15 ms·
FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
- aestra 13y agoAntibacterial soaps have been shown to be slightly more effective at removing bacteria than non-anti bacteria soaps. (http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-122 http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02405-07 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02405-07) Safer? Probably not. Probably not worth the risks.
- bunderbunder 13y agoThe 2nd link is to a small study, with n=~10 for each of the sample groups. Small enough that it's hard to take it to say anything too firm on the subject. The 1st one is a meta analysis of similarly small studies. When you've got a meta-analysis of small studies showing an overall small effect size, there's a good chance that the only thing the meta-analysis actually measures is the file drawer effect.
- raverbashing 13y agoNot to mention increased resistance from bacteria And of course the needed contact with foreign agents to build immune resistance. Use antibacterial soap when needed: hospitals
- jcampbell1 13y agoIs there any evidence for this? Generally speaking, one would expect biocide resistant bacteria to be less antibiotic resistant.
- astrobe_ 13y agoI'm not a biologist, but I would assume that bactericides for external use can be much more aggressive than antibiotics that are injected in the organism; they are expected not to kill the patient altogether the bacteria.
- raverbashing 13y agoBiocide resistance is also a problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Evolved_resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiseptic#Evolved_resistance I'm not sure if there's a relation of resistance between biocides and antibiotics
- JunkDNA 13y agoWell the problem is that a lot of antibiotic resistance can be attributed to efflux pumps that literally pump the stuff out of the bacteria. So these are generalized resistance mechanisms that target a broad array of environmental stuff that might ordinarily kill a microbe. Here's a pretty well-cited paper on the issue, though it's rather old: http://aac.asm.org/content/45/2/428.short http://aac.asm.org/content/45/2/428.short
- DanBC 13y agoThe US CDC has a nice document called "When is Clean Too Clean?" http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/70-0225_article.htm http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/70-0225_article.htm Some people are expected to wash their hands a lot. Clinicians, people preparing food, etc. It's important to us that they have clean hands. Some cleaning routines damage the skin, causing places where risky germs can hide. Sometimes cleaning just moves germs that are safely colonising skin into the air, or onto different parts of the skin. > "Consumers assume that by using antibacterial soap products they're protecting themselves and their families from illness — but we don't have any evidence that they're better than simple soap and water," Kweder said. Some people are pretty keen on "The Hygiene Hypothesis" - that over clean environments has caused an increase in illnesses such as eczema or asthma, and that some exposure to dirt helps build a robust immune system. I'm not sure what the research is? > But many of those images "look like people who have viral illnesses" such as the common cold, she said. Viruses are the most common cause of infections in the United States and antibacterial agents have no effect on them. See also the marketing for alcohol-based hand cleaners, which don't do much against some bacteria. It's good that the FDA is asking companies to prove the effectiveness of claimed benefits. It's gently worrying that the companies will do the minimum possible, rather than a collaborative big proper study.
- enkephalin 13y ago> I'm not sure what the research is? at least for infants/children, the research is in favor of introducing bacteria to the immune system. Exposure to microbes during early childhood is associated with protection from immune-mediated diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and asthma. ... These results indicate that age-sensitive contact with commensal microbes is critical for establishing mucosal iNKT cell tolerance to later environmental exposures. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/489.abstract#aff-1 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6080/489.abstract#aff-... also some interesting info on children delivered by c-sections (which prevents newborns from getting into contact with the diverse vaginal flora): CS was associated with a lower total microbial diversity, delayed colonisation of the Bacteroidetes phylum and reduced Th1 responses during the first 2 years of life. http://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2013/07/09/gutjnl-2012-303249 http://gut.bmj.com/content/early/2013/07/09/gutjnl-2012-3032... there's much more info to be found on the topic. these are just the ones i recently stumbled upon.
- tocomment 13y agoWhy are they doing this now? What has changed?
- scoot 13y agoThis? The agency's proposal comes more than 40 years after the agency was first tasked with evaluating triclosan and similar ingredients. Ultimately, the government agreed to publish its findings only after a legal battle with an environmental group, which accused the FDA of delaying action.
- jere 13y agoJust imagine if they gave 23andMe the same head start. I'm also reminded of another FDA shenanigan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Controversy
- nathan_long 13y agoI never buy "antibacterial" soap. All soap is antibacterial in the sense that it removes bacteria from your skin. That's all that matters. Dousing those removed bacteria with chemicals, to which they could become resistant, makes no sense to me.
- Houshalter 13y agoBacteria are not completely removed from your skin when you wash. Resistance is unlikely as these chemicals are a lot more harsh than antibiotics, because they don't have to go through your bloodstream and kill only bacteria without hurting the host's cells. These are also just everyday bacteria, so only a tiny, tiny fraction of the population will ever get on your hands and become exposed to the chemical, so there isn't significant selection pressure for resistance (though to be fair if we are talking about only bacteria which are dangerous to humans, there might be a larger selection pressure.) And so what if they do become resistant? There are other chemicals and we can always go back to just regular soap. Resistant bacteria are also generally weaker than non-resistant varieties.
- solox3 13y agoTriclosan is not only found in antibacterial soaps. It is also found in Colgate's regular and whitening toothpaste (this might be specific to Canada), where it comes into contact with your gastrointestinal tract.
- npsimons 13y agoIt's in a lot of toothpastes, and a lot of soft soaps. I've had to look hard to find brands that don't include it.
- lukifer 13y agoCare to share your findings? I've already stopped using Listerine (which ended up being the right decision) and I'm growing skeptical even of "hippie" toothpastes. Thinking about moving to just baking soda paste.
- simoncion 13y agoWhat's wrong with Listerine?
- adrr 13y agoAlcohol can inflame your gums which can lead to gum disease. Best to use non alcohol versions.
- simoncion 13y agoIn that case, one should warn others away from drinking vodka and whiskey. Best to stick to beer, I guess. :-)
- obtino 13y agoRinse your mouth with salt-water. It's cheaper and more effective!
- 13y ago
- aresant 13y agoTL;DR: Core ingredient in most anti-bacterial soaps, triclosan, may or may not work. FDA asking manufacturers to prove it works. Scientists say that these chemicals may act as hormone disruptors, pointing to a link between triclosan exposure and allergies.
- ars 13y ago> may or may not work That's not accurate. It does work, as in, it does kill bacteria. The question is if this killing has any value. i.e. does it actually prevent illness. It's pretty clear that in a hospital or nursing home setting triclosan is worth it. It's not so clear if it's worth it in the home. Then there is a secondary question of does it cause resistance in the bacteria, which then causes it to be less effective where it's needed, i.e. medical settings. For that, it might work, but not be worth it for society as a whole.
- bunderbunder 13y ago> > may or may not work > That's not accurate. It does work, as in, it does kill bacteria. It's known to work in vitro, and it's known to work in toothpaste. It sounds like there is no body of evidence to indicate that it works in things like hand soaps. Considering how often agents like this are found to work under one set of circumstances and not under another, I'd say that suggests that whether the agent works for this purpose is still an unknown.
- ars 13y agoThat's the wrong question. Even if it does work (as in kill bacteria) on the hand, that doesn't mean it works (as in prevents illness). And in medical settings it's yet another question: does it work (as in prevent the spread of bacteria), even if it doesn't prevent illness. You have to be careful about what your goal is.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- VLM 13y agoYou have a natural gut flora; you have a natural skin flora. Screwing around with your gut flora is uncontroversially seen as a bad thing. Screwing around with your skin flora strikes me as a similar argument. I would be interested to know of any summary of dermatology studies on anti-bacterial soaps. I would theorize that much as screwing around with your gut flora leads to all manner of uncomfortable stinkiness, so should screwing around with your skin flora. So people who use overly aggressive decontamination solutions on their bodies should be stinkier and have more and weirder rashes than people using normal stuff.
- blacksmith_tb 13y agoWell, where "screwing around" == killing. Screwing around by taking probiotic supplements, eating fermented foods, etc. is generally considered to be good, or at least harmless. The stinky hypothesis is interesting, I would think it would require an experiment designed around the use of deodorant soaps (which often contain anti-microbials). We know of course that people who wash very rarely often do have a distinct odor, though there's at least some implication that diet plays a part in exactly how stinky it is.
- sten 13y agoAs an anecdote I gave up antiperspirant and deodorants after suffering rashes and pain in my under arms. I sweat more, but I was surprised to find I actually smell better. Or rather I'm told I smell better. Additionally I discovered that the stains in the underarms of my clothing went away, apparently it's caused by the deodorants. Diet may indeed play a factor, I am vegan. YMMV.
- ffrryuu 13y agoLearn to co-exists. Otherwise you are just putting evolutionary pressure for the bacteria to become super bacteria.
- CWuestefeld 13y agoThere's definitely a potential for negative impact on your septic system, especially the newer aerobic type, which is much more sensitive. But where does the FDA get the authority to regulate soap? It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all. Indeed, the whole point is that it's supposed to NOT directly affect you at all.
- tanzam75 13y ago> But where does the FDA get the authority to regulate soap? It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all. The FDA regulates cosmetics, which, like soap, are supposed to stay outside the body.
- aestra 13y ago>It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all. facepalm Do you really think those products you are rubbing around your skin every day and sniffing up your nose don't get absorbed by your skin and lungs!!? I mean they make drugs that can be rubbed on like lotion, as well as medications that can be delivered in patch form and your telling me "well it isn't going in your body so it won't directly affect you." We don't know yet. There are thoughts that triclosan might cause endocrine disruption. but I don't know and I don't think the science has been done yet. The FDA wants to find out. This is GOOD. The FDA should be doing more to vet the cosmetics industry which is mostly a wild west at the moment. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics explains: http://safecosmetics.org/section.php?id=75 http://safecosmetics.org/section.php?id=75 The agency charged with oversight of cosmetics, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has no authority to require pre-market safety assessment as it does with drugs, so cosmetics are among the least-regulated products on the market. The FDA does not review – nor does it have the authority to regulate – what goes into cosmetics before they are marketed for salon use and consumer use. In fact, 89 percent of all ingredients in cosmetics have not been evaluated for safety by any publicly accountable institution. Ironically, most consumers believe the U.S. government regulates the cosmetics industry the same way it regulates food and drugs sold in this country to make sure they're safe. The truth is, no one's minding the store when it comes to shampoo, skin moisturizers, baby products, lipstick or any other personal care product. The FDA’s own Web site explains its limitations: “FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency .... Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives.” The emerging evidence on the body burdens of chemicals in the American people, as well as the new science on how small exposures to these chemicals can add up to harm, suggest that there is no health-based rationale for the difference in regulatory powers between the different FDA divisions. Here's a link about formaldehyde in hair straighteners: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-government-has-little-authority-to-stop-unsafe-cosmetics http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-governme... Josimov began to realize it was her life that was changing. Her progression of symptoms mirrored hundreds of other stylists – the burning eyes and sore throats followed by chronic runny noses. Respiratory infections settled in for months, accompanied by scabby blisters in the nose. With prolonged exposure came the asthma-like wheezing and shortness of breath. After Arce's exposures, she started getting rashes, headaches and sore throats. Now she coughs up bloody mucous and is on two inhalers. Marino would get nauseated and dizzy, and would have to stick plastic bags in her purse in case she had to throw up in public. She was diagnosed with asthma and sinus infections.
- kimonos 13y agoVery helpful info! Thanks for sharing!
- steven2012 13y agoI stopped using antibacterial soap when I read stories about how triclosan was being found in children's urine, etc, and that there are no regulations regarding how much should be put into soap, etc. I was fine with soap and water so I don't see how this could make things any better. Finally, my paranoia is vindicated!
- hawkharris 13y agoIt's interesting to examine the history of soap and hand-washing: how patients and doctors gradually came to understand its importance. In fact, hand-washing took a really long time to catch on, largely because doctors saw it as an inconvenience. Some surgeons used to pride themselves on wearing lab coats covered with blood; it was the sign of a busy practice. This story in the New Yorker actually makes a much broader, interesting point, investigating why some innovations take so long to catch on. For example, anesthesia was discovered around the same time as antiseptics, but it caught on about a decade sooner. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/07/29/130729fa_fact_gawande http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/07/29/130729fa_fact_...
- rcthompson 13y agoAs long as I've been responsible for buying my own soap (i.e. since 2009), I've made an effort to buy non-antibacterial soap, primarily to avoid contributing to the antibacterial resistance tragedy of the commons.
- ck2 13y agoIf it is bad on your hands, imagine what it is doing in many toothpastes now.
- tlow 13y agoJust another reason I like my all natural biocide soap which doesn't cause resistance[1]. It is made in SF and organic and called Cleanwell. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanwell#Active_Ingredient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanwell#Active_Ingredient