FDA To Decide Fate of Triclosan, Commonly Used In Antibacterial Soaps

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA To Decide Fate of Triclosan, Commonly Used In Antibacterial Soaps

Posted by samzenpus on Monday May 20, 2013 @05:40AM from the washing-their-hands-of-it dept.

kkleiner writes "The FDA is finalizing its review of the antibacterial agent triclosan common to many soaps and other health/household products after four decades of use. Recent studies suggest the chemical may be harmful to animals and could interfere with the human immune system along with increasing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The agency has been slow to cast a verdict, to much criticism considering its widespread use."

42 of 223 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I sense a great disturbance in the web... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-05-20 05:42 · Score: 5, Funny

As if millions of hypochondriacs cried out in terror and suddenly went to check WebMD.
1. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by 0racle · 2013-05-20 05:52 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Not looking forward to listening to the sister-in-law and father-in-law if they do anything other than give it a huge thumbs up.
  
  Not that SIL and FIL are right, but damn they're loud about being wrong. So damn wrong.
  
  --
  "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
2. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by noh8rz10 · 2013-05-20 05:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  there is no purpose for antibacterial soap. it is just a gimmick and fud that has bad implications because bacteria build up resistance over time. regular soap kills bacteria just fine. you know how a drop of soap will break up grease? the outside of a bacteria cell is just lipids, so the regular soap has the same effect on them. Good for FDA for limiting the explosion of antibacterial products. next step, eliminate antibiotics in farm food.
3. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  While I agree with you, your next step will not happen. They will not give up antibiotics for farm animals. Hell, I would be glad to buy such a product and pay more for them. Producers however will never want to make that trade.
4. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by pjbgravely · 2013-05-20 06:08 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  You are correct that the soaps should be limited. Even though I am dependant on them. I have a long history of skin infections and nothing made it better until my doctor suggested using antibacterial soap. I am now almost free from them now. If they were banned hopefully I could get a prescription for the soap.
  
  As for the farm animals most use antibiotics because of feeding corn to cows, or the crowded way chickens and pigs are kept. This use could be eliminated but food prices would go up.
  
  --
  Star Trek, there maybe hope.
5. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by interkin3tic · 2013-05-20 06:31 · Score: 2
  
  Only the ignorant hypochondriacs. The better informed ones are more concerned about triclosan affecting their epigenetics and giving them multiple drug resistant hand-ebola bacteria.
  
  Source: I am an over-informed hypochondriac. I cringe when I have to touch receipts.
6. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by hazem · 2013-05-20 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If they were banned hopefully I could get a prescription for the soap.
  You could probably still get something like a chlorhexidine - it's antiseptic and antibiotic. One brand name is hibiclens. Vets use it a lot with animals with wounds and someone once told me it was also used as a surgical hand scrub.
7. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by interval1066 · 2013-05-20 06:52 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  regular soap kills bacteria just fine.
  No it doesn't. Soap just serves to make the surface of your skin slippery enough to shed the little buggars. If we all really felt the need to kill germs sans anti-bacterial chemicals we should be washing with bleach, but since that's not really a good idea for your skin our military-industrial complex came up with "anti-bacterials". By the way- researchers were warning us about the rise of superbugs becuase we started down this stupid path 30 years ago. I guess as usual we all refused to listen. Now we have a huge, hideous, monster of a problem looming. Good job, humanity.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
8. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by ColdWetDog · 2013-05-20 06:52 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  How do they get that stuff through the Internet?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
9. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by TwineLogic · 2013-05-20 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  If you live in the U.S., this type of meat is named "organic" and already on the shelves.
  
  Hell, I would be glad to buy such a product and pay more for them.
  
  You can do that already -- unless you object to the use of antibiotics on animals with an infection. Even organic labelling allows that. It's the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics that is prohibited.
10. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by poetmatt · 2013-05-20 06:55 · Score: 2
  
  farmers markets and CSA's exist for a reason, and exist everywhere. it's more common the more rural you are. That's all you have to find. I'd be shocked to find an area of the USA where there isn't a CSA or farmers market within 20-40 miles.
11. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2013-05-20 06:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  For beef last year I split 1/4 of a cow with my father and it came out to just over $4 a pound with processing and the farmer is one of my dad's long time friends. For pork my neighbor's brother raises hogs so I will split a quarter of a hog with him and that comes out to just under $3.50 a pound. Strangely the two farmers live about a mile apart and know each other. In both cases I end up paying the farmers directly and the processor for the bulk processing. Chickens I have to butcher and pluck them myself but they are small enough that it isn't a long job and I can pick one up on the way home from work for $5 as it is only about a mile out of my way. I get my deer processed at the same place as the hogs and cattle as they do a really good job and have won tons of state, regional, and national quality and cleanliness awards. They charge by finished weight $1/lb for steaks, chops, and roasts, and $0.25/lb to grind the trimmings into burger with sausages carrying extra fees depending on what you want done to cover the additional costs. Unlike some places the critter you bring in is the one you get back which seems to happen a lot with places that process venison. The other nice thing is since I know the farmers I have seen what the critters are fed, how the live, and how they are treated and know if they have been given hormones or antibiotics. It seems that there is a much stronger flavor from these critters when compared to the store bought ones probably because they aren't so over processed (treated with ammonia and packed in CO2) and fed a diet of something other than empty calories and hormones.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
12. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-20 06:59 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I agree with the parent in the sense that there is a use for such soaps, but that doesn't mean it can't be more limited in use. I've had some issues with outbreaks on my shoulders and back, and the typical products I used as a teenage that kept my face pretty much pimple free did nothing. My doctor suggested using antibacterial soap. At first I thought he meant a prescription, but no, he meant just the Triclosan generic stuff. I had usually avoided the stuff before hand, but afterwards it clearly worked (even at one point double checking by only using it on one side and normal soap on the other, with a night and day difference). This doesn't mean everyone should use it, but it definitely has its uses in some cases.
  The grandparent is an idiot, and as lipid layers of cells don't work like that and are much harder to break up. The concentrations, time, and mechanical agitation needed to break up cells using normal soap would be unrealistic for use on the skin, especially if you want to keep the skin intact. The point of soap is not to kill the bacteria, but to make it easier to wash things off the skin that would not wash off with water alone.
13. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 07:26 · Score: 2
  
  Try reading.
  I have to drive 2 hours to get pork from a family farm. A normal grocery store is less than 10 minutes away.
14. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by h4rr4r · 2013-05-20 07:29 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Actually I am trying to vote with my dollars, not improve my own health.
  I would think it worth it if it improved the lives of my grandchildren.
15. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 08:42 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The point of soap is not to kill the bacteria, but to make it easier to wash things off the skin that would not wash off with water alone.
  Yes, but when serious studies show that antibacterial soap is no more effective than non-antibacterial, why use the one with a chemical that potentially screws with your hormones?
  In addition, it seems that nanoscopic metals can be used for antibacterial purposes as well.
  
  --
  I don't read AC A human right
16. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Jarik+C-Bol · 2013-05-20 09:23 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm undoing all my mod points in this thread, but my problem with antibacterial soap is the fact that there is virtually NO liquid soaps available that are NOT antibacterial now. Seriously, go look at the soap isle at your grocery store. Virtually all the dish soaps are antibacterial, as are the 'hand' soaps (the ones for your bathroom sink). Short of buying the 15$ for 7 ounces of special organic soap, there is no non antibacterial option available for consumers (no reasonably priced one that is). If the FDA chooses to regulate it, at least a few companies will probably quit using it, thus finally giving the consumer a choice in the matter.
  
  --
  I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
17. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by ShanghaiBill · 2013-05-20 13:02 · Score: 2
  
  farmers markets and CSA's exist for a reason, and exist everywhere.
  Next time you go to a farmers Market, show up 30 minutes early and watch the "farmers" peeling the "Produce de Mexico" stickers off their fruit. Half the stuff they sell isn't even in season locally.
18. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-05-20 15:47 · Score: 2
  
  just out of curiosity what's wrong with meat from animals that are given anti-biotics?
  I mean if you can't cook your meat and get food poisoning as a result... well your immune system should take care of that, as well as a thousand home recipes.
  Antibiotics are used in many farm animals for two reasons. The first is that they gain weight and are ready for market more quickly. The second is that they can be kept in a less clean environment. Both mean less cost and better profits. So far, so good - although I am not accepting of keeping animals under filthy unsanitary conditions
  The bad part is that as an animal takes antibiotics, the antibiotic kills a large precentage of germs, but a few survive. In most cases, there ar etoo few left fo do much harm. But a lifelong administration of antibiotic among large groups means that of those .1 percent of germs that survived, eventually become the dominant type of bacteria, and the once effective antibiotic is innefective. There is a fair chance that this resistant bacteria will make its way into the human population. Yes, cooking th emeat will probably kill the bacteria, but we are constantly shown that this doesn't always happen, and cross contamination is an always present problem
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
19. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Muad'Dave · 2013-05-21 02:03 · Score: 2
  
  I can never find organic irradiated ground meat.
  Easy - grind your own! Buy the cut(s) of beef you like, and grind away!
  
  --
  Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
20. Re:I sense a great disturbance in the web... by Walczyk · 2013-05-21 04:26 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it doesn't seem like you understand that small farmers still often use antibiotics in animals, but not to make them huge, to make them healthier and safer to eat (have you heard of trichinosis?). Not that there isn't health risks yadda yadda
Toothpaste by G-News.ch · 2013-05-20 05:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Personally, I find the thought that we put that stuff in our mouths every day much more worrying than the use in soaps. It's also in fabrics, clothing, plastic tools etc.
1. Re:Toothpaste by guttentag · 2013-05-20 05:48 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Personally, I find the thought that we put that stuff in our mouths every day much more worrying than the use in soaps.
  Perhaps you just need a brand in a shinier box? I suggest you try the new Crest 4D White toothpaste. It has every bit as much fluoride as 3D White, but comes in a new extra-shiny with sparklies box. Those matte boxes will make your teeth rot.
the scare the women marketing strategy by alen · 2013-05-20 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

always works, especially older women
GERMS. OMG, GERMS. my wife used to buy this crap and i refused to use it because there was literature in the 90's about how it made you sicker in the end by screwing up your immune system
1. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by anagama · 2013-05-20 05:56 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Anecdote:
  I started life as a dirty hippy. There are quite a few photos, by the instamatic standards of the late 60s, of me crawling around naked in river beds next to the campgrounds we lived in or sitting in mud puddles splashing about. In one photo, I'm sitting in the dry part of a riverbed chewing on a stick I must have picked up, smiling like an idiot smile while some dirt and drool seep out of the corner of my mouth.
  Anyway, I almost never get sick and the only thing I have an allergy to is acetaminophen. I do shower almost everyday now though.
  
  --
  What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
2. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-05-20 06:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You're tough, you didn't die, you've lived to post about it.
  
  Every kid that was killed by weird diseases caused by picking things up, isn't posting.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
3. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by dkleinsc · 2013-05-20 06:28 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Sadly, this is a common marketing strategy, for several reasons:
  - Women are a lot more likely to be homemakers than men, so they're easier to bombard with advertising.
  - Women are slightly more likely than men to make decisions using emotion rather than logic (everyone uses both ways of deciding, but where they conflict men are about 60-40 in favor of logic while women are about 60-40 in favor of emotion).
  - Women do most of the shopping in most households.
  - Women are significantly more socialized than men to give presents to each other to cement social bonds.
  All this adds up to advertisers targeting women for common household products, particularly women who grew up before the rise of Second-wave Feminism. And although this is changing a bit, most ads for cleaning supplies, food, diapers, paper towels, etc feature those products being used by women rather than men.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
4. Re:the scare the women marketing strategy by ceoyoyo · 2013-05-20 06:47 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  There is evidence, including a large Finnish study, that the more variety of microbes you're exposed to as a child, the healthier your immune system as an adult and the less likely you are to have autoimmune diseases.
SOAP by stanlyb · 2013-05-20 05:48 · Score: 4, Informative

There is only on kind of soap that works, the one that ALL the doctors are using, the plain, simple, normal SOAP. No artificial ingredients, no strawberry scent (who wanna to eat soap!!!) nothing.
1. Re:SOAP by evilviper · 2013-05-20 06:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There is only on kind of soap that works, the one that ALL the doctors are using, the plain, simple, normal SOAP. No artificial ingredients, no strawberry scent (who wanna to eat soap!!!) nothing.
  While most medical staff do indeed use plain soap, surgeons at least, are required to use antibacterial soap.
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
2. Re:SOAP by evilviper · 2013-05-20 07:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Betadine surgical scrub consists of:
  Active Ingredients
  Povidone-iodine, 7.5% (0.75% available iodine)
  Inactive Ingredients
  Ammonium Nonoxynol-4 Sulfate, Nonoxynol-9, Purified Water, and Sodium Hydroxide.
  http://www.purduepharma.com/PI/NonPrescription/A6910B16.pdf
  
  --
  Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Only valid use is in toothpaste by WillAdams · 2013-05-20 06:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

where it is markedly better than anything else, though I wouldn't object to seeing it prescription only.
All other usages should be discontinued.
Further, _all_ anti-biotics should be on a rotating schedule, and only used for a period of time brief enough that it's unlikely bacteria will develop resistance, then some other similar anti-biotic rotated in, repeat as necessary, and new anti-biotics are added into the rotation schedule (and only used when prescribed by a doctor, or injected by a veterinarian).
This could be easily enforced by manipulating the expiration dates of anti-biotics.
William

--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Re:antibiotics are bad by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-05-20 06:14 · Score: 2

Well, yes. Livestock that are given antibiotics, even when not sick, gain weight faster. We don't know why.

People are getting fatter...

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:antibiotics are bad by PCM2 · 2013-05-20 06:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually, on a more serious note, TFA is not talking about antibiotics. The word used is antibacterial, which refers to things that can kill bacteria while not being harmful to humans. For more clarity, a better term would be antimicrobial soaps, because they can also work on a variety of other microbes. But there is no real relationship between these agents and the kinds of antibiotics that come in pills.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Shouldn't those kids die? by bussdriver · 2013-05-20 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Is it not nature that the unhealthy do not pass on their genes? We evolved too, not just the bacteria... except we stopped. Insensitive? no, realistic - stop living in a dreamworld you can't ever completely win against nature. It is one thing to take precautions by not swimming in your shit pool and quite another to wage an expensive a war against nature.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
1. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-05-20 06:51 · Score: 2
  
  They shouldn't wage an expensive a war against nature.
  
  You shouldn't spend too much just to stay alive.
  
  I will spend whatever it takes to stay alive and comfortable.
  
  Substitute anyone for "They", "You", and "I".
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
2. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by DarkTempes · 2013-05-20 06:53 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Just because it's what has worked so far for "nature" doesn't mean that it's the best way or the way that we have to do things.
  
  Ideally we'd figure out what bacteria are in dirt that we need to expose some kids to for healthy immune system development and we'd use that knowledge to more directly influence immune system development. "Nature" can't do that but luckily we might just be rational conscious entities with that potential.
  
  We can afford to keep the "weak" alive as a species and I posit that it's better overall for community emotional, moral, and intellectual health.
  
  I put nature in quotes because it's an idea that we made up and does not necessarily reflect reality (but it might).
3. Re:Shouldn't those kids die? by tlambert · 2013-05-20 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Is it not nature that the unhealthy do not pass on their genes? We evolved too, not just the bacteria... except we stopped. Insensitive? no, realistic - stop living in a dreamworld you can't ever completely win against nature. It is one thing to take precautions by not swimming in your shit pool and quite another to wage an expensive a war against nature.
  What about insulin for diabetics? What about glasses for myopic or presbiopic people, or publishing anything at all in Braile, along with the manufacture of white sticks? What about Erucic acid for Adrenoleukodystrophy? What about cyanocobalamin/hydroxocobalamin injections for pernicious anemia? What about iron supplements for women?
  There are plenty of us who would be dead now, had we been born in the 1200's; insulin dependent diabetics (type I diabetes) were pretty much dead until the 1920's, and later than that, if they couldn't afford the private manufacturing costs for ongoing treatment - assuming they were even correctly diagnosed in time.
  We've been "preventing" natural selection ever since we first started dabbling in medicine in prehistory, and earlier than that, if you include appointing "minders" to keep the tribes near-sighted oral history from walking off a cliff.
  Would it be great if we could all be genetically perfect? Yeah. But I'm not willing to buy into the idea of some eugenically managed "naturalist" utopian ideal to get there.
Other serious consequences by Nethemas+the+Great · 2013-05-20 06:34 · Score: 3, Informative

It isn't just the immune system that it affects. It has been shown to decrease muscle strength--including the heart. It also readily reacts with the chlorine in household tap water to form chloroform, a recognized carcinogen.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:antibiotics are bad by Artraze · 2013-05-20 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

The awfulness of this post is pretty remarkable. Sidestepping the wrong "your":
*) This antibiotic isn't for "taking", it's for things that aren't edible like soap and toothpaste
*) Overuse of antibiotics doesn't "raise your resistance to them", at best it increases the bacteria's resistance to them, but in actually it just increases the chance of creating an antibiotic resistance strain. Almost all of the time, however, any resistant bacteria that may develop are killed by other means (like your immune system) and don't live on.
*) One should never save antibiotics, but rather take them when prescribed and as prescribed. While your post could be construed as saying that, the reality is that antibiotics generally require a prescription so it's unlikely anyone will have any to save unless they were sick but are feeling better halfway through the prescription. Saving them at that point is the worst possible thing you can do; not taking a full regimen is what is primarily responsible for resistance.
All that being said, the first point is the most important: this is an external antibiotic. Since it's not applying evolutionary pressure while the bacteria are in your body, there isn't a combined force to make deadly resistant bacteria: ones that survive the antibiotic may not be as effective in the body and thus no one cares. Further, even if that is not the case, the mechanism of action is not the same as other antibiotics so it can still be killed off effectively. For instance, MRSA which is resistant to basically every internal antibiotic can be killed by Triclosan (the chemical in question).
It's very important to understand that not all antibiotics are the same. Something like a blast furnace will kill bacteria and they will never develop a resistance to it, period. However, it will also kill all of humanity so it's not a fantastic treatment for infection. Ditto with chemicals like ethylene oxide or other physical means like gamma rays. Something like bleach is also very effective at killing bacteria, and can even do so on human skin, but obviously doesn't leave the skin doing so well on longer exposure. There are many many things that kill bacteria. The only ones that are really 'special' and need careful use are the ones that can kill bacteria without killing people. Triclosan kind of falls in the middle and while it deserves some consideration, that 'ZOMG RESISTANCE" response isn't really appropriate either.
Operations by Firethorn · 2013-05-20 08:48 · Score: 3, Interesting

When it comes to operations though, they can spend over 2 minutes washing, easy. While 'plain old soap' is very much a step, to my knowledge they also use a anti-microbial soap that's NOT based on triclosan in favor of some prescription level compound.
But from what I'm seeing from my searches, common anti-microbial soaps are no better than regular soap, and even when it is 'better', the difference borders on 'insignificant'.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Non-antibacterial Liquid Soap by Aragorn+DeLunar · 2013-05-20 11:40 · Score: 2

Ivory Liquid Hand Soap. MSDS here:
http://www.pgproductsafety.com/productsafety/msds/beauty_care/personal_cleansing/Ivory_Liquid_Hand_Soap_(99735542).pdf

--
Cynicism, like dogmatism, can be an excuse for intellectual laziness. - Susan Shirk