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 "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
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
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.
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.
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 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!
Man, you really need that seminar!
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.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
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.
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, 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):
Because washing your hands does not "kill' bacteria, it dislodges them so they can be washed away. The demonstration is extremely valid in demonstrating how long it actually takes to clean the hands of something that tends to cling. Is it a perfect model? No. It is, however, a very good educational too. Most people do not wash their hands properly because they a) miss regions such as the wrist or the thumb and b) they do not wash long enough to be effective. It's the reason that most hospitals have hand washing education programs for their staff.
http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
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").