
Why You Should Probably Stop Using Antibacterial Soap - mglauco
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2014/01/five-reasons-why-you-should-probably-stop-using-antibacterial-soap/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=01032014&utm_content=surprisingscienceantibacterialsoap
======
eridius
I don't know anything about the other points, but point #2 is conflating
antibacterial and antibiotic. Soaps that contain antibiotics definitely
contribute to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and thus should not be used. But
soap that is merely antibacterial without using antibiotics will not cause
bacteria to become antibiotic-resistant.

~~~
ninkendo
I remember seeing a comment on reddit about this a few years back. It went
something like:

"If you put a poison in the air in hospital nurseries that kills 50% of
babies, after enough centuries you'll have a human population that's resistant
to the poison. But if you go in there with a flamethrower you'll just have a
lot of dead babies because, well, it's a flamethrower."

Alcohol-based solutions that are anti-bacterial dissolve the lipid membrane
around the bacteria. They can't really develop a "resistance" to this.

~~~
dded
That is about the most awful casual analogy I've ever heard. I doubt hurt was
intended, but do be aware that many people have lost children and would find
this hurtful.

~~~
barrkel
I'm sorry for whomever you have in mind, but I absolutely reject the mentality
that non-bullying humour must be curbed in case someone might have their
feelings hurt - especially the kind of hurt where people _take_ offense where
none was intended.

~~~
DanBC
People are not taking offense.

People are grieving and gently pointing out that perhaps other analogies might
be better. There's no ranting nor pitchforks. Just a polite gentle reminder
that the loss of a child is an incredibly traumatic thing.

That's a reasonable point. The analogy isn't so amazing that it is crucial to
understanding. It cod easily be tweaked.

I would have used it unmodified, but now i will try to change it to avoid dead
children.

------
acabal
I never used antibacterial hand soap precisely because I assumed it would
somehow contribute to bacterial resistance, and because humanity survived just
fine with regular hand soap in the bathroom for centuries. Having said that
I've recently been given a bottle of it. Maybe I'm overthinking things, but is
there any way to dispose of this stuff in a responsible way?

~~~
danielweber
I've had a hard time finding liquid hand-soap _without_ triclosan in it.

~~~
cleaver
I just reuse a foam soap pump bottle and fill with about 3 or 4 parts water to
1 part plain dish washing liquid (non-antibacterial, of course).

I consider foam soap to be one of the great advances of the past few decades.

~~~
dmunoz
A friend told me they did this recently, and I argued to her that it was a bad
idea. It's going to sit around for however long with all the baddies in it
multiplying, and then you're going to smear it all over your hands to "clean"
them. This was my feeling mostly because she had made it with just tap water
and dish soap, but I imagine even boiling the water first wouldn't stop this
happening as it's going to sit around as still water for weeks/months or even
longer.

Maybe I was over reacting a bit, I'm admittedly not sure how store-bought foam
soap is produced. I just search around quickly and see that the prime
ingredient in most foam soaps is (unsurprisingly) water, but they're also
pumped full of other stuff.

------
hrkristian
I've never used anti-bacterials, not when it got introduced into dish-washing
soap, and not when H1N1 created a ridiculous scare.

This is one of those things where I take the elitist path and my palm hits my
forehead at high velocity.

Disease, illness, death, it's all a part of life, and some ridiculous washing
ritual which consumes a significant portion of your daily thought process will
not keep any of it at bay. I know hypochondriacs and obsessive cleaners who
are sick almost year-long, who almost die every time a cold hits their town.

But it's a tough sell, living life _on the edge_ like that. Isaac Asimov has
gotten pounded these last days, but this scare is another symptom of what he
predicted: Man has taken further steps away from nature. This is another
aspect we fear, one the majority does not understand as anything except _what
kills us_. Truth is, in my opinion, sickness is what keeps us alive.

~~~
philh
> Disease, illness, death, it's all a part of life, and some ridiculous
> washing ritual which consumes a significant portion of your daily thought
> process will not keep any of it at bay.

My understanding is that washing really does help to keep these things away,
and washing with soap helps more; it's not a ridiculous idea that a different
kind of soap could be even more effective, and antibac soap takes no more
effort than any other kind.

And I am totally in favour of making disease, illness and death be as-small-
as-possible parts of life, and not parts at all, if possible.

~~~
001sky
Being overly clean leads to allergies, many people surmise, because low-level
dust/pollen/allergens are never properly introduced to develop the immune
system. So, there's a difference between drinking dirty water and being OCD
around the house. Clearly, we want surgeons to maintain sterile operating
theatres. Its not clear we need sterile environments in every walk of life
(where the skin is not broken, and the immune system not already
compromised...etc).

------
dded
Points 3 and 4 are reasons why I should stop using antibacterial soap. But the
others are reasons why _all the rest of you_ should stop using it. There might
still be some benefit to _me_ if _I_ use it.

This is why it's important for its removal from soap to be public policy. We
only benefit when we all stop using it. If I stop using it, but everyone else
continues, I gain nothing (excluding reasons 3 and 4). So I have no individual
motivation to stop.

(I hope it's obvious that I intend "I" in some sort of generic sense in the
above.)

------
sdfjkl
Soap was fully functional a few thousand years ago:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_soap](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_soap)

Everything since has just been feature creep.

I use a single type of bar soap around the house for washing my hands,
showering and shaving. Works just fine, not to mention probably saving me a
pretty penny every year. On top of that, the dry skin problems I had with
liquid soap are gone.

~~~
Aloisius
_On top of that, the dry skin problems I had with liquid soap are gone._

I would point out that soap, by its very nature, removes oil from skin
(including sebum) "drying" it out. You may have been using an overly harsh
(read: effective) liquid soap, but for many people, all soaps will dry out
their skin to the point where they could use something like lanolin to
rehydrate it.

------
herbig
Things like this always reminds me of the way the Romans poisoned themselves
with lead pipes for centuries. What modern equivalents to this do we have?
Soap? Cell phones? Sitting? Who knows. There have to be plenty of things in
the modern world that we aren't yet fully aware are killing us over time.

Having said that, now that I've Googled the Roman lead pipe fact I learned in
High School I have found that to be in question as well, so really I don't
know what to trust ever.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is question everything.

~~~
ewoodrich
Augustus died in AD 14 at the age of 75, and Vespasian died in AD 79 at the
age of 69, and these were just emperors whose longevity I happened to recall.

Neither were considered to have many (any?) symptoms of lead poisoning either,
so I am somewhat skeptical of widespread significant health effects from their
use of lead pipes.

~~~
joe5150
I don't know the data there either but considering just three people who led
rather exceptional lives among millions of others isn't a great way to draw a
conclusion

------
graeme
This presents an interesting marketing issue. What do normal soaps advertise
as. "Non-anti-bacterial soap"?

I've found it exceedingly difficult to tell whether commercial soaps are
antibacterial or not, because flaunting the opposite of antibacterial makes
the soap seem ineffective.

~~~
arbitrarilyHigh
>I've found it exceedingly difficult to tell whether commercial soaps are
antibacterial or not, because flaunting the opposite of antibacterial makes
the soap seem ineffective.

Soaps and products containing triclosan are considered over-the-counter drugs
by the FDA, so any soaps in the US containing triclosan are required to list
it as an active ingredient in the "Drug Facts" box on the label.

Source:
[http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm205999.ht...](http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm205999.htm)

------
fragsworth
> Antibacterial soaps have the potential to create antibiotic-resistant
> bacteria.

This is probably true. But do soaps in general have the potential to create
soap-resistant bacteria?

[http://consumer.healthday.com/general-health-
information-16/...](http://consumer.healthday.com/general-health-
information-16/hygiene-health-news-396/briefs-12-26-univ-at-buffalo-certain-
germs-that-cause-common-infections-may-linger-on-surfaces-and-objects-for-
hours-683416.html)

Well-cleaned surfaces are now known to harbor strep bacteria for months.
Perhaps this is (to some extent) because bacteria has adapted to stick to
materials much better than before we used soap?

~~~
toomuchtodo
How long until my Nest thermostat activates UV-spectrum functionality (in yet
to be sold LED bulbs) when I'm away to break down surface bacteria?

~~~
scotty79
Also to break down your furniture surface. UV is used in medical laboratories
at the end of the day to disinfect surfaces. If you are germophobic you can
create similar setup in your house right now. Not LED based though.

------
scotty79
Isn't the skin whole ecosystem of bacteria? Killing all of them often and
efficiently may destroy power balance between different species of bacteria
and by accident allow more harmful bacteria to win the power struggle.
Something akin to when you take antibiotics that kills of bacteria in your
intestines ending up with messing up your internal bacterial ecosystems
entirely and giving you a condition that is recently most successfully treated
with fecal transplant.

You probably had to bathe in antibacterial soap to do that but still..

~~~
yeukhon
Our environment is full of bacteria. Our body is capable of having bacteria
inside.

[http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-
but...](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=strange-but-true-
humans-carry-more-bacterial-cells-than-human-ones)

But when the immune system is not capable of handling them, you become sick.

------
pdonis
I already knew about the bacterial resistance issue, but I wasn't aware that
triclosan was known to be an endocrine disruptor in animals. That's a
significant additional risk factor.

------
rahilsondhi
Proper hand washing techniques say to wet your hands before applying soap, but
I rarely see people doing that.

~~~
Theodores
Sources, cite?

If you are washing grease off your hands then you actually do want to apply
the soap/washing up liquid first.

In this way the grease-loving end of the whatever-it-is molecules stick to the
grease before the water-loving end gets to adhere to water. You can then
remove the grease from your hands using less soap and with less water.

Also you should _always_ silently sing the happy birthday song to yourself
whilst washing your hands to make sure enough friction goes on for long enough
to get the job done...

~~~
aestra
The CDC:

[http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/when-how-
handwashing.html](http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/when-how-handwashing.html)

World Health Organization:

[http://www.who.int/gpsc/clean_hands_protection/en/](http://www.who.int/gpsc/clean_hands_protection/en/)

Mayo Clinic:

[http://www.mayoclinic.org/hand-
washing/art-20046253](http://www.mayoclinic.org/hand-washing/art-20046253)

WebMD:

[http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/cold-
prevention...](http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/cold-guide/cold-prevention-
hand-washing?page=2)

American Red Cross:

[http://www.redcross.org/prepare/location/school/flu-
preventi...](http://www.redcross.org/prepare/location/school/flu-prevention)

~~~
Theodores
Call me a precocious five-year-old, however, _why_?

I read that doing so minimises the risk of irritation, however, isn't that the
same as locally diluting the soap? Is that the only reason?

~~~
DanBC
Some people are expected to wash their hands a lot, many times a day. These
people need to a oid irritation because that defeats hand washing.

"When is clean too clean" (or something like that) is the CDC document.

I've also heard that wet hands then soap makes for better coverage. I'd think
that either way would work the same if peoe took enough time and effort with
washing.

I would really like to know - with science - what the best method is. I
suspect that at one point someone had to write a set of instructions and so
that's what we've been doing ever since.

------
tzs
How about antibacterial toothpaste? Some have triclosan (Colgate), some do not
(Crest). Is this a concern?

~~~
AmVess
Just use regular toothpaste. Use Listerine if you are that concerned about
germs in your mouth.

~~~
tzs
I thought I was using regular toothpaste. I didn't know Colgate had triclosan
until I read it in another article about antibacterial soaps and their risks.
The box does not say "antibacterial". Unless you know what triclosan is (I
didn't), there's no reason to believe you are buying antibacterial toothpaste.

It does say "Antigingivitis" on the box, but that does not necessarily imply
an antibacterial toothpaste. Crest also says "Antigingivitis", but they
accomplish that with stannous fluoride rather than something like triclosan.

------
Houshalter
If it's so bad why are they waiting to 2016 to ban it? Aren't there people who
are forced to use this like food workers and hospitals? Not to mention
schools, public bathrooms and people who just don't know any better buying it
for their home?

------
mrfusion
Points 1 and 4 contradict themselves. So triclosan is no better than regular
soap at killing bacteria. But the point 4 implies its killing too much
bacteria and contributing to allergies.

~~~
arbitrarilyHigh
No; point 1 is about effectiveness measured in health outcomes, such as
reduced infection rates, not just number of bacteria killed. The article
specifies that triclosan soaps do kill more bacteria than regular soaps, but
that this doesn't make them more effective at reducing infection rates.

------
zavi
How come antibacterial soap is sold freely while antibiotic drugs are only
available with prescription? If they both create resistant bacteria, both
should be under similar regulations.

------
mrfusion
So if regular soap and water is effective against bacteria why can't these
companies label all soap antibacterial?

~~~
afterburner
The reason regular soaps works is because it removes surface oil and dirt from
your hands, which the bacteria binds to. So the bacteria gets mechanically
removed from your hands and goes down the drain. And this is very effective.

Antibacterial and antibiotic soaps do something extra of a chemical nature
that acts on the bacteria to kill it.

------
mlandis
triclosan is also found in toothpaste which is more readily absorbed compared
to skin contact.

------
wozniacki
_Recently, researchers from the University of California at Davis and the
University of Colorado found that the chemical impairs muscle function in fish
and mice and stated the results they found show “strong evidence that
triclosan could have effects on animal and human health at current levels of
exposure.” Beyond Pesticides has provided more extensive documentation of the
potential human and environmental health effects of triclosan and its cousin
triclocarban. Triclosan is an endocrine disruptor and has been shown to affect
male and female reproductive hormones and possibly fetal development. It is
also shown to alter thyroid function, and other studies have found that due to
its extensive use in consumer goods, triclosan and its metabolites contaminate
waterways and are present in fish, umbilical cord blood and human milk. The
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also found that
triclosan is present in the urine of 75% of the U.S. population, with
concentrations that have increased by 50% since 2004._ [1]

 _The study, entitled, “The effects of triclosan on puberty and thyroid
hormones in male wistar rats,” was reviewed by the National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and approved for publication in Toxicological Sciences.
Researchers measured blood concentrations of testosterone and several other
types of hormones and weighed a variety of organs that are essential for rat
development and puberty, including the pituitary gland, the testes, the
prostate gland and the liver of male rat pups fed an oral dose of triclosan
for 31 days. The purpose of the experiment was to determine what effects
triclosan would have on concentrations of thyroid hormones and the onset of
puberty._ [2]

 _This study demonstrates that triclosan exposure does not alter androgen-
dependent tissue weights or onset of PPS; however, triclosan exposure
significantly impacts thyroid hormone concentrations in the male juvenile
rat._ [3]

Could someone for the love of all things natural please elucidate on how
relevant, in general, are rodent studies and fish studies to the physiology
and therefore the prophylaxis of humans?

For every two or so multi-year studies done on humans there seem to be dozens,
if not hundreds, done on rats, fish and ferrets. /s/

Anatomically speaking, aren't pigs much better candidates, in that they much
more closely resemble humans? There have been organ transplants from pigs,
right?

[1]
[http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=7913](http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=7913)

[2]
[http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=1004](http://www.beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/?p=1004)

[3]
[http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/107/1/56.abstract](http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/107/1/56.abstract)

~~~
JetSpiegel
If you get a pig to wash its hands(paws?) on camera, and say "it's for a
study" I think they'll give you a igNobel prize.

------
michaelochurch
I've always thought antibacterial soap was a bit ridiculous. Bacteria are
everywhere, most are harmless, and they reproduce rapidly. It seems then that
killing a bunch with a soap that "kills 99.9 percent of bacteria" only creates
churn in the environment-- unless it targets only the harmful bacteria, which
I doubt.

To me, bacteria are just another force of nature like wind or chemicals:
harmful or harmless depending on context more than anything else. Table salt
will kill you if you ingest 300g of it, but small amounts are healthy. Example
with bacteria: E. coli, which is beneficial in its right place (the gut) but
harmful elsewhere.

~~~
maxerickson
You must've made a typo with your salt. 1500 mg is a reasonable daily intake.

Also, with the bacteria it isn't so much where they are as it is that there is
usually a lot of variation within each species, with only some of the
varieties being virulent.

~~~
michaelochurch
Major typo on the salt. Meant 300g is enough to kill. (You'd have to seriously
try to die by salt.)

------
AmVess
I don't use abac soap, but I do wash frequently and thoroughly, and that's
been enough to keep me out of the grave.

I do keep alcohol wipes in my car because I don't always have access to a sink
when I'm out. And let's face it, some people are worse than pigs when it comes
to personal hygiene.

~~~
DanBC
Do alcohol wipes work againts the bugs you don't want to get? Like noro virus
or e coli or etc etc.

~~~
FreeFull
I don't think triclosan would work well against a virus either.

