|
Antibacterial
Soap: Useless and Maybe Even Self-Defeating, Expert Says
Auburn,
March 25,
2004 ---
That antibacterial soap you keep around the bathroom --- and the
kitchen and workplace, for that matter --- probably isn’t doing you
much good.
It may even be
self-defeating.
Public concerns
about germs, everything from E.coli O157:H7 found in undercooked red
meat to flesh-eating bacteria, have driven more and more people to
turn to antibacterial soaps and similar products to rid themselves and
their home environments of these pathogens.
Industry has been
more than happy to indulge this trend: More than two-thirds of liquid
soaps sold in the
United States
contain bacterial agents --- a $16-billion-a-year enterprise.
Even so, many
health experts fear mania for antibacterial cleanliness not only is
futile but may be contributing to a new breed of chemically-resistant
super bugs.
Besides, they say,
it’s not even the antibacterial property of the soap that cleans your
hands.
“It’s the soap’s
surfactant property --- the loosening of dirt, grime and other
substances off the skin’s surface and washing it away --- that
actually ensures clean hands,” said Dr. Jean Weese, an Alabama
Cooperative Extension System food scientist and Auburn University
associate professor of food science.
Because this works
so well, Weese said, there really is no need for antibacterial soaps
in the first place. Indeed, for the antibacterial properties to work,
soap would have to stay in contact with the skin for a very long time
--- much longer than most people would tolerate, she said.
“If bacterial
soaps are used like lotions --- applied onto skin and left there
without washing it off --- yes, that’s somewhat effective, at least
against bacteria. The problem is that most soap isn’t made that way,”
she said. “Most people typically apply it for less than 20 seconds
and wash it away.”
Weese’s views are
supported by a recent study conducted among 238 Manhattan families.
In the carefully designed study, the families used only antibacterial
cleaners for roughly a year. Researchers found that they were just as
likely to get sick as often as those who used standard cleaners.
Besides, Weese
said, antibacterial soaps, aren’t even effective against the things
that most often make us sick: viruses.
It is a fact borne
out in the findings of the Manhattan study. Even in cases where
sicknesses were traced back to bacteria, the antibacterial soap didn’t
provide any added measure of protection, the study revealed.
Even worse, some
fear the widespread use of these soaps and other cleaners may be
contributing to the evolution of chemically-resistant superbugs --- a
theory that has been supported by a closer study of many common
bacteria within the last few decades, Weese said.
“The old saying,
‘What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger,’ certainly applies to the
world of bacteria,” she said. “Bacteria, much like other organisms,
change in response to stresses in their environment. One of these
stresses could be exposure to antipathogenic substances such as soap.”
Antibiotic
resistant-bacteria, for example, are a growing concern in the medical
community --- a problem no longer confined only to hospitals.
Since the 1970s,
doctors have routinely treated common staph infections with
penicillin-type drugs --- drugs that in recent years appear to have
become far less effective. In some extreme cases, doctors have had to
treat these types of infections even in young, otherwise healthy
people with drugs previously reserved only for the desperately ill.
While this
particular problem has been traced to an over-reliance on antibiotics,
Weese said it underscores why any type of antibacterial product should
be used responsibly.
“The bottom line
is to wash your hands with old-fashioned soap, even though it’s
becoming increasingly harder to find products without the
antibacterial solutions,” she said. “Even if it’s not causing super
germs, it’s still a waste of money. In fact, it’s similar to taking
lots of water-soluble vitamins. It’s just being washed down the drain
and not doing you any good.”
[Source:
Dr. Jean Weese,
Alabama
Cooperative Extension System Food Scientist and
Auburn
University
Associate Professor of Nutrition and Food Science,” (334) 844-3269;
Writer: Jim Langcuster,
Extension News and Public Affairs Specialist, (334) 844-5686.]
Article
in MS Word
Article
in Text
|