Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Anti-Bacterial Soap No Better Than Plain Soap 479

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Bacterial Soap No Better Than Plain Soap

Comments Filter:
  • Unfortunately (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Stanistani ( 808333 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:41AM (#20250067) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • by pete-classic ( 75983 ) <hutnick@gmail.com> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:41AM (#20250071) Homepage Journal
    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
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:48AM (#20250175)
    While I quite agree that plain soap is good enough, I've known some real germ-phobic types, OCD sufferers, hypochondriacs, and similar who wouldn't be able to go out into the world and function without some sort of antibacterial agent in their pocket. What do we tell those people now that their beloved Triclosan is known to just screw things up further?
  • Why use soap? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @11:54AM (#20250243) Homepage Journal
    I'm not a frequent soap user at all, unless I really have some grime going on. I find that a simple rinsing a few times a day, along with the good ole pumice scrub, works wonder -- and keeps my hands soft enough to work with. Since I do a lot of hands-on production, I absolutely HATE the feeling of dry hands that comes along with using soap. Moisturizers are worse, since they always leave a greasy feel -- and when working with print jobs for churches [vipministry.com], I can't leave smudges behind.

    I've always told the wifey to stay away from anti-bacterial anything. A lot of bacteria is GOOD, and the ones that are bad are relatively easy to defend against if you're healthy. We want our bodies to adjust to whatever new bacteria is growing in our homes. Between cleanings, you'll have some growth. The body has a great defensive system already -- it builds the necessary defenses to learn and kill whatever comes into the body.

    I've been sick twice in the last 2 decades -- once when I shook the hand of someone who was days later became VERY ill, and once after I rubbed my eyes after playing craps in a casino late one night. Both times I didn't rinse my hands after -- and I recovered well enough in a matter of days (much faster than the guy I got sick from).

    Let others be suckers and buy into the manufacturer's marketing campaigns about what is healthy and what isn't. Humans have been around for a long time -- longer than soap. Running water > most daily chemicals for living longer and healthier.
  • by rucs_hack ( 784150 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:04PM (#20250375)
    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.
  • by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary@@@yahoo...com> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:10PM (#20250481) Journal
    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:But (Score:4, Interesting)

    by antarctican ( 301636 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:15PM (#20250557) Homepage
    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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bhima ( 46039 ) <(Bhima.Pandava) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:18PM (#20250599) Journal
    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.
  • by future assassin ( 639396 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:19PM (#20250623)
    I've read several months back in a hydroponics gardening magazine that some green houses are now staying away from bleach and other chemicals when flushing their systems between crops. Seems the constant bombardment of flushing agents is mutating pathogens that attack plants. What they are doing now is actually flushing the system with water and then introduce beneficial microbes into the system. Once those are established they replant the greenhouse. Now there is a protective layer or beneficials that out number the pathogens and make it harder to them to get established on/in the plant.
  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:20PM (#20250629)
    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.
  • by skeevy ( 926052 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:34PM (#20250841)

    No matter what kind of soap you use, it is not useful unless you give it time to work. Most people wash their hands for 3-4 seconds. This is nowhere near long enough to kill or remove bacteria. You need to wash your hands for a good solid minute.

    We taught our kids to sing the Alphabet song while washing. When they were done they could rinse

  • Immune system (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Foerstner ( 931398 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @12:48PM (#20251039)
    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.

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

    In fact, it seems that the reverse is true. As we've become more hygenic, the immune system, strong as ever, goes looking for soft targets to beat up. It becomes hypersensitive, creating conditions like allergies and athsma.
  • by miletus ( 552448 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @01:00PM (#20251219)
    This is a good example of why the free market fundamentalists are so often wrong. Most soaps are anti-bacterial because of marketing hype which causes consumers to prefer buying them, when the long term consequences are clear. It's clearly in the public interest to ban or tax or otherwise de-insentivize the purchase of such soaps, but that would violate the holy precepts of the free market.
  • by permaculture ( 567540 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @01:04PM (#20251267) Homepage Journal
    "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.
  • by 0100010001010011 ( 652467 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @01:11PM (#20251357)
    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 insecticide (100:1 mix) among numerous other things.
  • Re:Immune system (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Arterion ( 941661 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @01:40PM (#20251719)
    There was a post on slashdot just a couple of days ago about this. With less stuff for our immune systems to fight, autoimmune diseases are more common. Here's a link [bbc.co.uk] to check out, just for one reference.

    I don't know if it's been proven and tested yet, but it's definitely a thought at least some medical professionals are having.
  • Re:Immune system (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @02:10PM (#20252085) Homepage

    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.

  • by value_added ( 719364 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @02:28PM (#20252345)
    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.
  • by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @02:53PM (#20252689) Homepage

    "(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.

  • not news to me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ouachiski ( 835136 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @03:10PM (#20252893)
    About 20 years ago my grandfather who was a pathologist told me to wash my hands as little as possible in order to keep my immune system strong. To this day the only time I wash my hands is after pooping and before cooking for others. Since then my body has been able to fight of hepatitis B without me even knowing that I ever got it. The only way I found out that I ever had it was when I tried to give blood the blood tests returned that I was a hepatitis antibody carrier. Also with the out break of encephalitis in this area and the sheer number of the mosquitoes it would not surprise me one bit if I have been bitten by an encephalitis carrying mosquito. Basically small weak germs are good for your body, they gives your immune system a work out and keeps it in shape so when it does encounter that really nasty germ it has the strength to fight it off.
  • Re:Immune system (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dosquatch ( 924618 ) * on Thursday August 16, 2007 @03:24PM (#20253057) Journal

    As we've become more hygenic, the immune system, strong as ever, goes looking for soft targets to beat up. It becomes hypersensitive,

    So, essentially, what you're saying is that the more germs an immune system has to practice on, the less likely it is to sweat the small stuff. Or, the less "sickly" the owner is likely to feel or appear.

    Sounds like a good enough argument against neurotic overcleanliness to me.

  • by jfdawes ( 254678 ) on Thursday August 16, 2007 @05:30PM (#20254501)

    Physorg.org, an organization that apparently exercises little oversight over the articles it runs.
    Got any references to back this up?

    Second, read this article by the same author, which says exactly the opposite of the present article: Antibacterial Cleaning Products and Drug Resistance.
    Actually, I believe you're incorrect. This article says two things (paraphrasing):
    "Antibacterial soap isn't any better than normal soap"
    and
    "Antibacterial soap may cause mutations that help bacteria resist Triclosan"

    The article you linked says:
    "Antibacterial soap doesn't cause drug resistance"
    and
    "We don't know if it affects Triclosan, further research is needed"

    This is hardly the opposite. In fact, I believe this new article is the "further research". If you put these together you get: "While antibacterial soap does not cause drug resistance, there is a small risk it will mutate bacteria to cause resistance to Triclosan. You're better off not using it since it's not any better than normal soap"

    NO development of drug resistance or Triclosan resistance has been shown as a result of use of Triclosan, apparently
    This is patently incorrect. The article states that they found resistance when soaps with higher concentrations of Triclosan were used.

    Hmm ... then you invite the reader to infer that "This article is obviously wrong because it was written by someone who looks like she could be a bimbo". ... fun implications that because something isn't certain it's just a guess and that the article was somehow including Triclosan as an antibacterial. .... finally we have an appeal to misleading authority.

    So ... you work for a company that produces Triclosan, or maybe just a company that advertises for one, right? Got stock maybe? A little Triclosan stock? Yeah? Stock?
  • Re:not news to me (Score:2, Interesting)

    by gujo-odori ( 473191 ) on Friday August 17, 2007 @03:47AM (#20258351)
    My wife is from a third-world country and came to the US as an adult and she has similiar anecdotal evidence to relate. When she was born, in the 1970s, the country was so poor that there simply were no vaccinations and such for infants and toddlers. To jumpstart their immune systems, they would give each baby a cut on the hip. She has a scar there, and says everyone born in those days has one like it. It was battlefield medicine, but it worked. It was all they had. They have vaccinations now, but it's mostly funded by WTO money. The country is much more prosperous than it was then, but is still poor overall.

    The general standards of cleanliness, sanitation, refrigeration (or lack thereof, in the tropical heat, no less) are a bit scary when you're used to living in the first world, but the combination of the immune system jumpstart and those unsanitary conditions are probably major contributing factors in her seemingly bulletproof immune system. She is almost never sick, and if she gets a cold, her symptoms will typically have vanished in a day or two. Even if our kids and I all have colds, she normally does not catch one from us. Her whole family is like that. It may also be partly genes, but OTOH, our kids were both born there, had all their vaccinations, and have spent most of their lives in the US. They seem to get about the average number of colds, etc., as other kids their ages, so I think her strong immune system is due more to environmental factors than genes.

    My wife reports that she and her brothers and sisters were all very rarely sick as children, even though they regularly swam in very polluted water (a combination of "who knew?" and the fact that there was nowhere else to swim). Neighborhood bathrooms were a bunch of holes sawed in a covered pier over the river, people would dump garbage in the river, there were sometimes bodies in the river (she saw a number of them when she was a kid), etc., and people swam in it. Of course, it's even worse, today, except for no bodies. If you fell in, I bet you'd die of typhoid before they could even get you out :p

Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.

Working...