Slashdot Mirror
FDA Seeks Tougher Rules For Antibacterial Soaps
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."
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 ) 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.
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.
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
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
...when we ask manufacturers to provide proof for the claims they make about their products!?!
Why, because you believe companies should be able to make any old unsubstantiated health claim in their products and that will be OK?
Because that would turn out so well.
You idiots who think the regulatory bodies are parasites are short-sighted morons if you think they don't actually keep things safe.
But keep up with your Tea Party rallying cries, and let the world see what kinds of stupid things they say.
Interesting how the FDA asks soap manufacturers to "prove its safe", but refuses to ask manufacturers of genetically modified salmon to do the same.
At least the soap manufacturers are *allowed* to label their soap as having or not having anti-bacterials.
I'm still waiting for Listerine to cure my cold.
They don't use Dial. They all use lye soap which why they're so good at lying. Ha! They're stupid.
At least, unlike you idiotic far-left hippies, they bathe.
But I'm having a hard time believing them. Time and again it turns out money is involved in "objective" advice.
Privacy is terrorism.
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 that some antibacterial soaps are better than regular soap but the manufacturer needs to show proof before claiming it.
What does the Tea Party have to do with anything?
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
from my warm, well-sanitized hands.
What unsubstantiated health claim are soap companies making with antibacterial soaps? Do they not kill germs?
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.
Up your dosage.
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.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Sure it will. But that's if you know how to wash your hands in the first place. Most just throw a dab of soap on them, rub and 3 seconds later rinse. Might wash some bacteria off but if it doesn't... it's still there. Not to mention under the fingernails where you'd need a brush to scrub.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
What unsubstantiated health claim are soap companies making with antibacterial soaps? Do they not kill germs?
More accurately, we know that washing with the soap removes germs. No one has bothered to require that the soap companies prove that it's the antibacterial agents killing the germs and not just the act of washing that does it.
The FDA is now saying that they want the soap companies to prove that their antibacterial soap outperforms non-antibacterial soap, or to remove claims that imply it does from their marketing materials.
Dude, that soap is SO rotary...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Ah come on dude, we left Zucotti park clean... We had the place hosed down after the man threw us out.. We are cleaner than the dirty 1%...
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
You haven't listened very hard, then. I've heard it multiple times.
Anti-bacterial soaps are not antibiotics.
Saying that anti-bacterial soaps will produce drug-resistant bacteria is like saying that running humans through a meat grinder will produce humans that are resistant to being ground up by meat grinders.
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 and NAD+. (This prevents reproduction but doesn't kill.)
Isoniazid 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 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. 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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Working in the food industry we use a thing called BLEACH. It is an acid, therefor unless bugs can find a way to protect themselves from it they can't evolve beyond being the good old bug they are now. (sorry for the sarcasm)
Now whether the Bleach actually works is something I have yet to explore, via the internet, or research studies. But I notice Bleach cleaners are not getting targeted, as of yet.
This is what makes the U.S. funny, companies pushing BS products onto people, instead of groups reminding people about something effective and simple like bleach.
Fucking analog soap doesn't work on your bits.
Triclosan does kill germs.
It would be a DREADFUL mistake if 'soap' companies were forced to make there washing products truly bacteria-killing. If such products were lawful, and imposed on the soap giants, they'd make them alright, no matter how detrimental to their customers. Today, anyone in the vicinity of females will know how successful the con of 'antibacterial' soaps has been. Women are much more vulnerable to this form of dishonest marketing propaganda than men. And for the soap giants, this is just another form of "new and improved", as commonly expected with any soap product brand
"Whiter than white", for example- the giants will tell you that once one product established a junk hygiene 'meme' like this, the competing brands MUST follow suite. It's how women think when they buy such items.
It is the government's job to keep such products SAFE, not worry about the accuracy of their promotion. Soap products should be tested to ensure they have the PROPERTY of soap, obviously, so they keep us 'clean' when used. But soap products must NEVER EVER be allowed to have harmful properties, simply because of established marketing campaigns. Everyone with a BRAIN reads 'antibacterial' as meaning "helps wash the bacteria OFF your skin". You know, like soap does.
It is shameful when cretins, who think their high-school education makes them geniuses, seek to interfere in areas of public safety. But we live in a time when less intelligent betas are encouraged to seek positions of great power, and use their inadequate understanding of everything to seek to change the lives of ordinary people. Sell the pseudo-science of man-made 'global warming', and mass dosing of American children with psychotropic drugs, and the support systems of such depraved, social-engineering garbage leads to VERY wrong people established as State-authorised official 'scientific' advisers and 'thinkers'. The USA saw the same phenomenon of pseudo-scientists gaining great power in the US establishment during the creation of pseudo-science movements like 'racial' theories and eugenics, genital mutilation of both sexes, psycho-surgery (including lobotomy) and the theory of females vulnerable to 'hysteria' illnesses.
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 that is essentially the same as most oral antibiotics. The biggest practical difference between these antimicrobials and many antibiotics is that ingesting these compounds in sufficient strength to kill bacteria would also kill you.
The difference between triclocarban and sodium hypochlorite is, chemically, the difference between oil and water: THEY ARE NOT EVEN CLOSE IN PROPERTIES OR FUNCTION.
The concentrations of these chemicals when used in surgical soaps is many, many times higher than it is in personal care products, because we place a premium on sterility for surgery. 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 exert a selective pressure towards resistance in the exact bugs that we don't want to resist them.
Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
You haven't heard of it, but that doesn't mean they haven't.
Here's an example:
http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/09/eliminate-the-fda-the-insurance-companies-and-medical-education-so-we-can-save-more-lives/
Certainly you can say that no one person represents the overall Tea Party in the entirety, but that doesn't mean the sentiment doesn't exist. I'm sure if you look up any number of FDA proposals, you could find some other pseudo-libertarian Tea Party stalwarts making the same remarks.
You can have my soap when you pry it from my cold, dead, wet hand?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Aside from not using these antibacterial soaps which have questionable possible toxicity to people, folks probably need to stop bathing and showering so much. Think about it - you lather up under that hot water soaping every inch of you body. All of your natural oils are now stripped giving bacteria a much easier pathway under your skin.
Other things to keep in mind:
Keep the water only luke warm and try not to soap areas that don't need it - like your face and neck (unless maybe you have a beard).
You are probably getting an unhealthy dose of fluoride and chlorine as you shower.
There is evidence that showers especially hot ones with soap strip away beneficial natural oils that protect the skin from bad bugs.
That oil needs to sit on your skin for up to 48 hours to induce a proper "soaking" of vitamin D after sun exposure. Yeah you might get smelly so wash your pits and groin only and you'll be fine.
For the record, I love a shower just as much as the next guy (or gal). But I see nothing wrong in questioning our ways if it can lead to improved health.
All the anti-bacterial soap I've seen says "kills 99/99.9% of germs" it doesn't say anything about regular soap.
You apparently think it's ok to let 10s of thousands die while waiting the 10 years it takes the FDA to approve new drugs. If I have a terminal or debilitating disease fuck you and any bureaucrat that stands between me and an experimental drug that might cure or kill me. My body, my life, my choice.
I've long wondered why there is no resistance buildup to traditional soap. I know that soap does not have a chemical effect on germs but a physical effect: it basically unglues them and then water carries them away. But I don't see how that would make a difference; so why haven't germs evolved a better way to stick to your skin after 3000 years of soap use ?
Non-Linux Penguins ?
you are the one flying off on a tangent. I didn't say has same mechanism as bleach, only that it was poisonous.