of newgermsaroundnowadaysthanwhenI was a ladbecause there are germ-killingproductsnowthatdidn’texistthen.Everythingfromhand-sanitizingtissues toanti- bacterial wipesnowonthe market allegedly ensuresthatwe have agerm-free house. Those who put theirlovedonesatriskbynot usingthese products shouldbe ashamedof themselvesisthe clear message.Imustremembertotell mymothertohang her headinshame for onlyusingsoapwhenI was a kiddie –it’snothingshortof a miracle thatI survived. The SeniorBrand Manager forPlaytex ProductsInc,the makersof Wet Ones,Ms Maria Lovera,has beenquotedby TheWall Street Journalas saying, “The99.99% messageis more powerfulamong consumersthat‘antibacterial’or‘germ kill’ alone.” The Universityof Ottawa(Canada) testedthree hand-sanitizerproductsona groupof 13 year-olds and foundthattheyonlykilledbetween46% and 60% of microbesontheirhandsdespite the 99.99% claim. MicrobiologistJasonTetrowhoundertookthe testspointedoutthatthere isa vast difference betweenkids’dirtyhandsandlaboratorytestingwhichis,he said, “theoptimal environmentforthehand sanitizerto work” and, of course,this “differsgreatly fromthe real-world setting.”
  • 2.
    “Real-world application iscompletely subjectto interpretation and nothing isguaranteed,” saida spokesmanforone of the productstested. “Nothing guaranteed”????Butwhataboutthe 99.99% strike rate againstthe nastiesclaimedbythese products? The Wall Street Journalarticle citedearliernoted, “To cite a 99.9% fatality rate, manufacturersdon’t haveto kill 99.9% of all known bugs.Regulationsdon’trequirethemto disclose which bugsthey exterminate,justthattheproductsareeffective againsta representativerangeof microbes.For instance,many productscan’tkill ‘clostridiumdifficile’, a gastrointestinalscourge,orthehepatitis A virus,which inflamestheliver. Yet by killing other,morecommon bugs,they can claim 99.9% effectiveness. While thisreferstoUS standards,Australianstandardsare similar. Andone sneakylittle waythe manufacturersof productsclaiminga99.99% successrate can get aroundexplainingademonstrablefailure of theirproductistosay that itwas because of human error. For example,formanyhand washerstowork as claimed,youwouldhave tokeepscrubbing for the time ittakesto sing Happy Birthday twice. What productadvisesyouto dothis?None as far as I am aware because half of theirappeal isthat theywill wipe outthe nasties instantly. Dr JeanSchoeni whoundertakesproducttestinginthe USA saysit is “highly likely” that usersof cleaningproductsdon’tgetthe optimal benefitbecausemanyneedtositonsurfacesto be cleaned for at leasttenminutestoattaindesiredkill rates.Whowaitsthatlong? I’m99.99% certainthat mostof us don’t.