Threat Seen From Antibacterial Soap Chemicals

[lindisfarne]

The compounds end up in sewage sludge that is spread on farm fields across the country.
By Marla Cone, Times Staff Writer
May 10, 2006


Tons of chemicals in antibacterial soaps used in the bathrooms and kitchens of virtually every home are being released into the environment, yet no government agency is monitoring or regulating them in water supplies or food.

About 75% of a potent bacteria-killing chemical that people flush down their drains survives treatment at sewage plants, and most of that ends up in sludge spread on farm fields, according to Johns Hopkins University research. Every year, it says, an estimated 200 tons of two compounds — triclocarban and triclosan — are applied to agricultural lands nationwide.

<snip>
From dishwashing soaps to cutting boards, about 1,500 new antibacterial consumer products containing the two chemicals have been introduced into the marketplace since 2000. Some experts worry that widespread use of such products may be helping turn some dangerous germs into "superbugs" resistant to antibiotics.

Triclocarban, an ingredient of antibacterial bar soaps and toothpaste, is "potentially problematic" because it breaks down slowly, which means it is accumulating in soil and perhaps water, said Rolf Halden, an assistant professor at Johns Hopkins' Department of Environmental Health Sciences, who led the study.
<snip>

In October, an advisory panel of the Food and Drug Administration reported that there was no evidence that the household products protected people any better than regular soap. The panel urged the agency to study their risks and benefits. The American Medical Assn. has opposed routine use of antibacterial soaps since 2002. "The bottom line," Halden said, "is we are mass-producing chemicals in the environment that are not helpful and potentially are harmful."


More at http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-antibacterial10may10,0,3219699.story?coll=la-home-nation

[sharp_stick]

1. I hate antibacterial soap

It's a waste of chemicals and it promotes the resistance of bacteria to those chemicals. Regular soap is plenty antibacterial itself.

Use Purell hand sanitizer to quickly kill bugs on hands, it's just ethanol and it works great w/o water.

I don't even know if you can find soap now that isn't antibacterial?

[Lindacooks]

2. You're absolutely right. Plain soap and water work just fine.

Plus we can't achieve a sterile environment. Trying to, as you say, makes bacteria mutate so it's more harmful.

[lindisfarne]

3. It's hard to find liquid soap that isn't antibacterial but you can.

I usually don't buy liquid soap but had a coupon (to be doubled) and it was on sale so I'd get a bottle for 30 cents. Of the 10-12 Softsoap choices, only 3 were antibacterial. I only get this for guests; it's far cheaper to use bar soap (if you keep it from getting wet anytime the shower runs and washing down the drain).

It's impossible to find liquid soap that isn't scented. (Who needs to be wearing 12+ scents - from laundry soap to drier softener to shampoo to conditioner to body lotion to facial cleanser to facial toner to moisturizer to hand lotion to hand washing soap to perfume, etc.? You end up smelling like a perfume counter.)

[greenman3610]

5. Dr Bronners!!!

[lindisfarne]

4. See other thread on this; let's close this one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2274835

This isn't really "Latest breaking news" - it only came out in LA Times within last 24 hours but was published elsewhere before then - but since that thread is already running strong ...