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."
news for nerds? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Something that you bend over to pick up when you are in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:news for nerds? (Score:5, Funny)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOAP [wikipedia.org]
Anybody have experience setting this up to protect machines against bacterial infections?
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody have experience setting this up to protect machines against bacterial infections?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
new subject line.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hurray for marketing!!!
Re:new subject line.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:new subject line.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:new subject line.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.. (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Immune system (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"There's absolutely no evidence that a lack of exposure to bacteria reduces the efficacy of the immune system."
the immune system (for lack of a better word) learns from the bacteria, viruses, etc. that it has been exposed to, lack of exposure leaves the system less able to defend then it might be against anything new that it encounters, resulting in much greater risk of damage or death from new diseases.
In other words, the efficacy of an immune s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:new subject line.. (Score:5, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Kirk's Castile Soap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unfortunately (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've Been Saying This for Years (Score:5, Interesting)
Just goes to show that even an uninformed, loud-mouthed, opinionated jerk is right sometimes.
-Peter
Physics versus Chemistry versus Biology (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
allergies and exposure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Once industry gets involved then things get remarkably more dangerous and really nasty stuff get get bred and perpetrated.
If they came from big Agro then boil the carrots & butter the spinach.
Blanching is also good.
Re:Physics versus Chemistry versus Biology (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ahem.
a) there is no real differnence between "bacteria-cide" (sic) and "antibiotic", they're both pretty loose terms in themselves. The proper term most pharmacologists would use is antibacterial agent but to describe something as bacterio
Re:Physics versus Chemistry versus Biology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I take it your conversations with women don't end up that well, at least for the past few years?
Re: (Score:2)
I've found that Kirk's Castile Soap [kirksnatural.com] is antibacterial, high-quality, and cheap too. In the mid-atlantic, Rodman's sells it for $.99 per bar.
Re:I've Been Saying This for Years (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Say what..? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Corroborating old news (Score:5, Informative)
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.
We've known this for years (Score:2, Informative)
Here's an article from consumer reports in 2004:
Don't bother with antibacterial cleaners [consumerreports.org]
I went to Target last week to look for bulk containers of liquid hand soap. It was **all** antibacterial soap, normal soap didn't exist.
The war on bacteria (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's like a great boxer who decides to retire because he feels it's too dangerous. He then spends the next 10 years watching television. Then he realizes he needs some money, so he decides to have a comeback fight. Well, he hasn't been training in 10 years. Now he's fat and slow and has no stamina. So he gets in the ring and loses.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And they'd never quite managed to wipe us out completely either. We can adapt too, admittedly not as fast as they can, but if we have a large and sufficiently genetically diverse populat
Don't try to fight it... (Score:4, Funny)
it IS better (Score:2)
Soap study (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The other bad thing about antibacterial soaps.. (Score:4, Insightful)
harshness (Score:2)
Watta surprise! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When their marketing department says 'comes from coconut' it means "we use sodium laureth sulfate" -- a known carcinogen. It's also what makes your eyes burn like hell.
Go one step further (Score:2)
speaking as a former nurse (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Mutations and greenhouse cleaning (Score:2, Interesting)
How to breed tough germs (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As someone who routinely buys feed for livestock and has used OTC feed store remedies (wisely, of course), I know this is true. The best example that I know of is the use of Oxytetracycline ("Terramycin" brand) as a feed additive. Has instructions right there on the package, which is pretty scary. That's some pretty potent antibiotic, and (IIRC from the Merck Vet Manual), not only does a high percentage not get broken down by the body (thus passing out in the urine), it's fairly stable once it's
triclosan (Score:3, Insightful)
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&art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan [wikipedia.org]
Wash for at least 60 seconds (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Buy soap "base" online (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Hype to counter other hype (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it's not necessary or very useful to use anti-bacterial soap. No, it won't create super-bacteria that come and kill us all.
I don't use it because I'm allergic to the anti-bacterial ingredient. I'm not sure why we need misleading hype for every opinion on either side of everything though.
Dead cells don't mutate. (Score:2)
I'm no biologist, but isn't it the case that the mutations happen anyway? Antibiotics don't CAUSE bacteria to mutate, they simply weed out the non-mutated population that would otherwise compete for nutrients with their mutated peers. I'm not saying that over-use of antibiotics isn't a bad thing, I just think the above statement is factually wrong.
That said, I think antibiotics in handsoap is a non-issue, and
Marketing strikes again (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I prefer mud baths (Score:3, Funny)
Also, when I get out of my backyard mudhole, I look like a scary mofo, as a bonus, the 'hood kids won't hang out anywhere near my lawn...
Re:But (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But (Score:4, Interesting)
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:5, Funny)
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.
Mutation is code for evolution. (Score:3, Informative)
Triclosan is used to prevent skin fungal infection (Score:5, Interesting)
"(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.First, the Slashdot story only references a press release on Physorg.org, an organization that apparently exercises little oversight over the articles it runs.
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..."
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.
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].
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]
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:Triclosan is used to prevent skin fungal infect (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But (Score:5, Informative)
(I've got a degree in cell biology, and I'm a med student, so that's where my info is coming from)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whenever I hear about human products and chemicals killing 99.99% of something, I wonder if we are truely doing ourselves a favor?
Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bacteria cannot develop resistance to alcohol.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Alcohol Based... (Score:3, Funny)
Not only that, but when you're camping, the sanitizer gel makes for a good fire starting paste.
Re:Alcohol Based... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because washing with soap and water (with or without triclosan, etc) is harsh on your skin, it makes the users (i.e., doctors and nurses), resistant to doing it, which increases spread of bacteria because on a whole they're not washing their hands as often because of the PITA factor.
The detergent component is what trashes your skin, because it gets rid of the oils on the surface of your skin (which most of the bacteria live in...), which results in them drying out an
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how you don't get obsessive-compulsive hand-washers in poor countries, isn't it?
This is because they have real problems.
When your mind's got nothing to worry about, it starts making shit up.
Only solution for these OCD types is to confront it and stop it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this. [sagepub.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why use soap? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:From a handwashing pro... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)