Antibacterial Soap Is All Washed Up
September 29, 2015
Story at-a-glance
−
-
A new study exposed 20 bacterial strains to plain or
antibacterial soap (containing 3 percent triclosan)
-
Antibacterial soap was no more effective than plain soap
at reducing bacterial contamination when used under
'real-life' conditions
-
The triclosan in most antibacterial soaps is harmful to
human health and the environment
By Dr. Mercola
A survey by the American Cleaning Institute and the industry-run
Personal Care Products Council revealed that 74 percent of Americans
use antibacterial soap.
Fifty-six percent of them use it regularly, and, reportedly, 75
percent of moms with children in the household said they would be
“angry” if antibacterial soap was no longer on the market.1
This “anger,” however, would be misplaced, since antibacterial
soap manufacturers have been suggesting the products are necessary
to fight germs, and insinuating they’re superior to plain soap and
water in keeping away illness, for years.
Such soaps may have their place, such as in an operating
room prior to surgery, but they’re being vastly overused in homes,
schools, restaurants, and other settings with potentially
devastating consequences.
Despite the reality, 84 percent of US adults surveyed said they have
no health or environmental concerns about antibacterial soap.
The actual health and environmental risks of antibacterial soap
have only relatively recently been uncovered, and they’re still not
widely known, at least among consumers. Hopefully, the tide is
beginning to turn, however, as yet another study has shown no
significant benefit to using antibacterial soap.
‘No Significant Difference’ Between Plain Soap and Antibacterial
Soap
In December 2013, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
proposed a rule stating that manufacturers must provide data to
demonstrate that antibacterial soap is more effective than plain
soap and water.
The current study examined this question by exposing 20 FDA-proposed
bacterial strains to plain or antibacterial soaps.2
The bacterial strains included Escherichia coli,
Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enteritidis, among
others, and the antibacterial soap used the same formulation as
plain soap, but containing 0.3 percent triclosan (the most widely
used antiseptic agent in soap, as the maximum concentration allowed
by law).
The bacteria were exposed to the soaps in petri dishes for 20
seconds at 22°C (room temperature) and 40°C (warm temperature) in
order to simulate hand-washing conditions typically used by adults.
The bacteria were also spread onto the hands of study volunteers,
who then washed their hands for 30 seconds using either type of soap
and warm temperature water. The researchers found:
“Antibacterial soap containing triclosan (0.3 percent)
was no more effective than plain soap at reducing bacterial
contamination when used under 'real-life' conditions.”
It was only after the bacteria were soaked in antibacterial soap
for nine hours that the triclosan-containing soap killed
more bacteria than the plain soap – a clearly useless “benefit” for
the average consumer.
The study’s lead researcher noted that exaggerating the
effectiveness of antibacterial products should be banned, as it can
confuse consumers.3
You’re Just as Likely to Get a Cough, Cold, Stomach ‘Flu,’ and Other
Symptoms
Studies have shown that people who use antibacterial soaps and
cleansers develop a
cough, runny nose, sore throat, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and
other symptoms just as often as people who use regular soaps.4
Part of the reason for this is because most of these symptoms are
actually caused by viruses, which antibacterial soaps can't
kill. But even for symptoms like vomiting and diarrhea, which may be
caused by bacteria, using antibacterial soaps will offer you no
advantage over plain soap and water.5
So, the rational conclusion is antibacterial soaps are
completely unnecessary for the purpose of washing away
bacteria.
A 2007 systematic review published in the journal Clinical
Infectious Diseases also confirmed that antibacterial soap
containing triclosan did not provide any additional benefit
compared with a non-antibacterial soap.6
Triclosan Is Harmful to Human Health
If it were simply a matter of antibacterial soap working about
the same as plain soap and water, you might still opt for
antibacterial soap due to personal preference.
However, know that when doing so you’re most likely being exposed to
the antibacterial chemical triclosan, which has been linked to
concerns over
antibiotic resistance and endocrine disruption.
Some animal studies showed that
triclosan caused fetal bone malformations in mice and rats,
which may hint at hormonal effects.
One 2006 study found that triclosan induces changes in the
thyroid hormone-mediated process of metamorphosis of the North
American bullfrog,7
and a 2009 study demonstrated triclosan significantly decreases
circulating concentrations of the thyroid hormone thyroxine (T4) in
male rats.8
Triclosan has also been found to cause estrogenic activities in
human breast cancer cells, which may stimulate the growth and
development of cancer cells.9
The chemical has also been found to impair muscle function in both
humans and animals,10
and is linked to an increase in allergies among children.11
It’s even been found to help staph bacteria colonize in
the human nose. Of 90 participants tested, 41 percent had detectable
levels of triclosan in their snot, and this presence, the
researchers found, can double a person's risk of carrying and
spreading the staph infection.12
Its prevalence is part of the problem. Studies show triclosan
penetrates your skin and enters your bloodstream much easier than
was once thought,13
and it’s now found in the majority of Americans. As noted by the
Environmental Working Group (EWG):14
“Despite the absence of efficacy data, manufacturers have
aggressively marketed antibacterial soaps to the American
public. As a result of widespread use of such soaps, 75 percent
of Americans have triclosan in their bodies, according to the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data…
Triclosan has been found in pregnant women… in cord
blood… and in breast milk… indicating that triclosan exposures
start from the first moments of life.
A pilot study found triclocarban [another antibacterial
chemical] in a third of urine samples collected from American
adults with no known triclocarban exposure… The exposures would
likely be much higher among consumers who buy triclocarban
products.
New data point to the risks of triclosan and triclocarban
to human health due to their endocrine-disrupting potential,
indicating that each and every non-medical use of these potent
chemicals must be scrutinized from public health and safety
point of view.”
Antibiotic Resistance and Environmental Threats
Triclosan also shows evidence of harm in the environment. When
you wash your hands, that triclosan in your antibacterial soap goes
down the drain, and small quantities persist in water even after
treatment at sewage plants.15
It’s been frequently detected in US streams and other bodies of
water, where it’s been found to affect algae’s ability to perform
photosynthesis.16,17
Once in the environment, it may also be travelling up the food chain
and accumulating to a concerning degree. As Smithsonian
magazine reported:18
“The chemical is also fat-soluble — meaning that it
builds up in fatty tissues — so scientists are concerned that it
can biomagnify, appearing at greater levels in the tissues of
animals higher up the food chain, as the triclosan of all the
plants and animals below them is concentrated.
Evidence of this possibility was turned up in 2009, when
surveys of bottlenose dolphins off the coast of South Carolina
and Florida found concerning levels of the chemical in their
blood.”
As mentioned, triclosan may also be contributing to the spread of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The chemical isn’t only found in
antibacterial soap; it’s also used in detergents, body wash,
toothpaste, and even cutting boards and lipstick. All of this
exposure adds up and may be offering bacteria an opportunity to
build up resistance. As reported by Scientific American:19
“Laboratory studies on bacteria exposed to triclosan
demonstrate evidence of cross-resistance to critically important
antibiotics including erythromycin, ciprofloxacin, ampicillin,
and gentamicin. Further, there is evidence that resistance to
triclosan itself exists in Salmonella enterica,
Staphylococcus aureus, streptococcus, Escherichia coli, and
other species of bacteria.
Strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis tolerant to
triclosan have also showed resistance to the drug isoniazid
(INH), which is used to treat tuberculosis.
Although the overuse of antibiotics in humans and
livestock is a greater contributor to the public health crisis
of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the potential increased risk
of antibiotic resistance from the use of antimicrobial chemicals
is unnecessary.”
Kids Getting Poisoned by Hand Sanitizer
Using alcohol-based hand sanitizers may be suggested as an
alternative to triclosan-containing antibacterial soap, but such
products are not more effective than washing with plain hand soap
and water. They can be useful in a pinch, but be aware that they
don’t work if your hands are visibly dirty – and they may also be
hazardous to children.
In 2013, US poison centers had more than 16,000 calls about
children under 12 eating hand sanitizers – a 400 percent increase
from 2010.20
The gels often contain appealing scents (like strawberry or vanilla)
and may come in brightly colored bottles. Some even contain glitter,
making them appealing to kids.
However, hand sanitizer may be 40 percent to 95 percent alcohol,
so even a small amount can be toxic to kids. Many schools are now
including hand sanitizers on children’s school supply lists, so be
sure to talk to your children about the dangers (and if they’re too
young to understand them, refrain from sending it in your child’s
backpack).
You may also want to discuss the potential hazards with your child’s
teachers, as there have been cases of children “drinking” squirts of
hand sanitizer from large bottles sitting out in classrooms.
Another under-recognized risk of hand sanitizer concerns the
penetration-enhancing chemicals they may contain and the
endocrine-disrupting chemical
bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA is found in many cash-register receipts,
and research shows using hand sanitizer prior to handling receipts
may increase BPA absorption by up to 185 times.21
Tips for Effective Hand Washing
Hand washing is a simple way to reduce your exposure to
potentially disease-causing germs and reduce your chances of getting
sick. While not the only factor (the health of your immune system
also plays a major role), it can drastically reduce the germs that
get access to your body, especially when you do it at key times,
such as before eating or touching your mouth, eyes, and nose, and
after using the restroom or visiting public areas.
Hand washing needs to be done correctly, however, in order to be
truly effective for disease control. Simply rinsing your hands with
water, or giving a quick scrub with soap, is not enough to remove
germs. In one study, only 5 percent of people washed their hands in
a way that would actually kill infection and illness-causing germs.22
So, to make sure you're actually removing the germs when you wash
your hands, follow these guidelines:
- Use warm, running water, and a mild soap (avoid
antibacterial soap)
- Work up a good lather, all the way up to your wrists, and
scrubbing for at least 15 or 20 seconds (most people only wash
for about 6 seconds)
- Make sure you cover all surfaces, including the backs of
your hands, wrists, between your fingers, and around and below
your fingernails
- Rinse thoroughly under running water
- In public places, use a paper towel to open the door as a
protection from germs that the handles may harbor
Keep in mind that your skin is your primary barrier against
germs, so obsessive-compulsive washing, especially in dry
environments that typically exist for most in the winter months when
the heat is on, can actually increase your risk of getting sick by
drying out your skin and creating small cuts or tears.
So keep a balance — avoid washing your hands to the point of
irritating your skin, as dry, cracked areas are a perfect entryway
for germs. Finally, if you want a natural alternative to
antibacterial cleaners around your home, try 3 percent hydrogen
peroxide and vinegar. Simply put each liquid into a separate spray
bottle, then spray the surface with one followed by the other.
In tests run at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, pairing the two mists killed virtually all
Salmonella, Shigella, and E. coli bacteria on
heavily contaminated food and surfaces when used in this fashion,
making this spray combination more effective at killing these
potentially lethal bacteria than chlorine bleach or any commercially
available kitchen cleaner. The best results came from using one mist
right after the other – it is 10 times more effective than using
either spray by itself and more effective than mixing the vinegar
and hydrogen peroxide in one sprayer.
© Copyright 1997-2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/09/29/antibacterial-soap.aspx
|