Posted on 10/18/2005 6:47:00 PM PDT by satchmodog9
WASHINGTON - 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.
ADVERTISEMENT
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.
Unlike anti-bacterial products, regular household soap helps separate bacteria from the skin so they wash down the drain or attach to the hand towel when hands are dried. Anti-bacterial soap kills the bacteria outright.
Manufacturers disagree with many of the critics' claims, while both sides point to studies they say support their point of view. An FDA panel of independent experts will take up these concerns in a public hearing.
The Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee will consider whether there is evidence that these products pose long-term hazards, as the critics contend. They can make recommendations on the sales and labeling of these products to the FDA, which ultimately has the authority to restrict availability of such soaps and related items.
The FDA briefing documents do not suggest any such ruling is imminent.
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.
While Levy says that has happened in lab studies, there's no firm evidence it's happening in households. Brian Sansoni, spokesman for The Soap and Detergent Association, an industry group, said studies have found no link between the real-world use of anti-bacterial products and bacterial resistance.
"These products are proven to provide a preventive benefit for their users," Sansoni said.
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.
I always just assumed it was all an advertising gimmick to justify higher prices. It's like when I asked my dentist what brand of toothpaste to use, he said to buy a new cheap toothbrush every month, use cheap toothpaste and plain dental floss.
The whole thing is basically taking advantage of anal-retentive and obsessive-compulsive Moms.
One of the most frightening threads I've ever seen on FR was a few of them proudly bragging to each other how they'd convinced their children to cart around bottles of this stuff spraying it on doornobs....
Antibacterial soaps cause supergerms.
However, soaps like Purell, with an alcoholic base, probably do not.
Why is the FDA getting involved now? Were they not required to validate the "antibacterial" properties of these soaps in the first place?
Yep, they get to feel like they are doing something positive for the kids.
We're all gunna die!!!
Here's snippet that supports alcohol, among other things.
ATLANTA - Special antibacterial soaps may be doing more harm than good by promoting "superbugs," a research scientist reported Monday.
Dr. Stuart Levy, a microbiologist at Tufts University, told the International Conference on Emerging Infectious Diseases that soap, hot water, alcohol, chlorine bleach, hydrogen peroxide — and a good old-fashioned scrub — are all one needs for a good cleaning.
I'm not sure I believe the premise of these claims. As I understand it, the most common "anti-bacterial" additive is something called triclosan. It was invented in Germany in the 1920s and is commonly used in soaps and deoderants. It is not an "anti-biotic" in that it does not kill bacteria and microbes outright - it merely inhibits their reproduction. Perhaps there are other "active" anti-microbials out there, but I am uninformed about them. Does anyone have any further information about what particular substances the article is referring to? Are they active anti-bacterial/microbial or passive? There is a big difference.
Here's the link for Post #8.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2000/07/17/Consumers/soap000717.html
Mutation of bacteria is now the issue.
Ha! That reminds me of one of the moms in the church I pastored, that insisted on putting that antibacterial hand lotion on all the tables around the church room. You know, the kind that you squirt into your hands and just rub in, and leave there. Paranoid about everything. It got to be almost pathological.
The problem is that they don't kill the critters. They will eventually mutate and figure out a way to survive. Go down to the nearest nuclear plant and see how big the carp are in the water.
It stated nothing of the sort. It cited a theory.
I gotta remember to use this when my MIL comes by. Dirty kids are healthy, happy kids.
Ok the "theory" is rubbish.
If triclosan prevents bacterial reproduction, then they are not going to mutate. Triclosan has been around since the 1920s, so I'm not convinced this is a problem.
The only mutated critters I see are the weirdos walking around south Minneapolis. They get weirder every day.
We have become such a nation of germaphobes. The immune system needs something to work on to keep in practice. The latest theory on allergies is that early (first year or two of life) exposure to harmless bacteria trains the immune system to work properly instead of going into hypersensitivity (allergy) mode. We live in such a sterile environment and eat such treated foods. The healthiest kids I've ever met are dairy farm kids. They're around an awful lot of dirt and such, drink non-chlorinated well water and raw milk. It seems that the cleaner we get, the sicker we get. Look at the way allergies and asthma are increasing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.