Talk:Listerine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] FreshBurst Came First

I don't know who keeps changing it. My parents used FreshBurst long before '02, and I have not seen Cool Mint until '02. The fact these are switched is pure vandalism. I would like to see who does this. TheListUpdater 02:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you could find a citation, that would help! Wikipedia prefers verifiable information. Why should we take your word for it? BTW, removing unverifiable information is not vandalism. --Faith healer 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, TheListUpdater, you've gone about this the wrong way. First of all that warning to "cite" that person for vandalism is not only a threat that wards off new users, it is also empty because they aren't being a vandal if they truly believe that FreshBurst appeared in '02. Also, the fact that your parents used FreshBurst "long before '02" is original research of information that is difficult to verify.
OK, that was a long time ago, but it didn't say that on the website that FreshBurst did come in 2002, so that part is wrong.TheListUpdater 16:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alcohol

what kind of alcohol? if it were the consumable type, wouldn't a drinking alcohol tax be applicable? ✈ James C. 03:07, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

--The alcohol is a de-natured, pharmaceutical grade alcohol that is only present in order to solubolize the essentail oils, which gives Listerine its antiseptic effectivenes.

Well, what happens if you drink it, then? 63.202.81.76 11:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
You get drunk. It's ethanol. But many products contain ethanol that don't have a drinking alcohol tax on them, because they're not meant to be consumed orally. --X 0 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If there was no evidence to back up the claim that it kills odor-causing bacteria, wouldn't the company be sued or something? At the very least the thing about it helping prevent gum disease has to be true, right?

--Listerine has been on the market for over 125 years and has over 130 clinical studies proving its safety and efficacy.


Even if they could be sued, there's no reason to assume that they would be - who would bring the suit? A regulatory authority might ask them to modify their claims, but these generally lack, er, teeth. Since their competitor mouthwashes like to push similar claims, ie. that mouthwashes can usefully ameliorate bad breath, there's unlikely to be a suit (compare something like this).
There are actually a couple of claims here: First that the mouthwash kills "germs", by which they presumably mean normal mouth flora and not some exotic pathogen (the ethanol concentration isn't actually high enough to kill much of anything, though it can suppress growth of some bacteria), and second that bad breath (a) is at least partly caused by such "germs" and (b) can be meaningfully reduced by killing (or suppressing) them. The problem is that the causes of bad breath are all that well-understood, and the cures for it have a long history of being made from pressed snake (with virtually no entries that are supported by any evidence). There'd be a big market for anything that did work, which is why any claim in the area is naturally going to be viewed with suspicion without strong evidence to back it up.
The more recent claim that mouthwash can affect plaque formation (and thus some forms of gingivitis) is also questionable; some people seem to think that some of the ingredients in Listerine (other than ethanol) can reduce it, though the FDA may not be convinced (need a more recent reference for that than I've been able to find). As with bad breath, there are a lot of marginal claims in this area too - my favourite is on all of the toothpastes with marketing bumpf claiming they prevent plaque deposits, when what actually does that is the simple action of brushing itself, pretty much regardless of the paste ingredients (just as mechanical action is what makes flossing work, not the composition of the floss). I don't know whether a proper controlled study has examined whether the vigourous swishing action of a mouthwash is responsible for any benefit. Unfortunately, most of the studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies, and most of the reporting consists of their advertising. - toh 23:29, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

[edit] Scope

How about an article on Scope? Let's avoid free advertizing.

What is even Scope? In the United Kingdom it is a charity for children with disabilities, but I doubt the Scope mentioned here is the same thing. I am assuming it is something well known in America, but not elsewhere, please do remember there are English speaking people not from America so either briefly explain what Scope is, link to a wiki article about or reference an external link which has information on the story! Feebtlas 20:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry for not signing the comment above). Look at the third paragraph of the article. Basically, Scope is a competitor. I'm actually not sure anymore whether it deserves its own article; it doesn't have the history Listerine has. But all it has now is a short sentence in the disambiguation. Twilight Realm 20:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] effect on saliva drug test?

will it effect the out come of the drug test?

Gargling with it wouldn't affect the outcome of a urine or blood test, as enough of it doesn't enter your blood stream to be detected. It will, however, cause a higher reading on a breath analyzer test, as shown on an episode of, I think, Brainiac (a comedy/entertainment/science show from the UK). The breath analyzer systems in use read the amount of alcohol on your breath, and then extrapolates that number to determine the amount in your blood. If there is alcohol in your mouth, it can give false readings as alcohol on your breath. This being said, you'd have to gargle, spit and take the test within a few minutes, or the alcohol would evaporate or be diluted by saliva and swallowed, and then you'd have a normal reading. --X 0 15:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer controversy

There is no evidence that its properties as a solvent, mainly from the 26.9% (in regular Listerine) alcohol, cause an easier reception of carcinogens.

If this were true, there would be no controversy, would there? Well, at least among the rationally minded. I sense a POV problem here, or perhaps the author just neglected to describe the controversy.

A large and often-cited study suggesting such a link is the National Cancer Institute study of 1991. [1] In interviews of 866 patients with oral cancers and 1249 controls of similar age and sex among the general population, researchers concluded that "risks of oral cancer were elevated by 40% among male and 60% among female mouthwash users." They found a proportional correlation between risks in both sexes and duration and frequency of mouthwash use.

The NCI study was refuted by a Journal of the American Dental Association review in 2003. [2] Of the nine studies JADA reviewed, they found that two showed some positive connections between alcohol-containing mouthwash use and oral cancer. However they concluded that "the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that use of [alcohol-containing mouthwash] does not increase the risk of [oropharyngeal cancer]." --Dforest 18:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Benzoic Acid

Listed in the ingredients... I've had 2nd hand explanations from a few people (including a dentist) that Listerine may actually be detrimental to dental health. Most tooth decay is caused by acids (including acidic by-products from microbes); although Listerine is an effective antiseptic, does the acid it contains threaten teeth? I was further told that, after brushing, the protective surface layer of the teeth would have been relatively weakened, making teeth more vulnerable to acids. Perhaps in need of an expert.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EListerine_cba3.html"