FDA Seeks Tougher Rules For Antibacterial Soaps 160
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the getting-clean dept.
from the getting-clean dept.
barlevg writes "It's long been a concern that the widespread use of antibacterial soaps is contributing towards the evolution of drug-resistant 'superbugs,' but as the Washington Post reports, the Food and Drug Administration also does not believe that there is any evidence to support that the antibacterial agents in soaps are any more effective at killing germs than simply washing with soap and water. Under the terms of a proposal under consideration, the FDA will require that manufacturers making such claims will have to show proof. If they fail to do so, they will be required to change their marketing or even stop selling the products altogether."
Come on (Score:5, Insightful)
The bigger problem is antibiotic use on farms, and the FDA's recent toothless rules ( http://theweek.com/article/index/254057/why-the-fdas-new-antibiotic-rules-fall-short [theweek.com] ) rely on the farmers who use them to mediate the results of cruel conditions (overcrowding, etc) and the companies who sell them to voluntarily cut back on their use. Good luck with that.
Meantime they hit hard on Purell users. Bah.
Re: (Score:3)
Purell is neither soap nor "antibacterial" in this sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was considered an "antibacterial". I've learned something but can't edit my post (the point of which remains intact) else I would. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
It is anti-bacterial. It just isn't done with antibiotics. And there isn't a resistance. Not that would be a hideous situation.
Re:Come on (Score:4, Interesting)
It is anti-bacterial. It just isn't done with antibiotics. And there isn't a resistance. Not that would be a hideous situation.
Plenty of organisms develop resistances to alcohol, bleach, peroxide, and other things we use.
I don't know why people believe otherwise. Your own skin is evidence of such resistance. Your typical seed is resistant to harsh stomach acids. Mold spores resist the hell out of crap. And water bears are on a whole other level.
You could pick just about any bacteria or virus you want and breed in resistance to ethanol, chlorine, fire, whatever. Whether or not the resulting generation of bacteria or virus does the same thing afterward is a separate issue.
Re:Come on (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know why people believe otherwise. Your own skin is evidence of such resistance.
Because becoming immune to an oxidizing agent is a heck of a lot different than becoming immune to something targetting specific proteins / receptors / metabolic paths.
Ie, becoming immune to bleach would be sort of like if a bacteria became immune to breaching the cell wall with a needle.
Re: (Score:2)
HCl in stomachs springs to mind - the gut flora there probably thrive off the acidic environment, rather than just being immune to it.
Re: (Score:3)
It is anti-bacterial. It just isn't done with antibiotics. And there isn't a resistance. Not that would be a hideous situation.
Plenty of organisms develop resistances to alcohol, bleach, peroxide, and other things we use. I don't know why people believe otherwise. Your own skin is evidence of such resistance. Your typical seed is resistant to harsh stomach acids. Mold spores resist the hell out of crap. And water bears are on a whole other level. You could pick just about any bacteria or virus you want and breed in resistance to ethanol, chlorine, fire, whatever. Whether or not the resulting generation of bacteria or virus does the same thing afterward is a separate issue.
That "separate issue" is the only important part. The truth is, bleach, alcohol, and a variety of other stuff that renders the life form deaded work Those things have not yet, or rarely have had a resistance develop that both allows the organism to carry on, but also live in the environment.
It simply hasn't happened. So those tools continue to work. Because they might not work due to as of yet not described mechanism the organisms might magically create isn't a good reason not to use them.
Re: (Score:3)
Resistence to soap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the first point is entirely true: widespread use on farms is where one of the major problems are.
Home-use soaps are potentially a concern, but a much smaller factor.
Your confusion is appropriate: the marketing of things as "antibacterial" is inconsistent and, mostly, stupid. There are soaps (and other consumer products, like plastics) that include a wide variety of different antibiotics, ones that include different kinds of bacteriacides altogether, and ones that include simple things like bleach and ethanol. Purell, which is ethanol, is certainly antibacterial, in that it's excellent at killing bacteria. But in this article, when they're talking about "antibacterial soaps", that's not what they mean. So consistent and helpful!
Re: (Score:2)
The antibacterial in most hand sanitizers [wikipedia.org] is simply alcohol. Microbes cannot build up a resistance to the 50% or better alcohol content. However it isn't effective against all microbes, no bacteria can survive it [infectionc...ltoday.com].
Re:Come on (Score:5, Informative)
The antibacterial in most hand sanitizers [wikipedia.org] is simply alcohol.
Yes, but hand sanitizers are not the subject of the article. "Antibacterial soaps" are, which is an entirely different subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, but the GGP that did not read the article was ranting about hand sanitizers.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, but the GGP that did not read the article was ranting about hand sanitizers.
Well, I suppose that's why it got modded into oblivion so that I never saw it, while your post was modded up and appeared by itself without sufficient context...
Re: (Score:2)
Working in the food industry we use a thing called BLEACH. It is an acid
You are right it kills microbes, but you really need to re-read chemistry 101
There is good bacteria too. (Score:5, Informative)
We are covered with bacteria a lot of it is rather helpful to us. So by using Anti-bacterial soap we do kill off the good bacteria too.
Or worse we make the good Bacteria go bad. Because when we try to kill it, it gives off chemicals to try to protect itself which then turns harmful for us.
We are better off washing our hands with normal soap, which washes away large colonies of bacteria, but doesn't kill them off, as well as foreign contaminates that could cause problems too.
Re:There is good bacteria too. (Score:5, Interesting)
We are covered with bacteria a lot of it is rather helpful to us. So by using Anti-bacterial soap we do kill off the good bacteria too.
Absoolutely. The hygiene hypothesis [wikipedia.org] suggests that those "good" bacteria not only play a role in things like digestion, etc., but also may be necessary for a normal functioning immune system.
It may be even worse than that. Triclosan, one of the most common compound used in antibacterial soaps, tends to hang out in the environment for quite a while [wired.com]. What is the effect of large amounts of antibacterial stuff ending up in our systems and the environment around us? Could it eventually disrupt the growth of the normal bacterial biome around us, which is necessary to the normal functioning of our bodies?
I don't think we should be alarmist about this, but it's something at least worth studying, and perhaps being a bit cautious about.
Re:There is good bacteria too. (Score:4, Informative)
Triclosan is a fungal spore. It's prevents bacterial growth by out-competing them with fungus. Frankly I find it disgusting but it's damn near impossible to avoid.
Triclosan is not a fungal spore. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Re:There is good bacteria too. (Score:4, Informative)
We are covered with bacteria a lot of it is rather helpful to us. So by using Anti-bacterial soap we do kill off the good bacteria too..
In this case, probably not. Most studies on OTC soaps containing Triclosan (the antibiotic used in "antimicrobial" soaps) shows that it is, at the levels allowed in those products, virtually useless. There is no difference in bacteria counts (good or bad) between using those and regular non-medicated soaps. All it does is allow the exposed bacteria to develop an immunity to it, as well as contaminating the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
How about not using any soap? Just rinse with water. :P
Re:Come on (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I find myself curious.
How does one go about PROVING a chemical to be safe?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does one go about PROVING a chemical to be safe?
Regulatory capture and biased media coverage, mostly.
Perhaps you missed the point that it is the rest of the world whose FDA equivalents are working under the "prove it is safe" paradigm. Are you truly aiming your snark at non-US governments and claiming that those non-US agencies are victims of "regulatory capture" and "biased media" and that's how they're proving that things are safe? And then, by extension, that since the FDA does not try to prove chemicals are safe they are not subject to regulatory capture and biased media? If so, what an unexpected tur
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I was going for "you can't, you can only show it's safe under a large range of likely circumstances
Next time you want to say "you can't" don't talk about how it is done. Talk about how it can't be done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does one go about PROVING a chemical to be safe?
Primarily, with a controlled study comparing an exposed population with an unexposed population. Is there another option?
No, I think the point of the question was that you cannot prove that something is absolutely safe, only that it doesn't immediately kill the test subjects. Whether it is ultimately "safe" is a question that can only be answered after decades of use by millions of people, and even then you may get the wrong answer. Your "controlled study" has given us things like Thalidomide and Celebrex and "vaginal mesh implants" (a current target of online lawyers seeking class action suit participants).
Re: (Score:3)
Testing Inaccurate? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only 5 percent of people properly washed their hands long enough to kill infection-causing germs and bacteria.
I'd like to see a citation. I'm not sure how well the period of washing "long enough to kill infection causing germs and bacteria" is known. If you are talking about surgeons, who are putting their hands inside a body cavity, yes, I will accept that you want your doctor to do a very long scrub with vigorous soap. For ordinary day to day human interactions, however, I'd really like to see a good citation for the claim that you need to wash your hands for a minimum of thirty seconds and scrubbing vigorousl
Re: (Score:3)
You should wash your hands long enough to sing Happy Birthday(c) twice.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes yes, and then you should spin around 3 times to the left, walk twice back and forth to the door, and then wash them two more times. Spin to the left on even repetitions. If you get it wrong, you must start over.
Re: (Score:2)
And for god's sake, do not thrust and grab your junk. Signed, everyone else in the men's room.
Re:Testing Inaccurate? (Score:5, Funny)
You should wash your hands long enough to sing Happy Birthday(c) twice.
That's long enough to scrub off the bacteria. Also, entirely coincidentally, long enough for the RIAA to get a fix on your position.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Testing Inaccurate? (Score:2, Informative)
I used to date a nurse, that would go into classrooms to teach this stuff. Basically, if you want proof, cover your hands in glitter, then try to wash it off. Note the time. Sometimes the simplest demonstrations are best.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Replace with anything else that is small that sticks to your skin, and is visible so that you know when it really has been completely removed? Do it with the dirt of the inside of your keyboard if you prefer.
Or you just want someone to Google for you? Fine, you're really so lazy and ignorant that you need someone to use a global computer network to look up how to wash your friggin' hands...
From here [cdc.gov], which has many many papers cited for every step of the process of washing one's hands:
Why? Determining the optimal length of time for handwashing is difficult because few studies about the health impacts of altering handwashing times have been done. Of those that exist, nearly all have measured reductions in overall numbers of microbes, only a small proportion of which can cause illness, and have not measured impacts on health. Solely reducing numbers of microbes on hands is not necessarily linked to better health 1. The optimal length of time for handwashing is also likely to depend on many factors, including the type and amount of soil on the hands and the setting of the person washing hands. For example, surgeons are likely to come into contact with disease-causing germs and risk spreading serious infections to vulnerable patients, so they may need to wash hands longer than a woman before she prepares her own lunch at home. Nonetheless, evidence suggests that washing hands for about 15-30 seconds removes more germs from hands than washing for shorter periods 2-4.
Accordingly, many countries and global organizations have adopted recommendations to wash hands for about 20 seconds (some recommend an additional 20-30 seconds for drying):
Re: Testing Inaccurate? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/ [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only 5 percent of people properly washed their hands long enough to kill infection-causing germs and bacteria. Maybe if the general population washed their hands properly there would be time for the antibacterial agents to go to work. Instead we instantly scrub our hands clean and follow up with a solid sniff to make sure they smell good, because if it smells clean then it is clean method works every time.
And this paragraph of purely speculative nonsense has what to do with hand-wash manufacturers making dubious product claims?
Re:Testing Inaccurate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Testing Inaccurate? (Score:4, Informative)
the main purpose of soap in washing skin is merely to make the slime coat of (most) the bacteria not cling to you so they can be rinsed away, not to kill them. That's why plain old soap is good enough, and these chlorinated organics are not necessary in normal household use. The chemicals and special soaps containing them do have some legitimate use in certain medical protocols, but not for any use by the average consumer
Re: (Score:2)
You're focused on the wrong medicine!
There are drugs for OCD these days. Fretting about clean hands is a very common for of OCD - if you find yourself worrying about it on a daily basis, seek professional help for your mental illness.
there is proof (Score:5, Informative)
the "anti-bacterial" ingredients are chlorinated organics, they just poison bacteria. they are not in any way related to antibiotics and thus do not in any way conribute to resistance to antibiotics any more than your chlorinated kitchen cleanser does. Trivial to prove soaps with them they kill bacteria, that's already been done. they are even used to kill resistant bacterias on skin in certain medical protocols, look it up.
I'm allergic to one of the chemical, so I won't be crying if they are banned. but the "tin foil hat" health sites make absurd claims about their contributing to the breeding of super bugs
Re:there is proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Microbes can live on household surfaces for hundreds of years, however, is that most don't. Some well-known viruses, like HIV, live only a few seconds.
Silly me for not bothering to read past the answer to my question. Microbes aren't immortal. Ergo, they can die from "old age." Possibly obvious and not worth linking to? Granted.
Re:there is proof (Score:4, Informative)
I think you missed the point of the article;
the Food and Drug Administration also does not believe that there is any evidence to support that the antibacterial agents in soaps are any more effective at killing germs than simply washing with soap and water.
It is a given that soap kills bacteria. It is also a given that antibacterial agents kill bacteria. What the FDA want is proof that soap with additional antibacterial agents kill more bacteria than soap alone. It could be that the soap and the anti bacterial agent would kill the same bacteria leaving the same bacteria alive. In that case there would be no difference between regular soap and antibacterial soap.
Re:there is proof (Score:5, Informative)
It is a given that soap kills bacteria.
Soap doesn't kill bacteria, it merely dissolves the oil that enables the bacteria to cling to your skin, thus allowing water to flush them away.
Soap and water is so effective at removing bacteria that adding a microbial agent to the soap has no benefit, because there are so few bacteria left on your skin to kill...
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that adds more credence to the superbug issue.
Re:there is proof (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Soap and water is so effective at removing bacteria that adding a microbial agent to the soap has no benefit
Nonsense, it's of excellent benefit to many marketing departments.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that soap does not kill bacteria, but rather removes them from the skin so they can rinse down the drain. A quick search seems to confirm this, but I haven't found a quality citation.
Re: (Score:2)
Either kill or remove there is less bacteria on the hands when done.
Re: (Score:2)
The clinical studies are pertinent to the soaps that are in the studies. Every different soap company has a different formulation for their antibacterial soaps. Some are probably more effective than others. Calling all antibacterial soaps effective because they contain antibacterial ingredients is similar to stating all tablets containing aspirin are effective for treating headaches. What if the tablet only contains one milligram of aspirin? It is not just the presence of certain ingredients but the dose th
Re: (Score:3)
The surgical soaps that use the same anti-microbials use them in much, much larger doses where a premium is paid for sterility. The quantity present in most personal care products is pointless for the intended purpose, and they have been demonstrated to be endocrine disruptors, to accumulate in human tissue, to accumulate in the solid byproduct of waste-water treatment, to accumulate in sediment downstream of said treatment plants, and there is a strong suggestion that these environmental reservoirs will ex
Re: (Score:2)
Cite your source. Most of the hits in my search were for the recent FDA announcements, but I did find http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/45/Supplement_2/S137.long [oxfordjournals.org] which seems to contradict your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
the "anti-bacterial" ingredients are chlorinated organics, they just poison bacteria. they are not in any way related to antibiotics and thus do not in any way conribute to resistance to antibiotics any more than your chlorinated kitchen cleanser does.
True. However there is still the possibility that bacteria will develop resistance to these poisons, and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
there are chemicals for which no bacteria can have resistance, they are uniformly destroyed. These poison chemicals are what are used in the soaps (alcohol, chlorinated organics), they kill all bacteria, no exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
There are chemicals for which no bacteria can have resistance, they are uniformly destroyed.
Yes.
These poison chemicals are what are used in the soaps (alcohol, chlorinated organics), they kill all bacteria, no exceptions.
Simply not true.
Re: (Score:2)
please provide link to bacteria that can survive 50% alcohol (it dissolves the lipids in membrane) solution or even 10% trichlorsan
simply true
Re: (Score:2)
please provide link to bacteria that can survive 50% alcohol (it dissolves the lipids in membrane) solution or even 10% trichlorsan
First, triclosan concentrations in antibacterial soap are nowhere near 10%--the range is 0.1% - 1%. Second, well, I'll just copy and paste from wikipedia to support my original point that "there is still the possibility that bacteria will develop resistance to these poisons, and there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other":
An article coauthored by Stuart Levy in the August 6, 1998 issue of Nature[32] warned that triclosan's overuse could cause resistant strains of bacteria to develop, in much the
Re: (Score:2)
-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC140401/
Re: (Score:2)
Triclosan vs. isoniazid & ciprofloxacin (Score:5, Informative)
the "anti-bacterial" ingredients are chlorinated organics, they just poison bacteria. they are not in any way related to antibiotics and thus do not in any way conribute to resistance to antibiotics any more than your chlorinated kitchen cleanser does.
All antibiotics poison bacteria in some way, and several are chlorinated hydrocarbons, e.g. vancomycin, clindamycin, clofazimine, chloramphenicol, thiamphenicol, etc. Antibiotics are widely varied category of chemicals, and while triclosan isn't directly related to any families I'm aware of, that doesn't mean that resistance to it would be useless against antibiotics that operate on the same system.
A mutation capable of resisting the effects of one class of chemicals can often be useful for resisting very different chemicals that have the same effect. Triclosan works at higher, lethal concentrations by disrupting bacterial cell membranes. At lower concentrations it also suppresses fatty acid formation necessary for cell membrane creation by binding up two enzymes necessary for the process: ENR [wikipedia.org] and NAD+ [wikipedia.org]. (This prevents reproduction but doesn't kill.)
Isoniazid [wikipedia.org] is one of our first-line treatments for tuberculosis. Interestingly, it also works by binding to NADH and then binding to ENR and blocking fatty acid synthesis. Studies have shown that some strains of isoniazid-resistant mycobacteria are also pretty resistant to triclosan [mville.edu] as a result. Others aren't, because they developed mutations that affected other parts of the process of the drug's interaction. These are unrelated compounds, but a mutation that affects an enzyme they both act on can promote resistance to both.
There is also evidence that evolution of triclosan resistance can increase resistance to ciprofloxacin. [asm.org] In that case, the mutation was to increase the expression of certain efflux pumps, used to pump toxic chemicals out of the cell. Turns out in that case that the same pump was used as part of the processes to eliminate both toxins.
So, in summary, while there isn't any evidence that triclosan is responsible for anywhere near the damage that usage in livestock has done, it's probably not a good idea to keep using a chemical that has risks in a situation where it has little benefit because it can aid in the development of resistance for some antibiotics.
Re:Triclosan vs. isoniazid & ciprofloxacin (Score:4, Interesting)
As a matter of interest, I've wondered if long-discarded anti-bacterial agents could be used again, e.g. you would think that most bacteria today would be resistant to sulfanilamides, being the offspring of those that survived in the past. But if those drugs haven't been used for a long time, would the inherited resistance be reduced or gone, as it hasn't been "challenged" for many generations?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, chloramphenicol [wikipedia.org] is gaining resurgent use in the US because it hasn't been broadly used for several decades (in the US, it's very popular in developing countries). It's sort of an open secret amongst infectious disease docs who don't want the medical hoi polloi to discover it again (not that most hospitals actually carry it) and start the resistance cycle all over.
Re: (Score:2)
the "anti-bacterial" ingredients are chlorinated organics, they just poison bacteria. they are not in any way related to antibiotics and thus do not in any way conribute to resistance to antibiotics any more than your chlorinated kitchen cleanser does.
That may or may not be true. There is ongoing research into MERSA regarding Triclosan resistance and antibiotic resistance and if there may be a link. The theory they are investigating is whether or not one of the genetic changes that allows for Triclosan resistance may also affect antibiotic efficiency. There is also the problem that Triclosan resistance can impart resistance to other biocides as well. Finally, keep in mind that Triclosan is (or was) one of the first-line biocides against MERSA, so crea
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that soap kills bacteria is largely irrelevant. Soap's mode of action, as for any other detergent, is to remove the impurities from the surface. Whether the said impurities are dead or alive makes no difference to the persons washing their hands as long as their are washed away. What is relevant is that the wide use anti-bactericidal additives has two unintended consequences:
1. Creates resistance, which will become a problem in cases were you don't have the option to wash a surface but have to rel
MOD PARENT DOWN (Score:3)
Wrong, so wrong, on so many levels. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about from a chemical or medical perspective.
Your chlorinated kitchen cleanser uses chlorine bleach (sodium hypochlorite). It kills because it is a strong oxidizer.
Triclosan and triclocarban are organic molecules (two benzene rings with a bridge) with chlorine atoms substituted for some of the hydrogens. They are capable of entering cells and disrupting enzyme pathways, a completely different approach from bleach, and one t
Re: (Score:2)
The question isn't whether antibacterial agents like tricolosan *cause* antibiotic resistance. Clearly that's poppycock. But that *doesn't* mean anti-bacterial soap can't contribute to the spread of pathogenic bacteria in general.
By altering the user's microbiome [wikipedia.org], an antibacterial agent could potentially open an ecological niche for a pathogen. If the particular strain of pathogen happens to be antibiotic resistant, then the antibacterial has contributed to the the spread of antibiotic resistance without ac
Useless (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if they do kill some bacteria, the important thing is whether they have efficacy in preventing disease. For that matter, killing too many bacteria could even encourage disease, by reducing the effectiveness of our immune systems.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if they do kill some bacteria, the important thing is whether they have efficacy in preventing disease. For that matter, killing too many bacteria could even encourage disease, by reducing the effectiveness of our immune systems.
Indeed, the hygiene hypothesis [wikipedia.org] has been getting a lot of attention lately. Some blame some of the growth of autoimmune diseases in recent years on overactive immune systems that don't have enough normal bacteria around to function as they would in the natural world.
We have so many bacteria living inside of us doing good things. Our bodies couldn't function effectively without them. Completely sterilizing parts of our skin repeatedly could also have unwanted side effects.
If you're dealing with people
Re:Useless (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed, the hygiene hypothesis has been getting a lot of attention lately.
And it only took 14 years since George Carlin [youtube.com] introduced it. Personally, it seems to me that if children emerge from the womb with an instinctual urge to put everything they can get their hands on in their mouth, there must be some evolutionary benefit to that.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, the hygiene hypothesis has been getting a lot of attention lately.
Sadly not enough. I still get dirty looks (pun partially intended) from parents who see my kids playing in the dirt patch that becomes the garden. Kids love dirt and muck and as long as they aren't trampling the plants I don't care if they play in there.
Re:Useless (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the proper way to deal with bacteria is environmental. If you wash with soap and water and don't try too hard to kill anything living on your hands, chances are you remove gunk that will provide a habitat for dangerous bacteria and not kill what is there. Your body is flooded with bacteria so you might as well get used to the occupants you have that are doing you no harm.
An effective anti-bacterial agent, in my book, is quite dangerous as it wipes out the bacteria you've got and leaves and ecological niche for bacteria who are not necessarily on friendly terms.
We have this same issue with our crazy modern diet, where we eat foods that don't grow healthy stomach bacteria. I think a lot of allergies and food cravings can be caused by growing the wrong intestinal flora.
>> this isn't as controversial a subject as it was twenty years ago, so maybe Doctors are catching up finally.
Might be true (Score:3)
But I'm having a hard time believing them. Time and again it turns out money is involved in "objective" advice.
Logic (Score:2)
The article seems to refer to two interesting statements that when combined have an interesting outcome.
1. Antibacterial soaps are only killing weak bacteria thereby leaving superbugs to grow unchecked
2. Soap kills the same bacteria as antibacterial soaps.
If you combine the two the outcome seems to be the following
Since soap kills the same bacteria as antibacterial soaps the use of soap is contributing to the growth of superbugs.
It would seem that one of those initial premises are probably incorrect.
I think
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. Another poster pointed out that soap does not kill bacteria but removes it from the skin. That leaves the bacteria in the waste water and therefore less of a breeding ground for superbugs.
Re:Logic (Score:5, Informative)
That's your wrong one. Superbugs are resistant to antibiotics, not the pointless stuff they put in soap these days. There's no way for a bacteria to become resistant to penicillin by being exposed Triclosan. That's just silly.
Your casual dismissal of this possibility seems logical but is incorrect. There are numerous studies of cross resistance between triclosan and antibiotics, Here [nih.gov] is one showing several bacteria that evolve resistance to antibiotics after being exposed to sublethal doses of triclosan. This implies that dosing our wastewater with low levels of triclosan is reckless and had better have strong evidence that it does some good. It is definitely doing some bad!
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what the study says. It says that the bacteria in these strains that are born resistant to triclosan are also resistant to certain antibiotics. This "sub-lethal" dose, as you described it, killed 999,999 out of 1,000,000 bacteria in those strains. It just so happened that the specific amino acid expression that allowed those mutants to survive not only made them able to survive the triclosan exposure, but also exposure to certain, named clinical antibiotics. What you're describing was just an implication of the study.
So by killing all the ones that are susceptible to triclosan, you leave a breeding pool of only those few individuals that happen to be antibiotic-resistant as well. How is that "just an implication of the study" and not "the exact outcome you really want to avoid" (a.k.a. "becom[ing] resistant to [some antibiotic] by being exposed [to] Triclosan")?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way for a bacteria to become resistant to penicillin by being exposed Triclosan.
That's not relevant. If the bacteria that you get on your hands is caught from someone who's received a treatment of penicillin, you end up with bacteria that's resistant to both.
You can pry my antibacterial soap (Score:3, Funny)
from my warm, well-sanitized hands.
Re: (Score:2)
from my warm, well-sanitized hands.
You're happy for someone to take it away from you while you're still alive? Meaning, you won't put up a fight? Okay, no problem then.
Dioxin Funtime (Score:5, Interesting)
The biggest issue the the common antibacterial agent in soaps combines with other household cleaners water treatment chemicals to produce a dioxin like substance. Studies are starting to showing negative environmental impacts to takes and rivers as a result.
This is silly (Score:2)
And if the soaps fail to do anything worthwhile, the manufacturers will just have to remove the "kills bacteria" from the labels in order to continue selling them.
And everyone (including those who currently use anit-bacterial soaps) will continue to use the same brand they always have, because they're used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
And if the soaps fail to do anything worthwhile, the manufacturers will just have to remove the "kills bacteria" from the labels in order to continue selling them.
Nope. In the situation you describe, they won't have to remove "kills bacteria" from the labels. Any soap will do that, assuming you *use* it properly with water and rinse. (A truth I've been trying to communicate to a group of Boy Scouts every time I'm watching them cook on camp outs.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Up your dosage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But keep up with your Tea Party rallying cries, and let the world see what kinds of stupid things they say.
I've heard the Tea Party advocate for doing away with most of the the EPA, Department of Energy and Department of Education, but the FDA? Haven't heard anybody on the right asking for that. They advocate for "smaller government" not zero government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can have my soap when you pry it from my cold, dead, wet hand?
Re: (Score:2)
We may be on the right track making manufacturers prove their claims, but until we have the same standard for politicians, we will not have arrived anywhere close to our desired destination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Triclosan is a widely used biocide that is considered as an effective antimicrobial agent against different microorganisms. It is included in many contemporary consumer and personal health-care products, like oral and dermal products, but also in household items, including plastics and textiles. At bactericidal concentrations, triclosan appears to act upon multiple nonspecific targets, causing disruption of bacterial cell wall functions, while at sublethal concentrations, triclosan affects specific targets. During the 1990s, bacterial isolates with reduced susceptibility to triclosan were produced in laboratory experiments by repeated exposure to sublethal concentrations of the agent. Since 2000, a number of studies have verified the occurrence of triclosan resistance amongst dermal, intestinal, and environmental microorganisms, including some of clinical relevance. Of major concern is the possibility that triclosan resistance may contribute to reduced susceptibility to clinically important antimicrobials, due to either cross-resistance or co-resistance mechanisms. Although the number of studies elucidating the association between triclosan resistance and resistance to other antimicrobials in clinical isolates has been limited, recent laboratory studies have confirmed the potential for such a link in Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica. Thus, widespread use of triclosan may represent a potential public health risk in regard to development of concomitant resistance to clinically important antimicrobials.
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/mdr.2006.12.83?journalCode=mdr [liebertpub.com]