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: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?

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..

[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..

[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.

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: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.

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.

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.

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].

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

[leathered (780018)]

Hans, is that you?

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....

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: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)]

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

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.