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."
Only 5 percent of people properly washed their hands long enough to kill infection-causing germs and bacteria.
I'd like to see a citation. I'm not sure how well the period of washing "long enough to kill infection causing germs and bacteria" is known. If you are talking about surgeons, who are putting their hands inside a body cavity, yes, I will accept that you want your doctor to do a very long scrub with vigorous soap. For ordinary day to day human interactions, however, I'd really like to see a good citation for the claim that you need to wash your hands for a minimum of thirty seconds and scrubbing vigorously or it's worthless. Show me the evidence.
Even if the problem is "between the dispenser and the faucet," as it were, it's still a problem. It's not like these soaps feature huge warning labels or, hell, even legibly-sized instructions, that say, "YOU MUST RINSE YOUR HANDS FOR UPWARDS OF TWO MINUTES OR ELSE THE SUPERBUGS WIN!!!" If they did that, then I think your argument would be valid, but when you make a product KNOWING that most people won't devote that long to scrubbing and you know that failure to do so will just lead to antibacterial-resistant strains, I call that negligence.
The U.S. FDA differs from the corresponding agencies in other First World countries because it has a different standard for determining safety. Usually, a manufacturer has to prove a new chemical is safe before they can put it on the market. In the U.S., the standard is different. Unless a third party can prove to their satisfaction that the product is unsafe, the manufacturer can continue to sell it. This is why bisphenol-A, for example, is used in the lining of all canned foods in the U.S. and not in other countries. Although studies have repeatedly come out indicating that it binds to estrogen receptors and mimics estrogen in some ways, the FDA has claimed that no one study in humans has conclusively proven that BPA has effects. BPA studies are difficult in humans because it's impossible to shield a control group from exposure to it- virtually all foods sold in the U.S. are laced with it, with no labeling requirements whatsoever. China has banned the use of BPA, but still manufactures millions of tons for exports to the U.S.
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.
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.
Absoolutely. The hygiene hypothesis suggests that those "good" bacteria not only play a role in things like digestion, etc., but also may be necessary for a normal functioning immune system.
It may be even worse than that. Triclosan, one of the most common compound used in antibacterial soaps, tends to hang out in the environment for quite a while. What is the effect of large amounts of antibacterial stuff ending up in our systems and the environment around us? Could it eventually disrupt the growth of the normal bacterial biome around us, which is necessary to the normal functioning of our bodies?
I don't think we should be alarmist about this, but it's something at least worth studying, and perhaps being a bit cautious about.
It is anti-bacterial. It just isn't done with antibiotics. And there isn't a resistance. Not that would be a hideous situation.
Plenty of organisms develop resistances to alcohol, bleach, peroxide, and other things we use.
I don't know why people believe otherwise. Your own skin is evidence of such resistance. Your typical seed is resistant to harsh stomach acids. Mold spores resist the hell out of crap. And water bears are on a whole other level.
You could pick just about any bacteria or virus you want and breed in resistance to ethanol, chlorine, fire, whatever. Whether or not the resulting generation of bacteria or virus does the same thing afterward is a separate issue.
I don't know why people believe otherwise. Your own skin is evidence of such resistance.
Because becoming immune to an oxidizing agent is a heck of a lot different than becoming immune to something targetting specific proteins / receptors / metabolic paths.
Ie, becoming immune to bleach would be sort of like if a bacteria became immune to breaching the cell wall with a needle.
As a matter of interest, I've wondered if long-discarded anti-bacterial agents could be used again, e.g. you would think that most bacteria today would be resistant to sulfanilamides, being the offspring of those that survived in the past. But if those drugs haven't been used for a long time, would the inherited resistance be reduced or gone, as it hasn't been "challenged" for many generations?
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom