Your antibacterial soap may get banned.

[Nintendesert]

I think that's a fair question. I don't bother getting soap with triclosan, not because I think it's dangerous, but because I see no point. On the other hand...

This is the kind of thing that scientists find really frustrating. There are several problems with this statement.

"never been properly evaluated by our FDA"--It has, several times. It's highly regulated. There are, of course, times where the FDA gets it wrong and has to rescind approval. That's how science works. Don't try to claim that they've been disingenuous in their examination, though.

"increasing evidence"--There are a lot of studies out there, that claim a great many things. Simply citing aggregate numbers of papers is not sufficient to claim you're moving any closer to scientific consensus. By that standard, there is "increasing evidence" that salt, potatos, milk, eggs, corn, coffee, cheese, bread, and beef all cause cancer. In reality, though, the chances that all (or even any) of these foods appreciably change your cancer risk are fairly low.

"in our bodies in the quantities they are measuring"--By what standard do you make this statement? At what concentration do you suppose there's a problem? How do you suppose it's causing damage. There are a lot of things likely floating around in my bloodstream in detectable amounts that in abstract sound terrible, but in reality are doing little to hurt me. Hell, as someone who does a fair bit of chemistry, my daily intake of chemicals is likely far, far worse than anything you get, and my life expectancy isn't any shorter than yours.

I have no idea at what quantities of measurable triclosan in our bodies causes problems. I'd like to see the studies on that, but why are we doing studies as to how harmful this is after the population has quantities of it in all our drinking water and urine? Why not do the studies first and make the FDA either say yes or no? They haven't completed their studies into trislosan nor have they issued their report as they were directed to decades ago. If the scientific evidence isn't there to confirm one way or another and triclosan has no added benefit to the properties of soap, then why allow it in large amounts of commercial products?

We're letting commercial interests drive these decisions on public health instead of science. I have a problem with that as the moral obligation of a company is to maximize profits, not regard the welfare of the populace.

We can disagree on the details of the effects of triclosan, but I think we agree that triclosan has no added benefit to soap, so there can only be the possibility of harm from it. Why add it? I say we don't as soap doesn't benefit and error on the side of caution in regards to it.

Keep the stuff in hospitals where it was designed to be and where it's actually needed.

 

[CZroe]

We're not only talking about antimicrobial resistances anymore with this substance. With it adding no benefit to the properties of soap, why add it?

You're seriously going to go with that?! Speak for yourself. Just because soap is also antimicrobial does not mean it's as effective and it's laughable to actually see people making that logical leap. "NEWS FLASH! Sunlight and oxygen kill most bacteria too! WHY USE SOAP?! It has no benefits over sun and air! You are just breeding superbugs when you use soap!"

In my early 20s my mother, who I lived with, had MRSA. Hell, I may have it. I still get body acne into my 30s but I had one tested when I was 25 and the doctor (NOT a dermatologist!) didn't say anything about it since. I assume I don't but behave as if I do.

Now: If I told you that I went to your gym with festering armpits and crotch full of cysts/pustules and only used soap to disinfect, you'd be comfortable with that?

If I partially empty a cyst/pustule deep in my arm pit I am just asking for more problems if I don't use some Neosporin immediately and Triclosan soap when I shower later and hand sanitizer immediately after. Even if it's just regular acne, if I do nothing it's just going to leak infection all over my other pores and it will spread.

TMI? Well: You people and your "everyone is just like me" scenarios asked for it.

Keep the stuff in hospitals where it was designed to be and where it's actually needed.

LOL! "Designed?" 😀 Where did you get that?! Are you confusing it with medical antibiotics again? If it's no better than soap, what are the hospitals going to do with it?!

If bacteria ever do develop a resistance to Triclosan, it will be a resistance to ONLY Triclosan and it means that antibacterial hand/bodywash is THEN no better than soap. It defies logic to say that it's no better before then despite PROVEN effectiveness.

 

[Ichinisan]

Soap works by causing the oils on your skin to release and wash away.

Wash your hands with soap. Then pick up a fist full of warm, bacteria-infested feces. Then wash your hands.

You don't have any more body oil to wash away. With no body oils to wash away, would you be comfortable with regular soap?

I have to wash my hands probably 20 times per day. Soap would probably only be effective if I washed my hands 2-3 times per day.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Soap works by causing the oils on your skin to release and wash away.

Wash your hands with soap. Then pick up a fist full of warm, bacteria-infested feces. Then wash your hands.

You don't have any more body oil to wash away. With no body oils to wash away, would you be comfortable with regular soap?

I have to wash my hands probably 20 times per day. Soap would probably only be effective if I washed my hands 2-3 times per day.

I rest my case.

 

[CZroe]

I rest my case.

So, the soap is going to work without the oil that allows it to work just because the person using it ignorantly believes it will and is not concerned with bacterial contamination?

Water cuts soap.
Soap cuts oil.

It's a logical concern and not a phobia. The only reason soap works is because the other stuff comes off with the skin oils that the soap cuts. Don't talk about how soap kills bacteria "as well" as Triclosan after you understand that it's only even remotely true for the first wash and, even then, only because all the common bacteria that don't really matter were counted. Doing so expresses profound ignorance.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

So, the soap is going to work without the oil that allows it to work just because the person using it ignorantly believes it will and is not concerned with bacterial contamination?

Water cuts soap.
Soap cuts oil.

It's a logical concern and not a phobia. The only reason soap works is because the other stuff comes off with the skin oils that the soap cuts. Don't talk about how soap kills bacteria "as well" as Triclosan after you understand that it's only even remotely true for the first wash and, even then, only because all the common bacteria that don't really matter were counted. Doing so expresses profound ignorance.

Oh is that how it works? Sorry, I was under the impression that chemistry was involved... At any rate, my point has nothing to do with people's lack of basic chemistry knowledge, rather their fear-driven lack of foresight. Their lack of basic chemistry knowledge is just a clue to cluelessness.

Water cuts soap, soap cuts... that's priceless, man.

 

[CZroe]

Oh is that how it works? Sorry, I was under the impression that chemistry was involved... At any rate, my point has nothing to do with people's lack of basic chemistry knowledge, rather their fear-driven lack of foresight. Their lack of basic chemistry knowledge is just a clue to cluelessness.

Water cuts soap, soap cuts... that's priceless, man.

That is the gist of it. If you are amused by the word "cuts" then you must think that commercials for dish detergents that "cut grease" are hilarious. 🙄

Are you saying that every description of a process needs to be explained and then presented with the chemistry of it? That's like explaining the quantum physics of magnetism to someone in order to say that magnetic opposites attract and that's how a compass works with Earth's magnetic poles. Farang's explanation must be BEYOND priceless for you:
"Soap sticks to both oil and water making it ideal for removing oil with water."

The contaminates on your skin are surrounded in oils secreted by your skin. Oil resists water which prevents water from effectively cleaning off these contaminates. While oil is not water-soluble, it does not resist soap. Because soap, in turn, does not resist water like the oil does, it can be washed off by water along with the oil to clean what water alone cannot.

It works because contaminates on your skin are removed along with the oil they are stuck in. Antibacterial soap does that PLUS has a chemical known to kill bacteria. Which cleans better in the absence of skin oils? :hmm:

 

[Brainonska511]

That is the gist of it. You think it's "priceless" just because I didn't go into the chemistry of it? Then Farang's explanation must be BEYOND priceless for you.

"Soap sticks to both oil and water making it ideal for removing oil with water."

It works because contaminates on your skin are removed along with the oil they are stuck in. Simple. That's how soap "cleans." Antibacterial soap does that PLUS has a chemical known to kill bacteria. Which cleans better in the absence of skin oils? Hmm.

Bacteria have cell membranes that are made out of lipids. Mechanical action of you rubbing your hands together coupled with the detergent action of soap will rupture their membranes.

We routinely break open bacteria cells in the lab using detergents coupled with mechanical action.

Now, it may not kill everything, but it will still kill some.

Also, this statement is wrong:

If bacteria ever do develop a resistance to Triclosan, it will be a resistance to ONLY Triclosan...

Ever hear of multiple drug resistance? You can have a general mechanism like a multidrug efflux pump, which can pump a wide variety of chemically distinct molecules out of the cell. Presumably, it could gain resistance to triclosan through this mechanism and at the same time, also become resistant to other stuff.

 

[CZroe]

Bacteria have cell membranes that are made out of lipids. Mechanical action of you rubbing your hands together coupled with the detergent action of soap will rupture their membranes.

We routinely break open bacteria cells in the lab using detergents coupled with mechanical action.

Now, it may not kill everything, but it will still kill some.

Also, this statement is wrong:


Ever hear of multiple drug resistance? You can have a general mechanism like a multidrug efflux pump, which can pump a wide variety of chemically distinct molecules out of the cell. Presumably, it could gain resistance to triclosan through this mechanism and at the same time, also become resistant to other stuff.

And now we have gone full circle. Once again, this antibacterial is not an antibiotic drug and is not similar in action to any antibiotic drug. Any resistance to it puts us back to square one (regular soap) and not down one potentially effective antibiotic drug. By refusing to use it in soap, we are doing to ourselves what any resistance would do anyway.

My whole point is to stop confusing it with antibiotics and relating it to multi-drug resistant bacteria. It's just wrong. It's like saying that they are going to develop a resistance to alcohol as a disinfectant and it's going to kill us all because it will render antibiotics, which are completely different, useless.

 

[Tsavo]

The best way to build up immune response to anything under the sun is to go to several Wal Marts and lick the handles of all the shopping carts.

Do that, say, 100 times and you'll never get sick again.

 

[CZroe]

The best way to build up immune response to anything under the sun is to go to several Wal Marts and lick the handles of all the shopping carts.

Do that, say, 100 times and you'll never get sick again.

Just don't use any of those disinfecting wipes they provide. They may create multi-drug resistant SUPERBUGS!

 

[Brainonska511]

And now we have gone full circle. Once again, this antibacterial is not an antibiotic drug and is not similar in action to any antibiotic drug. Any resistance to it puts us back to square one (regular soap) and not down one potentially effective antibiotic drug. By refusing to use it in soap, we are doing to ourselves what any resistance would do anyway.

My whole point is to stop confusing it with antibiotics and relating it to multi-drug resistant bacteria. It's just wrong. It's like saying that they are going to develop a resistance to alcohol as a disinfectant and it's going to kill us all because it will render antibiotics, which are completely different, useless.

Triclosan mechanism of action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Mechanism_of_action

At in-use concentrations, triclosan acts as a biocide, with multiple cytoplasmic and membrane targets.[17] At lower concentrations, however, triclosan appears bacteriostatic and is seen to target bacteria mainly by inhibiting fatty acid synthesis. Triclosan binds to bacterial enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase enzyme (ENR), which is encoded by the gene FabI. This binding increases the enzyme's affinity for nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+). This results in the formation of a stable ternary complex of ENR-NAD+-triclosan, which is unable to participate in fatty acid synthesis. Fatty acids are necessary for reproducing and building cell membranes. Humans do not have an ENR enzyme, and thus are not affected. Some bacterial species can develop low-level resistance to triclosan at its lower bacteriostatic concentrations because of FabI mutations, which results in a decrease of triclosan's effect on ENR-NAD+ binding, as shown in Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.[18][19] Another way for these bacteria to gain low-level resistance to triclosan is to overexpress FabI.[20] Some bacteria have innate resistance to triclosan at low, bacteriostatic levels, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which possesses multi-drug efflux pumps that "pump" triclosan out of the cell.[21] Other bacteria, such as some of the Bacillus genus, have alternative FabI genes (FabK) to which triclosan does not bind and hence are less susceptible.

Antibiotics and antiseptics are related in the realm of multi-drug resistance. Just because an antiseptic can't be used as an antibiotic we can consume doesn't mean they aren't related. There are whole classes of antiseptic compounds (eg: quarternary ammonium compounds) that can be effluxed by the same pumps that can remove tetracycline or streptomycin from a cell.

There are general antiseptics (like alcohol and bleach) where resistance will generally not arise, but triclosan doesn't appear to be one of them.

 

[Ice_Dragon]

I feel like everything in some way is toxic. I mean if they do ban it, that's good and all, and I am in form of a better alternative, though something will kill us along the line somewhere.

 

[ThinClient]

Harmful in 75% of cases? My ass.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

That is the gist of it. If you are amused by the word "cuts" then you must think that commercials for dish detergents that "cut grease" are hilarious. 🙄

Are you saying that every description of a process needs to be explained and then presented with the chemistry of it? That's like explaining the quantum physics of magnetism to someone in order to say that magnetic opposites attract and that's how a compass works with Earth's magnetic poles. Farang's explanation must be BEYOND priceless for you:
"Soap sticks to both oil and water making it ideal for removing oil with water."

The contaminates on your skin are surrounded in oils secreted by your skin. Oil resists water which prevents water from effectively cleaning off these contaminates. While oil is not water-soluble, it does not resist soap. Because soap, in turn, does not resist water like the oil does, it can be washed off by water along with the oil to clean what water alone cannot.

It works because contaminates on your skin are removed along with the oil they are stuck in. Antibacterial soap does that PLUS has a chemical known to kill bacteria. Which cleans better in the absence of skin oils? :hmm:

Farang wasn't trying to explain the same thing. Farang wasn't pretending anything.