Anti-Bacterial Soap No Better Than Plain Soap

eldavojohn writes to advise us to stop buying antibacterial soap, as it's no more effective than the regular stuff. And, using it introduces a risk of mutation of bacteria. From the article: "The team looked at 27 studies conducted between 1980 and 2006, and found that soaps containing triclosan within the range of concentrations commonly used in the community setting (0.1 to 0.45 percent wt./vol.) were no more effective than plain soaps. Triclosan is used in higher concentrations in hospitals and other clinical settings, and may be more effective at reducing illness and bacteria. Triclosan works by targeting a biochemical pathway in the bacteria that allows the bacteria to keep its cell wall intact. Because of the way triclosan kills the bacteria, mutations can happen at the targeted site... a mutation could mean that the triclosan can no longer get to the target site to kill the bacteria because the bacteria and the pathway have changed form."

news for nerds?

[Gabest (852807)]

what is a soap?

Re:

[middlemen (765373)]

what is a soap?

Something that you bend over to pick up when you are in prison.

Re:news for nerds?

[evil agent (918566)]

what is a soap?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP [wikipedia.org]

Anybody have experience setting this up to protect machines against bacterial infections?

Re:

[TopShelf (92521)]

And here I thought it stood for the well-known sales technique, Seriously Overhyped Acronym Proliferation.

new subject line..

[middlemen (765373)]

Anti-Bacterial Soap Sells Better than Plain Soap

Hurray for marketing!!!

Re:new subject line..

[Himring (646324)]

Both hurt if they get in your peepee.

Re:new subject line..

[Killjoy_NL (719667)]

My god you must be hung like a sperm whale *pun intended* if you can fit a soap in your wang :D

Re:new subject line..

[antarctican (301636)]

Anti-Bacterial Soap Sells Better than Plain Soap

Hurray for marketing!!!

Sadly yes. Last time I went to buy hand soap for home, of the two dozen different brands and sub-brand products on the shelf, only TWO were not antibacterial.

Even if I want to be a good buy and not use antibacterial soap, I can't.

Of course being exposed to some bacteria over your life is a good thing anyhow - it builds the immune system. That's why parents should let their kids go out side and play/eat the dirt, they'll be better for it in the long run.

But you are right, screw the facts, hurray for marketing!

Re:new subject line..

[spottedkangaroo (451692)]

Sadly yes. Last time I went to buy hand soap for home, of the two dozen different brands and sub-brand products on the shelf, only TWO were not antibacterial.

This is particularly irritating for those of us that are allergic to triclosan. It's in all soap and all deoderent these days.

Happily, it's in non of these products: http://www.kirksnatural.com/ [kirksnatural.com]

Re:new subject line..

[value_added (719364)]

This is particularly irritating for those of us that are allergic to triclosan. It's in all soap and all deoderent these days.

Happily, it's in non of these products: [product placement snipped]

This may sound reasonable to many at first glance, but it strikes me the same as hearing someone say, "Hydrogenated vegetable oil is in all food you buy, but it isn't in [insert name of favourite snack food]".

My reaction is always, "No, it's not. Hydrogenated vegetable oil is in most processed food and food products that comes from some manufacturer and marketed in an attractive box to those walking down the food aisles in your local supermarket, but it definitely is not in the sandwich I'm eating, or in any of the food I buy or in any of the food many people buy."

With respect to soap, have you ever noticed that walking down the soap aisle of a supermarket, your nose starts acting up? I have no allergies and I want to sneeze. The "soap" that you're buying isn't soap and hasn't been for years. In fact, most of it is a cheap commercial detergent mixed with a variety of other ingredients (foaming agents, colors, perfumes, etc.) to compensate for the original nasty ingredients, and then shaped into a soap-like shape and put into a colourful box. The liquid soaps are essentially shampoo with colour.

Real soap has always been lye and fat. The lye (sodium hydroxide) was obtained by passing water through burnt animal bones, wood ashes, etc. The fat was usually animal, but vegetable fats (olive oil, for example) were often used. Today, most fats are considered too expensive, and the soap making process requires too much time (also expensive) for most manufacturers. As a result, you get those nasty detergent bars in your local grocers, right next to the lotions (fake fats, if you will) sold to further offset the use of the fake soaps.

Companies and individuals have been making "specialty" (whatever that means) or "handmade" (another silly term) soaps for years, More recently, the popularity of such soap has experienced a boom, and you can find "real" soap just about anywhere. The irony, of course, is that most any "handmade" soap available today is better for your skin, smells better, is environmentally friendly and is actually cheaper as it simply lasts longer because you use far less of it. And, curiously, soap removes bacteria from your skin just fine.

So, forget the product-A vs. product-B recommendations. If you buy the "real" stuff, there's no need to bother with anything that involves spending your life reading labels.

Re:Immune system

[Deagol (323173)]

There's absolutely no evidence that a lack of exposure to bacteria reduces the efficacy of the immune system.

One of those diseases (Polio, I think) in the first half of the last century was often referred to as an "upper class" disease, because the people living in the upper crust of society weren't as unwashed and surrounded by filth as their lower class counterparts at the time. Therefore, the lower class kids were infected and died less frequently than the upper class kids because their immune systems were worked harder earlier in life.

Re:new subject line..

[secPM_MS (1081961)]

Plain soap got commoditized and the profit margin dropped. Hence, the manufacturers went looking for some new "improvement" that they could add that would allow them to command a price premium. Of course, once they saw incremental increases in sales for the "improved" competitive product, the other manufacturers followed. Now they all have the same situation with somewhat higher costs and we are worse off -- there is massive exposure to the chemical agents and the bugs are being selected for resistance. As for me, I have taken to buying my soap from a "organic" company just to avoid all the "extras". I have no problem using synthetic agents where apporpriate, but generic use is not appropriate.

As for germ phobia, I have a short, but relevant, observation.

When you are a first-time mother of a new-born, when the pacifier hits the ground you wash it off and sterilize it before it goes into the child's mouth again.

When your newborn second child drops their pacifier onto the ground, you wipe it off and stick it back in their mouth. After all, eating dirt didn't appear to hurt #1.

When your newborn third child drops their pacifier onto the ground, "Fido, fetch". Then you wipe the worst of the dog slobber off the pacifier and stick it back into their mouth. You have observed that dog germs and dirt didn't hurt numbers 1 and 2.

Unfortunately

[Stanistani (808333)]

Over the last few years it's become harder to find hand soap (at least the liquid type) that isn't antibacterial. The fad has pushed the added chemicals into all the major brands.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Monkey (795756)]

I've started making my own soap. Mostly because I have that Mad Scientist bug and it involves toxic chemicals (Lye), and partly because MacGyver is my patron saint. It's fun, and cheep in comparison to the price of soap. All you need is oil, lye, a few buckets and some rely big pans. Try soapcalc.com for getting your ratios right.

I've Been Saying This for Years

[pete-classic (75983)]

I've been saying for years that plain soap is good enough, and that it's bad for us as a species to use anti-bacterial soap. I have "body wash" in my soap dispenser in the bathroom, because all the "hand soap" is anti-bacterial these days.

Just goes to show that even an uninformed, loud-mouthed, opinionated jerk is right sometimes.

-Peter

Physics versus Chemistry versus Biology

[goombah99 (560566)]

Soap, a surfactant, kills using physics. It turns lipid membranes inside out. Also by reducing surface tension it creates other havoc (e.g. it suffocates garden insects who drown when their air-pores are blocked ). It's essentially impossible to evolve away from this without immense changes to the very design of the but. Sure it can be done but it's an enormous burden on the germ.

Chlorine kills with chemistry. It tends to react with a lot of things and even create radicals. It's a little easier to deal with for bugs since they encounter oxidizing environments naturally and have learned to adapt, but it's still so generic an attack that in high concentration it's very lethal and almost impossible to mutate away from.

Bacteria-cide works by biology, targeting some very specific feature of the bug that is mutable. The difference between antibiotics and "bacteria-cide" is largely the degree to which the target is mutable. Target the ribosome machinery and it's unlikely the bug can mutate in time--antibiotic. Target something less unique and primitive and the bug mutates eventually.

Cook's Illustrated Recommends Vinegar

[spun (1352)]

For cleaning vegetables anyway, a mild vinegar solution killed more bacteria on the surface of vegetables than did soap. The food scientists at the magazine explained that lowering the pH interferes with many kinds of biological processes inside bacterial cells. A quick Google search turned up this interesting site [michaeland...ouffer.com] that recommends using hydrogen peroxide as well.

That being said, I think we should trust our immune systems more. Unless the immune system is compromised in some way, it does a bang up job fighting off most bacteria. When I was a kid, I played in the dirt and ate bugs. Now, I never get sick and I have no allergies. I think over-protecting the immune system not only weakens it, but causes it to focus on the wrong types of things, creating more allergies.

Re:

[Abcd1234 (188840)]

Meh, I grew up with dogs and cats. Today, I'm allergic (extremely so, in the case of cats). Childhood exposure doesn't seem to do a damn thing, unfortunately...

Re:Physics versus Chemistry versus Biology

[kripkenstein (913150)]

Good summary. Note, however, that soap doesn't even need to kill germs - soap along with the mechanical action of hand washing is meant to carry germs away with the soap down the drain. This is something that would be extremely difficult to evolve a protection against, and therefore is a very useful strategy.

Re:Physics versus Chemistry versus Biology

[by Anonymous Coward]

You know, that was a pretty good post until you ended it with 'STFU'. Just because someone isn't 100% accurate doesn't mean they aren't making a worthy contribution to a story. The post you were complaining about was still informative and illustrated the primary types of attacks against bacteria. Unless you're Ken Jennings it isn't realistic to expect everyone who makes an informative post that's more than a few sentences to be 100% factually accurate.

Re:

[eebra82 (907996)]

"I've been saying for years that plain soap is good enough"

I take it your conversations with women don't end up that well, at least for the past few years?

Re:I've Been Saying This for Years

[Scaba (183684)]

I've been saying for years that plain soap is good enough...

I'm glad to see your unwavering vision and fortitude in carrying this message, even in the face of growing adversity, has rewarded you with the sweet taste of vindication. Victory has never been so richly deserved, my friend.

Corroborating old news

[Radon360 (951529)]

The combination of scrubbing your hands with soap -- antibacterial or not -- and rinsing them with water loosens and removes bacteria from your hands.

From: Mayo Clinic Article 05 Dec 2005 [mayoclinic.com]

It has been known for quite some time that it's the mechanical action that does an important part of the work for disinfecting your hands. The water and soap just help the process by carrying dirt and bacteria away. This is part of the reason that you don't see hand sanitizers allowed as a replacement for proper hand washing at restaurants and other commercial food prep areas.

Don't try to fight it...

[infestedsenses (699259)]

I, for one, welcome our new mutant bacteria soap overlords.

The other bad thing about antibacterial soaps..

[the_rajah (749499)]

is that they tend to dry and irritate the skin more than plain old soap. This makes the skin actually more vulnerable to pathogens. I, too, have been advising folks to just use plain old soap and water and avoid antibacterial soaps. My grandmother used to make her own lye and lard soap. Maybe not such a bad idea. Being a germophobe isn't necessarily a good idea.

speaking as a former nurse

[rucs_hack (784150)]

When I trained as a nurse in the early nineties we were taught to fear the germ. They piled on so much shite about asepsis that you could end up paranoid about bacteria. I am not exaggerating...

On the wards we had anti bacterial soap, and cleaning alcohol dispensers, and there was a strict routine, wash with the soap, then the alcohol, and do so many, many times throughout the day.

The result was nurses with awful skin, and screw the patients, *we* were getting infections.

Within a year someone with a brain dumped the routine, and our soap/alcohol dispensers were replaced with non scented, ordinary liquid soap. Amazingly enough the much espoused explosion of infections because of the mighty germ failed to materialize.

Then they buggered it all up by replacing in house cleaners with minimum wage contract workers, and we got a whole new set of problems, but that's another story.

What surprises me is that this is news now. as far as I'm concerned, this was all sorted out fifteen years ago. I guess different hospitals have different standards.

Re:speaking as a former nurse

[permaculture (567540)]

"Then they buggered it all up by replacing in house cleaners with minimum wage contract workers, and we got a whole new set of problems, but that's another story."

You don't say? There's an article in the current UK publication 'Private Eye' about cleaners in Welsh hospitals. After reverting from minimum wage contract workers back to in house cleaners again, they cut MRSA infections by some large percentage.

Evidently in house cleaners really do care more about doing the job right.

How to breed tough germs

[Opportunist (166417)]

When you're looking for antibiotic resistant, tough-as-steel and unkillable bacteria, you don't go to a biology lab. You go to a hospital.

When you hear that some hospital has a problem with bacteria, stay away. Far away. Preferably you're on another continent. Yes, even if it's just some "normal" bacteria strand that causes something like a mild sneeze or something else that's usually harmless and goes away in a week or two of rest.

Simple reason: There's nothing in the world that could kill those critters. Those are the descendents of the bacteria that survived the onslaught of the toughest anti-bac crap that's available to mankind.

That is btw also the reason why taking antibiotics for harmless junk illnesses is about the worst thing you can do, surpassed in stupidity only by taking them only 'til the symptoms end. If you accomplish anything that way, it is to toughen the bacteria, but not yourself. They'll be back with a vengeance, and then those ABs won't hit them anymore. They adapt amazingly quickly. Kill them all, ok. Kill 99.999% of them and you're in for trouble.

Re:How to breed tough germs

[the_humeister (922869)]

Another huge issue? Farmers feeding their livestock anti-bacterial drugs to make them grow bigger. WTF??? And this is fully endorsed by veterinarians. So our meat supply is also breeding anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Our society is so stupid with regards to this dilemma...

triclosan

[circletimessquare (444983)]

i think i remember reading somewhere that chemical derivatives of triclosan are endocrine mimics. which means they mess with things like amphibian reproduction (amphibians are on the decline around the world). triclosan is found in 60 percent of American stream and rivers now

and you can even find triclosan in breast milk now too: it gets in our food via fertilizer. hey, when you flush it down the drain, it has to go somewhere. sometimes it comes back to you

now normally, a slight level of this chemical or that chemical is no big deal. for example, chloroform and dioxin are chemical byproducts of triclosan reacting with chlorinated water. but that doesn't matter, as the levels of those scary sounding chemicals are the same as normal background readings, meaning hysterically mentioning them has no real scientific basis for alarm (but is effective propaganda for the scientifically uninitiated)

but endocrine mimics are different, as the slightest of levels really can have an effect on biological processes. but i guess that's ok, because between all of the birth control, propecia, viagra, and xanax we're also pissing and flushing into our waterways, yes, our animals and children will all be hermaphrodites, but they will have a full head of hair, a hard on, and be strangely blissful about it all

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa029&arti cleID=024FEAE8-E7F2-99DF-323D8E02C4E48BF6&pageNumb er=1&catID=9 [sciam.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan [wikipedia.org]

Buy soap "base" online

[Elias Ross (1260)]

My wife and I buy "soap base" in bulk and use it. It's intended to be mixed with fragrances and coloring (and I suppose resold) but we use it straight. It's very inexpensive, though you have to buy empty dispenser bottles to use it.

Here's the site [fromnaturewithlove.com] we order from. There's no "anti-bacteria" chemicals in it, and for people like me who hate fragrances, it's hypo-allergenic without the boutique price. For a gallon, it's 25 cents an ounce. And it should last about two years per person. If you want something with an interesting label, go with Dr. Bronner's [amazon.com].

For those chemists (cooks) out there, soap is easy to make yourself [about.com].

Re:

[0100010001010011 (652467)]

Dr. Bronner's Stuff *rocks*. I grew up on their Peppermint Oil soap. It's expensive, but considering I use it for about everything, it's worth it.

It's the only soap that will completely take off the smell of gasoline or diesel fuel. It'll remove any and all grease from my body. I've used it as laundry soap once. My best use for it: Shaving Cream. I put the soap on my face completely dry, then rub in 1:1 of water and it creates a nice lather. It's like after shave is built in.

The bottle says it works as an i

Marketing strikes again

[sjames (1099)]

Once more,marketing gives us a product that cost's more, does no good, and may ultimately harm millions all for the sake of the almighty buck.

Once again, they face no sanctions for blatantly lying to the public for years.

Re:But

[by Anonymous Coward]

But "IF I DID" murder my wife, and I am not saying I did, for nagging me about being online all day, which would be best to clean my hands so the CSI people can't catch me ?

Re:But

[ItsLenny (1132387)]

I recommend a strong bleach solution ...not so strong that it hurts but as strong as you can toler.... oh a what?... a joke.. oh.. yea of course.

Re:But

[leathered (780018)]

Hans, is that you?

Alcohol Based...

[camperdave (969942)]

just use the alcohol based ones. No mutations!

Not only that, but when you're camping, the sanitizer gel makes for a good fire starting paste.

Re:Alcohol Based...

[jdunn14 (455930)]

You can also sterilize cuts with it.... although it does burn like a hell. Yes, I've done it. Have the scars from landing in 6" of water on top of an oyster bar. Purel and electrical tape was all we had....

Re:But

[antarctican (301636)]

my fiance is a med student and has been saying this to me for years (the negative effects of antibacterial everything in the household). It makes perfect sense if you stop and think about it. As for the dry skin thing, she can attest to that too.

And she is completely right. I work in computational biology, working for a microbiology professor who specializes in bacteria. Never get her started on antibacterial products, she's said more then once she wishes she could rip them all off the shelves of stores because of the risk they pose for mutations.

Antibacterial is bad, m'kay?

Re:But

[iminplaya (723125)]

I work in computational biology

So, you're studying the germs on your keyboard? They say your toilet seat is cleaner, but I don't think I would eat off of either one of them.

Triclosan is used to prevent skin fungal infection

[Futurepower(R) (558542)]

"(the negative effects of antibacterial everything in the household)"

Tricosan is bacteriostatic, but so is soap. One of the points of washing is to get rid of bacteria. Every time you do anything against bacteria, you encourage bacterial evolution to find a new pathway.

The article has fraudulent elements, or at least sleazy elements, in my opinion. This is just a Slashdot comment; the subject warrants a lot more investigation, which I plan to do.

1. First, the Slashdot story only references a press release on Physorg.org, an organization that apparently exercises little oversight over the articles it runs.

2. Second, read this article by the same author, which says exactly the opposite of the present article: Antibacterial Cleaning Products and Drug Resistance [cdc.gov].

   Quote: "... we did not observe a significant impact on antimicrobial drug resistance during the 1-year period..."

3. NO development of drug resistance or Triclosan resistance has been shown as a result of use of Triclosan, apparently, although people have been speculating about that for at least two decades. There are some chemical pathways that bacteria cannot abandon.

   The story is not new, but is apparently chosen only because it easily excites the popular imagination.

4. The sloppiness and over-valuation of the work suggests either: 1) The University of Michigan does not deserve our confidence, or possibly 2) Allison Aiello is allowed to be sloppy because she is attractive [umich.edu].

5. This quote from the U. of M. press release is pure, wild speculation, not supported by theory or experiment, apparently: "Because of the way triclosan kills the bacteria, mutations CAN happen at the targeted site. Aiello says a mutation COULD mean that the triclosan can no longer get to the target site to kill the bacteria because the bacteria and the pathway have changed form." [my emphasis]

6. Yes, Triclosan may not prevent bacterial or virus infection. But no one said it did. The purpose of Triclosan is to prevent or reduce skin fungal infections, and it does that very well, in my experience.

Re:

[bhima (46039)]

Seriously... just lay off the stuff.

It's just as bad that your children don't develop a resistance to everyday germs.

My sister's got this weird OCD thing going with alcohol based antibacterials... she's beginning to sound like a heroin addict.

Re:But

[2.7182 (819680)]

Will she trade sex for Purel ? My kind of addict - ready to do anything to get her fix AND completely germ free !

Re:But

[emeryw (1128863)]

You're right. If it's alcohol based, it will just dessicate the bacteria and there's no chance of developing resistance. That's why you see little purell containers around the hospitals now. Alcohol based cleaners are also (surprisingly) easier on your hands than the old water-and-soap method.

(I've got a degree in cell biology, and I'm a med student, so that's where my info is coming from)

Re:But

[2.7182 (819680)]

Washing with soap basically washes off the dirt and oils, which hold the germs, down the drain. Are you afraid you'll develop germs that stick to you hands and soap won't get them off ?

Re:Why use soap?

[Billosaur (927319)]

It's always been my contention that attempting to sterilize the environment is what's going to get us killed off eventually. Call it "War of the Worlds" Syndrome -- eventually we wipe out most bacterial life, with the possible exception of those most beneficial to us, which have been genetically altered. We move out into the universe to claim our rightful place and are felled by some bacteria from another planet that we cannot acquire an immunity to since our immune systems are so weak from not having to fight off bacteria/viruses.

The fact is our immune systems have to be exposed to these things in order to give them a chance to build up resistance/immunity. I've actually never thought of a cold as a bad thing, if it increase the armament that my immune system has available to fight disease. I used to be pretty immune to colds, though over the years stress and lack of rest have compromised my ability to fight things off like I used to.

The other scary part of the equation is, if this is killing off 99.9% of bacteria, what about that last .1%? Aren't we really creating super bacteria this way?

Re:Why use soap?

[choongiri (840652)]

I used to be pretty immune to colds

No, you didn't.

The common cold is a virus, and every one is different. It's exceedingly rare to develop immunity to a virus by any method other than infection with that exact virus, or immunization. It's possible that your immune system used to do a better job of fighting the virus off before you developed noticeable symptoms, but you certainly weren't immune.

Re:From a handwashing pro...

[Bombula (670389)]

Get some help for your OCD. Seriously. Living germ-free is dangerous - it compromises your immune system, often with nasty long-run consequences. If you've got kids, for goodness' sake don't impose your OCD on them. Ultra-sterile environments in developmental years are what cause asthma and other immunological disorders. We are expressly designed to function in conjunction with microbial ecosystems - both inside our bodies and outside.

Re:

[RexRhino (769423)]

It's all about money. Damn the environment, health, people's lives, future as long as someone is making a ton of money.

No, it is all about scared mothers thinking about the children. Billy has the sniffles, try telling Billy's mom that there is nothing you can give him for it! Or that little billy doesn't have to worry about bacteria on his hands, because it is very unlikely that it will make him sick! And watch how quick some mom is going to try to strangle you for not wanting to protect the children.

I am suprised that the government hasn't banned non-bacterial soap yet.

Re:

[2.7182 (819680)]

No that is not true. OCD occurs in the same percentage of the population, independent of the culture. See

this. [sagepub.com]