FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

Safer? Probably not. Probably not worth the risks.

http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/70-0225_article.htm

Some people are expected to wash their hands a lot. Clinicians, people preparing food, etc. It's important to us that they have clean hands.

Some cleaning routines damage the skin, causing places where risky germs can hide. Sometimes cleaning just moves germs that are safely colonising skin into the air, or onto different parts of the skin.

> "Consumers assume that by using antibacterial soap products they're protecting themselves and their families from illness — but we don't have any evidence that they're better than simple soap and water," Kweder said.

Some people are pretty keen on "The Hygiene Hypothesis" - that over clean environments has caused an increase in illnesses such as eczema or asthma, and that some exposure to dirt helps build a robust immune system. I'm not sure what the research is?

> But many of those images "look like people who have viral illnesses" such as the common cold, she said. Viruses are the most common cause of infections in the United States and antibacterial agents have no effect on them.

See also the marketing for alcohol-based hand cleaners, which don't do much against some bacteria.

It's good that the FDA is asking companies to prove the effectiveness of claimed benefits. It's gently worrying that the companies will do the minimum possible, rather than a collaborative big proper study.

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.

Dousing those removed bacteria with chemicals, to which they could become resistant, makes no sense to me.