Back in fall of 2016, the Food and Drug Administration put out an important new rule telling companies they had to remove certain chemicals from their antibacterial soaps, or else not market them at all.

Two of the most common anti-bacterial chemicals, triclosan and triclocarban, are usually found in both liquid soaps and bar soaps, the FDA noted then.

But what the regulator didn’t say is just how many other places those chemicals can be found, everywhere from clothing to body products, household items, playgrounds, exercise equipment and more.

More than 200 scientists and medical professionals from around the world have signed on to a statement warning about the chemicals could have harmful effects on humans and the environment.

Released on Tuesday, the statement — dubbed “The Florence Statement” and published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives — calls for limiting use of the chemicals and labeling them, along with measures to curtail their environmental impact.

Read: Antibacterial soap is a lie, just like everything else in your life

The chemicals haven’t been studied enough to state outright that they cause certain health problems, the statement said, but important links have been made.

“In most cases, these are unnecessary ingredients in products that are not providing any benefit and may even be causing harm,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group and one of the statement’s authors. So “at this point there really is enough evidence that we think people should move away” from them.

When the FDA issued its rule in September on antibacterial soaps, it said that there was no proof the products worked better than normal soap or that they were safe for frequent use.

“In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term,” the FDA’s Dr. Janet Woodcock said then.

(The FDA has also asked for safety and effectiveness information from makers of hand sanitizer.)

See:Most sunscreen products don’t actually work

Triclosan and triclocarban have been around since the 1950s and 1960s.

Because they help kill bacteria, they were first used mostly in health care areas. Later, they spread to consumer products used for washing and as coatings on other products.

But there’s evidence that these antibacterial chemicals have no major health benefits for consumers, the Tuesday statement said, referring to epidemiological studies and a 2003 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advisory committee report.

But they’ve been linked to increasing allergen sensitivity and disruptions to hormones, the endocrine system and possibly the reproductive system, the statement said, though some of the evidence is from animal studies and may not transfer over to humans.

Because of their possible role in hormone disruption, these chemicals may be especially harmful for pregnant women and children.

Why Processed Cheese and Ground Coffee Are Disappearing

Animal studies have also suggested triclosans could have an effect on the microbiome, which includes gut bacteria, according to the statement.

And, belying their original purpose, triclosan overuse may add to antibiotic resistance, which is one of the biggest threats to global health, according to the World Health Organization. When bacteria become antibiotic-resistant, medical treatments don’t work and infections may spread more readily.

Read more:What’s really concerning about the discovery of an antibiotic-resistant bug and Jim O’Neill wants to offer $1 billion prizes for new antibiotics

The chemical triclosan can be largely found in personal care products, such as body washes, shampoos and conditioners, deodorants, hand creams and toothpastes, the statement said, while triclocarban is mostly in bar soaps.

But they can be found in a wide variety of products, where consumers can’t always tell that they’re present, said the EWG’s Andrews.

Related:Hand sanitizer spread faster than the flu

Products will often, but not always, be labeled as having an antibacterial or antimicrobial coating, he said.

The statement calls for the labeling of all products containing triclosan, triclocarban and other microbials.

But for now, consumers who want to be careful could reach out to a manufacturer if a product is labeled as antimicrobial, or even if it isn’t, he said.

The September FDA decision “means a lot” and speaks to the potential harms of these chemicals, said Diana Zuckerman, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research.

The regulator wouldn’t have changed its mind if the data were ambiguous, she said.

“What’s really clear is that for a lot of uses, the risks outweigh the benefits,” she said. “And the risks outweigh the benefits to the individual, but also the environment.”