FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#11

Post by astrobe_ » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

jcampbell1 wrote: post #7

raverbashing wrote: post #3

Not to mention increased resistance from bacteria And of course the needed contact with foreign agents to build immune resistance. Use antibacterial soap when needed: hospitals

Is there any evidence for this? Generally speaking, one would expect biocide resistant bacteria to be less antibiotic resistant.

I'm not a biologist, but I would assume that bactericides for external use can be much more aggressive than antibiotics that are injected in the organism; they are expected not to kill the patient altogether the bacteria.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#12

Post by aresant » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:23 PM UTC

TL;DR: Core ingredient in most anti-bacterial soaps, triclosan, may or may not work. FDA asking manufacturers to prove it works.

Scientists say that these chemicals may act as hormone disruptors, pointing to a link between triclosan exposure and allergies.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#13

Post by lukifer » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:27 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #10

solox3 wrote: post #9

Triclosan is not only found in antibacterial soaps. It is also found in Colgate's regular and whitening toothpaste (this might be specific to Canada), where it comes into contact with your gastrointestinal tract.

It's in a lot of toothpastes, and a lot of soft soaps. I've had to look hard to find brands that don't include it.

Care to share your findings? I've already stopped using Listerine (which ended up being the right decision) and I'm growing skeptical even of "hippie" toothpastes. Thinking about moving to just baking soda paste.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#14

Post by simoncion » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:29 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #13

npsimons wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in a lot of toothpastes, and a lot of soft soaps. I've had to look hard to find brands that don't include it.

Care to share your findings? I've already stopped using Listerine (which ended up being the right decision) and I'm growing skeptical even of "hippie" toothpastes. Thinking about moving to just baking soda paste.

What's wrong with Listerine?

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#15

Post by ars » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:33 PM UTC

aresant wrote: post #12

TL;DR: Core ingredient in most anti-bacterial soaps, triclosan, may or may not work. FDA asking manufacturers to prove it works. Scientists say that these chemicals may act as hormone disruptors, pointing to a link between triclosan exposure and allergies.

> may or may not work

That's not accurate. It does work, as in, it does kill bacteria.

The question is if this killing has any value. i.e. does it actually prevent illness. It's pretty clear that in a hospital or nursing home setting triclosan is worth it. It's not so clear if it's worth it in the home.

Then there is a secondary question of does it cause resistance in the bacteria, which then causes it to be less effective where it's needed, i.e. medical settings. For that, it might work, but not be worth it for society as a whole.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#16

Post by solox3 » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #13

npsimons wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in a lot of toothpastes, and a lot of soft soaps. I've had to look hard to find brands that don't include it.

Care to share your findings? I've already stopped using Listerine (which ended up being the right decision) and I'm growing skeptical even of "hippie" toothpastes. Thinking about moving to just baking soda paste.

Arm and Hammer's baking soda toothpaste is also known to contain triclosan. The ones they sell where I live, at least.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#17

Post by jere » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:41 PM UTC

scoot wrote: post #6

tocomment wrote: post #5

Why are they doing this now? What has changed?

This? The agency's proposal comes more than 40 years after the agency was first tasked with evaluating triclosan and similar ingredients. Ultimately, the government agreed to publish its findings only after a legal battle with an environmental group, which accused the FDA of delaying action.

Just imagine if they gave 23andMe the same head start.

I'm also reminded of another FDA shenanigan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia#Controversy

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#18

Post by magicalist » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:41 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #10

solox3 wrote: post #9

Triclosan is not only found in antibacterial soaps. It is also found in Colgate's regular and whitening toothpaste (this might be specific to Canada), where it comes into contact with your gastrointestinal tract.

It's in a lot of toothpastes, and a lot of soft soaps. I've had to look hard to find brands that don't include it.

Not in the US it isn't. Not sure about elsewhere. Crest even uses "triclosan free" in some of its advertising.

Triclosan also has to be declared as an active ingredient in toothpaste, so it's not exactly hidden. Just spend 5 minutes reading some labels at the store.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#19

Post by Houshalter » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:43 PM UTC

nathan_long wrote: post #8

I never buy "antibacterial" soap. All soap is antibacterial in the sense that it removes bacteria from your skin. That's all that matters. Dousing those removed bacteria with chemicals, to which they could become resistant, makes no sense to me.

Bacteria are not completely removed from your skin when you wash.

Resistance is unlikely as these chemicals are a lot more harsh than antibiotics, because they don't have to go through your bloodstream and kill only bacteria without hurting the host's cells. These are also just everyday bacteria, so only a tiny, tiny fraction of the population will ever get on your hands and become exposed to the chemical, so there isn't significant selection pressure for resistance (though to be fair if we are talking about only bacteria which are dangerous to humans, there might be a larger selection pressure.) And so what if they do become resistant? There are other chemicals and we can always go back to just regular soap. Resistant bacteria are also generally weaker than non-resistant varieties.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#20

Post by bunderbunder » Mon, Dec 16, 2013, 9:43 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #15

aresant wrote: post #12

TL;DR: Core ingredient in most anti-bacterial soaps, triclosan, may or may not work. FDA asking manufacturers to prove it works. Scientists say that these chemicals may act as hormone disruptors, pointing to a link between triclosan exposure and allergies.

> may or may not work That's not accurate. It does work, as in, it does kill bacteria. The question is if this killing has any value. i.e. does it actually prevent illness. It's pretty clear that in a hospital or nursing home setting triclosan is worth it. It's not so clear if it's worth it in the home. Then there is a secondary question of does it cause resistance in the bacteria, which then causes it to be less eff…

> > may or may not work

> That's not accurate. It does work, as in, it does kill bacteria.

It's known to work in vitro, and it's known to work in toothpaste.

It sounds like there is no body of evidence to indicate that it works in things like hand soaps. Considering how often agents like this are found to work under one set of circumstances and not under another, I'd say that suggests that whether the agent works for this purpose is still an unknown.