ARS on Twitter
RSS
Are we cleaning ourselves to death?
Posted by Raven on October 20th, 2005
Using anti-bacterial soaps eventually could lead to new germ formations. The FDA is going to investigate this issue.
WASHINGTON (AP) – It seems hard to go wrong with a hand soap that “kills 99 percent of germs” it encounters. But critics of anti-bacterial soaps in the home say there’s plenty to be concerned about.
A government advisory panel will take a look at that Thursday.
The popularity of soaps and other products claiming anti-bacterial properties skyrocketed in the last decade as consumers turned to them as a defense against household illnesses. But some people contend that a number of the products, particularly those that use synthetic chemicals rather than alcohol or bleach, pose the risk of creating germs that are resistant to antibacterials as well as antibiotics.
Those critics say antibacterials are no more effective than regular soap in reducing infections and illnesses. The Food and Drug Administration, in briefing documents posted on the Internet ahead of Thursday’s hearing, said the agency has not found any medical studies that definitively linked specific anti-bacterial products to reduced infection rates.
Another problem with these anti bacterial soaps: They have an uncanny ability to dry out skin-which can lead to roughness and open breaks. Since your skin is your number one defense against infection, any open areas on it can be a cause for concern. Using moisturizers creates an ideal meduim for bacteria to grow in.
Critics like Dr. Stuart Levy, president of the Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, say these products should be banned for use in healthy households. Instead, he says, keep them where they are needed: in hospitals and in homes with very sick people at greater risk if they get a bacterial infection.
“We run the risk of changing the kinds of bacteria we confront every day in the home,” said Levy, a professor of medicine and molecular biology at Tufts University School of Medicine.
Here’s how, he says: The small percentage of bacteria that survive a brush with the soap may develop resistance to it. What’s more, he says, some surviving bacteria may have an improved ability to pump out all threatening substances, including antibiotics used to cure infections.
Those survivors may pass that mutation to their offspring, and the adaptation can come to dominate an entire population of bacteria, creating a resistance.
I think it’s gone too far. Do we really need anti bacterial dish soaps and detergents? And body soap bars? I say keep the AB soaps for hospitals and other healthcare facilities only, and rely on old fashioned REGULAR soap and water for homes.
A recent study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which scientists observed the development of bacteria in 224 households for a year, showed no significant increase in resistant bacteria in houses using anti-bacterial instead of regular soap. Nor did it show that anti-bacterial soap led to healthier homes than regular soap.
It called for further studies, saying the effect could take place over a longer term. Levy is listed as one of the study’s authors.
The FDA, in briefing documents, said “current data are conflicting and unclear” on this issue.
Last month, the agency began enforcing the first U.S. ban of a veterinary antibiotic because of concerns it could lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria in humans.
Other issues to be considered by FDA panelists include whether the synthetic chemicals in some soaps pose a hazard in the environment after they wash down the drain and through wastewater systems.
They also will look at whether the use of antibacterials in homes may in fact leave those homes too clean for young children, who may need some exposure to the bacterial world to develop a strong immune system.
This controversial theory, called the “Hygiene Hypothesis,” suggests that growing up in a too-clean environment may cause a person to develop asthma and serious allergies later in life.
In all fairness, the use of AB soaps has not proven to be counter productive. But it does make sense that eventually, people who use these products will create new forms of bacteria that could be resistant to the agents used in these soaps. What we don’t need are more bacterial and viral infections-that are resistant to all but a few antibiotics. Since it is clear that regular soap and water is just as effective in cleaning, why not use them?
October 20th, 2005 at 8:01 am
Outstanding post!
One of a few things that had never occurred to me was the bit about using moisturizers on dry/cracked skin providing a good medium for bacterial growth.
That will be useful.
I’ve never been big on antibacterial soap, glad(now) to say, only because I’ve always felt, being a regular soap guy, like I’d be washing in liquid medicine.
It’s interesting how all of a sudden, products that have been selling for years for “better health” are being found to be just the opposite.
In the last month or so, a study concluded that aspertame can cause brain damage{Equal and other sweeteners that always seem to come in blue packets}, and in another study
Soybean products may reduce male fertility.
Hmm, that might not be so bad, when one considers the political affiliations of those Americans who most eat tofu…
October 20th, 2005 at 8:39 am
Excellent as always, Raven. Something that hadn’t occurred to me. But, I’m one of the (I assume) relative few who doesn’t use AB stuff, except in the kitchen to wipe down counters (and a light bleach solution works great for sanitizing).
However, that’s not “smarts” per se on my part – allergies are starting to wreak some small havok in my life as I get older, so I stick to my Shaklee stuff. It works for me and keeps me from going into a sneezing fit, LOL
OT – does anyone else avoid the “household cleaners” aisle in the store like I do? I can’t even walk down them without getting all stuffed up. Surely thats gotta tell you something… :grin:
– R’cat
CatHouse Chat