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.
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 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 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
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!
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.
Yes yes, and then you should spin around 3 times to the left, walk twice back and forth to the door, and then wash them two more times. Spin to the left on even repetitions. If you get it wrong, you must start over.
from my warm, well-sanitized hands.
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!
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.
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").
You should wash your hands long enough to sing Happy Birthday(c) twice.
That's long enough to scrub off the bacteria. Also, entirely coincidentally, long enough for the RIAA to get a fix on your position.