11 ms·

Stanford Expert Explains Antibacterial Soap Ban

grenoire 10y ago
In line with this development, the United Nations also recently decided to release a unanimously ratified declaration regarding antibiotics [1]. It concerns educating the public on the use of antibiotics, development of new antibiotics, and surveillance and regulation of current use of antibiotics on humans and animals. [1]: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/un-signs-groundbreaking-declaration-to-tackle-antibiotics-threat-a7319396.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/un-signs-groundbre...
MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
Interesting! This seems to be the crux of it: That [2005 study in Pakistan] compared the health outcomes from antibacterial soap and soap that was indistinguishable from and otherwise chemically identical to the antibacterial soap, but without triclocarban. Compared with a control group who received school supplies, children living in households who received soap and handwashing promotion had 52 percent less diarrhea, 50 percent less pneumonia and 45 percent less impetigo. Impetigo, a skin infection, was a particularly important outcome, because laboratory studies had suggested that triclocarban would have antibacterial activity against the organisms that most commonly caused impetigo. There was, however, no difference in any of the health outcomes between children living in households who received the plain soap compared with children who received the antibacterial soap. Related, it appears school supplies are not only ineffective against bacteria that cause diarrhea, pneumonia, and impetigo, but may cause these ailments.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Related, it appears school supplies are not only ineffective against bacteria that cause diarrhea, pneumonia, and impetigo, but may cause these ailments. Obviously we need to reduce the amount of school supplies these children are exposed to. I suggest we force them to replace everything with tablets. That will undoubtedly solve this problem once and for all. Anyone that objects to this just doesn't care about child health in developing countries. /s It's actually kind of depressing to write that, and realize the sarcasm marker is desperately needed not just because Poe's law, but because it's all too plausible to think this might be a common conclusion. :/
dsjoerg 10y ago
One point for science!
Someone1234 10y ago
I'm glad they're doing this. This is why I moved our household over to the "Method" brand a few years ago (no triclosan). I'd happily move again if something else was safer, but I do enjoy foaming hand soaps. Also why on our newborn I purchased Waterwipes (wiper + fruit juice only). They massively reduced diaper rash too compared to the Huggies branded wipes we were using before (and can be used on the face because they won't upset stomachs if consumed). I like the FDA and am glad they exist, but feel like they were slow to act in this case. We've know for almost ten years (via peer reviewed science) that these compounds are unsafe and ineffective.
- city41 10y ago
  meta reply: curious why people are downvoting this? Seems on topic and insightful to me. What am I missing?
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    I didn't downvote, but some people dislike anecdotes in a conversation that definitely requires data. That being said, sharing one's personal experience can contribute to the conversation.
    - city41 10y ago
      Thanks, that's interesting and does make sense now that you say it.
  - venning 10y ago
    My guess is the commenter's use of the word "unsafe" in reference to the antibacterial compounds. I don't believe they have been proven unsafe, rather that they have not been proven safe. There's a difference, and "unsafe" borders on misinformation which often merits downvotes on HN. Edit: Think of the difference between "lack of safety" and "lack of proof of safety".
    - godshatter 10y ago
tn13 10y ago
Please correct me if I am wrong but government banned something because it is not useful ? Or were these soaps violating "No Harm Done" rule too ? When is government banning Axe for failure to attract hot chicks ?
- MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
  From the article: "Antibacterial soaps are biologically active, and they have no proven efficacy. So, I don't see dumping tons of them into the environment each year as being a good idea."
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Just noting, the comment above (as it stands now) is an exact quote from the article, though it's not indicated as such. (It also specifically addresses OP's false premises.)
  - tn13 10y ago
    Is FDA authorized to ban things because of the impact it might have on environment ? I thought FDA was restricted to people
    - ubernostrum 10y ago
      The quote is from the article, which is an interview with someone who's an expert on this but who is not one of the FDA officials who made the final decision. The interview includes both questions about the FDA's action, and questions about the expert's own personal opinion. The quote you replied to is an answer to a question asking for the expert's own personal opinion. It's also not a very long article, and you could have read it to find this out for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions.
    - kretor 10y ago
      Humans are a part of the environment.
- gohrt 10y ago
zappo2938 10y ago
Along the same thought, John's Hopkins tested automatic facets with infrared sensors and standard facets with hand levers for hazardous bacteria. After the study they removed all the automatic facets because the standard facets where much cleaner and saver.[0] [0]: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/latest_hands_free_electronic_water_faucets_found_to_be_hindrance_not_help_in_hospital_infection_control http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/latest_ha...
- aggie 10y ago
  Not necessarily due to the automatic vs. manual distinction but the mechanical design of the valves. "While the precise reasons for the higher bacterial growth in the electronic faucets still need clarification, the researchers say it appears that standard hospital water disinfection methods, which complement treatments by public utilities, did not work well on the complex valve components of the newer faucets. They suspect that the valves simply offer additional surfaces for bacteria to become trapped and grow."
- L_Rahman 10y ago
  It's Johns. One of the things that surprised during my time going to school there was that even buildings less than a year old would have taps with standard levers. I guess they took their own findings to heart.
- acveilleux 10y ago
  Better are those winged levers you can close with your arm or elbow. Most of the staff bathrooms in the hospital I worked in had those along with proper antibacterial soap. Not the Triclosan kind, the high alcohol content kind that's actually effective in a 15 seconds application.
- hx87 10y ago
  What's annoying about automatic faucets is that with most of them you can't change the temperature of the water, and 95% of the time it's too damn hot.
secabeen 10y ago
It's going to be really interesting to see what Henckel does with Dial soap, which has been defined by its antibacterial ingredient for years. (I actually use Dial Basics in the shower because it's the closest thing I can find to cheap, plain soap with no moisturizers or antibiotics, but that's not a product they promote much outside of dollar stores.)
- freehunter 10y ago
  Isn't Ivory a pure, plain soap? If Dial goes away or changes, that's still an option.
  - douche 10y ago
    Ivory is the best. One of my favorite things about it is that it isn't scented, and doesn't attract mosquitoes and black-flies the way some of the cloyingly sweet and fruity scented soaps tend to.
    - acveilleux 10y ago
      Careful... They did release scented ivory and I accidentally bought some, worse still it was lavender and packaging was only barely different.
    - secabeen 10y ago
      I've tried Ivory in the past and it was too oily for me. YMMV.
- hammock 10y ago
  If it's cheap enough for you, Trader Joe's has "tea tree oil pure vegetable soap" in packs of 2 bars for $2
- acveilleux 10y ago
  The basic Ivory is essentially only soap. The sunlight bar soap is sold for laundry but it's basically a pure soap made from vegetable fat (that was the big innovation, it wasn't made with tallow rather palm oil.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
skgoaspghqoghn 10y ago
Best solution: make your own hand soap, or find someone who does it for cheap. Support local products, save money, and save the world at the same time.
- mrob 10y ago
  Plain soap is already very cheap and widely available. With fancy hand-made soaps you're paying for the image, and usually also scents and colorings that add nothing to the cleaning power. The inefficiency of small batch production is likely worse for the environment. If you want to support your local community I think it's better to support local services than local products, because services don't benefit from the same economies of scale.
  - __jal 10y ago
    > With fancy hand-made soaps you're paying for the image, and usually also scents and colorings that add nothing to the cleaning power I'm confused; with industrial soap, are the scents and colorings free? I'm pretty sure that if someone had the numbers, the marginal energy/environmental externalities of a bar of home soap compared to that of industrial soap + transport + packaging would be miniscule[1]. To look at it from a different angle, I'm also pretty sure it is more energy efficient to cook large batches of food than small. Do you suggest single people and couples not cook at home so as to benefit from the energy-saving-economies of scale? [1] Q: But what if everybody did it? A: Perhaps it would add up in that world. But we don't live there.
    - johncolanduoni 10y ago
      > I'm pretty sure that if someone had the numbers, the marginal energy/environmental externalities of a bar of home soap compared to that of industrial soap + transport + packaging would be miniscule[1]. > [1] Q: But what if everybody did it? A: Perhaps it would add up in that world. But we don't live there. If you're comparing like with like, that shouldn't make a difference (unless you claim widespread small-scale soap production is somehow actively hurt by more people doing it). > To look at it from a different angle, I'm also pretty sure it is more energy efficient to cook large batches of food than small. Do you suggest single people and couples not cook at home so as to benefit from the energy-saving-economies of scale? You're talking about solving a huge coordination problem. They're talking about keeping on using a solution to a huge coordination problem that already exists.
keepper 10y ago
This reminds me ( and I guess every time i leave a shared bathroom ), how people really don't know how to wash their hands[1]. I guess anti-bacterial soap came in as a nice marketing gimmick to quick hand washing. I've stopped shaking some people's hand's after seeing them "drizzle some water" for a second after, well, you know what. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/hand-washing/art-20046253 http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-...
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  I used to work with someone who would turn the water on, not wash his hands, and walk out. Could never figure that one out.
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    Lazy but not too lazy to go through some effort to avoid the social stigma of appearing to not wash his hands.
- xeromal 10y ago
  A surgeon I know recommends at least 20 seconds and he does this 100x a day. I'm amazing his hands don't fall off.
  - rudolf0 10y ago
    Maybe something's wrong with me, but I have to wash my hands for at least 20 seconds just to feel the soap residue wash away. If I don't, my hands have a filmy feeling afterwards. I think it depends a lot on the water hardness from the sink you use, as well.
    - acveilleux 10y ago
      Hard water causes that, even (can be worse actually) if it's softened.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
nsxwolf 10y ago
Are they going after the toothpaste next? I've used Colgate Total for like 20 years now and my gums really notice when I run out and use something else for a week.
- caidh 10y ago
  The FDA put the burden of proof on companies to show that the antibacterial additives had a positive effect on health. This was not done for the hand soap, but was done for the toothpaste, where studies DID show a positive effect from the additives in the toothpaste. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/well/live/why-your-toothpaste-has-triclosan.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/well/live/why-your-toothpa...
- qohen 10y ago
  FWIW, my dentist recommended Colgate Total because it had Triclosan in it; I don't remember exactly what she said -- it was years ago --- but something along the lines of it being the one toothpaste that seemed demonstrably better than others. (The usual YMMV/talk to your own dentist/etc. disclaimers apply).
Negative1 10y ago
Quick Summary: Probably safe but not any more effective than normal soap. Possibly harmful to the environment so not worth the risk of environmental damage.
nilinte 10y ago
Yr suggestion works for me. Thanks :)

In line with this development, the United Nations also recently decided to release a unanimously ratified declaration regarding antibiotics [1]. It concerns educating the public on the use of antibiotics, development of new antibiotics, and surveillance and regulation of current use of antibiotics on humans and animals. [1]: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/un-signs-groundbreaking-declaration-to-tackle-antibiotics-threat-a7319396.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/un-signs-groundbre...

MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago

Interesting! This seems to be the crux of it: That [2005 study in Pakistan] compared the health outcomes from antibacterial soap and soap that was indistinguishable from and otherwise chemically identical to the antibacterial soap, but without triclocarban. Compared with a control group who received school supplies, children living in households who received soap and handwashing promotion had 52 percent less diarrhea, 50 percent less pneumonia and 45 percent less impetigo. Impetigo, a skin infection, was a particularly important outcome, because laboratory studies had suggested that triclocarban would have antibacterial activity against the organisms that most commonly caused impetigo. There was, however, no difference in any of the health outcomes between children living in households who received the plain soap compared with children who received the antibacterial soap. Related, it appears school supplies are not only ineffective against bacteria that cause diarrhea, pneumonia, and impetigo, but may cause these ailments.

kbenson 10y ago
> Related, it appears school supplies are not only ineffective against bacteria that cause diarrhea, pneumonia, and impetigo, but may cause these ailments. Obviously we need to reduce the amount of school supplies these children are exposed to. I suggest we force them to replace everything with tablets. That will undoubtedly solve this problem once and for all. Anyone that objects to this just doesn't care about child health in developing countries. /s It's actually kind of depressing to write that, and realize the sarcasm marker is desperately needed not just because Poe's law, but because it's all too plausible to think this might be a common conclusion. :/

dsjoerg 10y ago

One point for science!

Someone1234 10y ago

I'm glad they're doing this. This is why I moved our household over to the "Method" brand a few years ago (no triclosan). I'd happily move again if something else was safer, but I do enjoy foaming hand soaps. Also why on our newborn I purchased Waterwipes (wiper + fruit juice only). They massively reduced diaper rash too compared to the Huggies branded wipes we were using before (and can be used on the face because they won't upset stomachs if consumed). I like the FDA and am glad they exist, but feel like they were slow to act in this case. We've know for almost ten years (via peer reviewed science) that these compounds are unsafe and ineffective.

city41 10y ago
meta reply: curious why people are downvoting this? Seems on topic and insightful to me. What am I missing?
- CalRobert 10y ago
  I didn't downvote, but some people dislike anecdotes in a conversation that definitely requires data. That being said, sharing one's personal experience can contribute to the conversation.
  - city41 10y ago
    Thanks, that's interesting and does make sense now that you say it.
- venning 10y ago
  My guess is the commenter's use of the word "unsafe" in reference to the antibacterial compounds. I don't believe they have been proven unsafe, rather that they have not been proven safe. There's a difference, and "unsafe" borders on misinformation which often merits downvotes on HN. Edit: Think of the difference between "lack of safety" and "lack of proof of safety".
  - godshatter 10y ago

tn13 10y ago

Please correct me if I am wrong but government banned something because it is not useful ? Or were these soaps violating "No Harm Done" rule too ? When is government banning Axe for failure to attract hot chicks ?

MOARDONGZPLZ 10y ago
From the article: "Antibacterial soaps are biologically active, and they have no proven efficacy. So, I don't see dumping tons of them into the environment each year as being a good idea."
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Just noting, the comment above (as it stands now) is an exact quote from the article, though it's not indicated as such. (It also specifically addresses OP's false premises.)
- tn13 10y ago
  Is FDA authorized to ban things because of the impact it might have on environment ? I thought FDA was restricted to people
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    The quote is from the article, which is an interview with someone who's an expert on this but who is not one of the FDA officials who made the final decision. The interview includes both questions about the FDA's action, and questions about the expert's own personal opinion. The quote you replied to is an answer to a question asking for the expert's own personal opinion. It's also not a very long article, and you could have read it to find this out for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions.
  - kretor 10y ago
    Humans are a part of the environment.
gohrt 10y ago

zappo2938 10y ago

Along the same thought, John's Hopkins tested automatic facets with infrared sensors and standard facets with hand levers for hazardous bacteria. After the study they removed all the automatic facets because the standard facets where much cleaner and saver.[0] [0]: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/latest_hands_free_electronic_water_faucets_found_to_be_hindrance_not_help_in_hospital_infection_control http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/latest_ha...

aggie 10y ago
Not necessarily due to the automatic vs. manual distinction but the mechanical design of the valves. "While the precise reasons for the higher bacterial growth in the electronic faucets still need clarification, the researchers say it appears that standard hospital water disinfection methods, which complement treatments by public utilities, did not work well on the complex valve components of the newer faucets. They suspect that the valves simply offer additional surfaces for bacteria to become trapped and grow."
L_Rahman 10y ago
It's Johns. One of the things that surprised during my time going to school there was that even buildings less than a year old would have taps with standard levers. I guess they took their own findings to heart.
acveilleux 10y ago
Better are those winged levers you can close with your arm or elbow. Most of the staff bathrooms in the hospital I worked in had those along with proper antibacterial soap. Not the Triclosan kind, the high alcohol content kind that's actually effective in a 15 seconds application.
hx87 10y ago
What's annoying about automatic faucets is that with most of them you can't change the temperature of the water, and 95% of the time it's too damn hot.

secabeen 10y ago

It's going to be really interesting to see what Henckel does with Dial soap, which has been defined by its antibacterial ingredient for years. (I actually use Dial Basics in the shower because it's the closest thing I can find to cheap, plain soap with no moisturizers or antibiotics, but that's not a product they promote much outside of dollar stores.)

freehunter 10y ago
Isn't Ivory a pure, plain soap? If Dial goes away or changes, that's still an option.
- douche 10y ago
  Ivory is the best. One of my favorite things about it is that it isn't scented, and doesn't attract mosquitoes and black-flies the way some of the cloyingly sweet and fruity scented soaps tend to.
  - acveilleux 10y ago
    Careful... They did release scented ivory and I accidentally bought some, worse still it was lavender and packaging was only barely different.
  - secabeen 10y ago
    I've tried Ivory in the past and it was too oily for me. YMMV.
hammock 10y ago
If it's cheap enough for you, Trader Joe's has "tea tree oil pure vegetable soap" in packs of 2 bars for $2
acveilleux 10y ago
The basic Ivory is essentially only soap. The sunlight bar soap is sold for laundry but it's basically a pure soap made from vegetable fat (that was the big innovation, it wasn't made with tallow rather palm oil.)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

skgoaspghqoghn 10y ago

Best solution: make your own hand soap, or find someone who does it for cheap. Support local products, save money, and save the world at the same time.

mrob 10y ago
Plain soap is already very cheap and widely available. With fancy hand-made soaps you're paying for the image, and usually also scents and colorings that add nothing to the cleaning power. The inefficiency of small batch production is likely worse for the environment. If you want to support your local community I think it's better to support local services than local products, because services don't benefit from the same economies of scale.
- __jal 10y ago
  > With fancy hand-made soaps you're paying for the image, and usually also scents and colorings that add nothing to the cleaning power I'm confused; with industrial soap, are the scents and colorings free? I'm pretty sure that if someone had the numbers, the marginal energy/environmental externalities of a bar of home soap compared to that of industrial soap + transport + packaging would be miniscule[1]. To look at it from a different angle, I'm also pretty sure it is more energy efficient to cook large batches of food than small. Do you suggest single people and couples not cook at home so as to benefit from the energy-saving-economies of scale? [1] Q: But what if everybody did it? A: Perhaps it would add up in that world. But we don't live there.
  - johncolanduoni 10y ago
    > I'm pretty sure that if someone had the numbers, the marginal energy/environmental externalities of a bar of home soap compared to that of industrial soap + transport + packaging would be miniscule[1]. > [1] Q: But what if everybody did it? A: Perhaps it would add up in that world. But we don't live there. If you're comparing like with like, that shouldn't make a difference (unless you claim widespread small-scale soap production is somehow actively hurt by more people doing it). > To look at it from a different angle, I'm also pretty sure it is more energy efficient to cook large batches of food than small. Do you suggest single people and couples not cook at home so as to benefit from the energy-saving-economies of scale? You're talking about solving a huge coordination problem. They're talking about keeping on using a solution to a huge coordination problem that already exists.

keepper 10y ago

This reminds me ( and I guess every time i leave a shared bathroom ), how people really don't know how to wash their hands[1]. I guess anti-bacterial soap came in as a nice marketing gimmick to quick hand washing. I've stopped shaking some people's hand's after seeing them "drizzle some water" for a second after, well, you know what. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/hand-washing/art-20046253 http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-...

ceejayoz 10y ago
I used to work with someone who would turn the water on, not wash his hands, and walk out. Could never figure that one out.
- nkrisc 10y ago
  Lazy but not too lazy to go through some effort to avoid the social stigma of appearing to not wash his hands.
xeromal 10y ago
A surgeon I know recommends at least 20 seconds and he does this 100x a day. I'm amazing his hands don't fall off.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  Maybe something's wrong with me, but I have to wash my hands for at least 20 seconds just to feel the soap residue wash away. If I don't, my hands have a filmy feeling afterwards. I think it depends a lot on the water hardness from the sink you use, as well.
  - acveilleux 10y ago
    Hard water causes that, even (can be worse actually) if it's softened.
semi-extrinsic 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

nsxwolf 10y ago

Are they going after the toothpaste next? I've used Colgate Total for like 20 years now and my gums really notice when I run out and use something else for a week.

caidh 10y ago
The FDA put the burden of proof on companies to show that the antibacterial additives had a positive effect on health. This was not done for the hand soap, but was done for the toothpaste, where studies DID show a positive effect from the additives in the toothpaste. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/well/live/why-your-toothpaste-has-triclosan.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/well/live/why-your-toothpa...
qohen 10y ago
FWIW, my dentist recommended Colgate Total because it had Triclosan in it; I don't remember exactly what she said -- it was years ago --- but something along the lines of it being the one toothpaste that seemed demonstrably better than others. (The usual YMMV/talk to your own dentist/etc. disclaimers apply).

Negative1 10y ago

Quick Summary: Probably safe but not any more effective than normal soap. Possibly harmful to the environment so not worth the risk of environmental damage.

nilinte 10y ago

Yr suggestion works for me. Thanks :)