Antibacterial Soap - Please Read

[crimgoddess]

I know that many people here use antibacterial soaps and other antibacterial products to sanitize, for fear of becoming ill. However, on another board I frequently visit, there was a discussion relating to this, and I thought I should post some info. I know that in other threads people have posted about the possible harms of antibacterial products to the environment(more recently Alvin in the Q&A thread), and how regular soap and water is all you really need. This just reiterates this:


Antibacterial ingredients have become so prevalent in the United States that there are now antibacterial soaps, laundry detergents, shampoos, toothpastes, body washes, dish soaps and many household cleaning products.

Consumers use these products because they have been marketed as an effective and necessary way to lower the risk of infection. However, many scientists fear that the widespread use could lead to a strain of resistant bacteria, or "superbugs," and cause the ingredients to lose effectiveness for the times when they really are needed.

The first major test in people's homes has found that using antibacterial products apparently offers little protection against the most common germs. The study represents the first time scientists have attempted to evaluate the products under real-life, day-to-day conditions in homes.

In the study, published in the March 2, 2004 journal Annals of Internal Medicine, people who used antibacterial soaps and cleansers developed cough, runny nose, sore throat, fever, vomiting, diarrhea and other symptoms just as often as people who used products that did not contain antibacterial ingredients.

The researchers pointed out that most of the symptoms experienced by the study participants are typically caused by viruses, which the antibacterial soaps don’t protect against. And for the symptoms like vomiting and diarrhea, which may be caused by bacteria, the people who used regular soaps had no greater risk than those who used antibacterial products.

Further, many traditional medical circles now accept the hygiene hypothesis, which centers on the idea that children need to be exposed to some bacteria in early childhood in order to strengthen their immune systems. Children who are not exposed to common bacteria, which are wiped out by antibacterial soap, may be more prone to allergies and asthma.



http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/4597


Okay, so this isn't exactly an accepted "academic" source; however, these are, and they say essentially the same thing:


http://www.colorado.edu/PWR/occasions/soap.html


http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/secti...ing_Else/Healt h/20011104182734.htm


http://www.ib.uit.no/~arilde/bio100c...DailyGerms.pdf


This isn't meant to scare anyone- just to prevent people from using products that aren't needed, or that can cause more problems in the future.


*amber*

[SimplyMe]

Amber thanks for posting this. When my Mom was in school for nursing I remember her saying they learned something similar in their microbiology class. I do like to have purell/handwipes handy for when there isn't soap and water available tho ... and those as far as I've seen only come antibacterial. Even public bathrooms have antibacterial soap now. Never heard of anti bacterial toothpaste ... that's a bit beyond crazy LOL!

[dreamer]

I also carry anti-bacterial hand gel around with me. But as SimplyMe says, it's only for when I didn't have access to soap and water. I've often wondered if they're not such a great idea after all.

[csjones]

AGREED. Our family never uses antibacterial products because of this. I usually wash my hands with thick regular dish detergent. It seems to coat them well. When I use sanitizing gel I buy the kind that only contains alcohol products, not antibacterial stuff.

Edited by: csjones

[taffy]

I do not do the anti-bacterial thing either. I just splash ableachand water solutionon everything and kill the rest of the brain cells I have left!

[NCsmile6]

I always carry anti-bacterial gel with me too!


Thanks for posting this! I didn't know there was anti-bacterial toothpaste! WOW! That's a bit much!

[mjewell]

Funny how there was a study not too long ago that found households who use antibacterial hand gel had fewer gastrointestinal illnesses.


As with everything, moderation is the key. Take this with a grain of salt. Meaning, it isn't necessary to use this stuff 50 thousand times a day, but if you are out somewhere and you are about to eat and you can't wash your hands, by all means use it. It's still better than nothing.


oops, I had to edit this after I re-read the original post. Looks lie this study was about anti bac products in general, not hand gel. I agree antibacterial products like detergent and toothpaste are unnecessary, but I think anti bac hand gel is a good thing.Edited by: mjewell

[kimmyc24]

I think I must be the only Emet sufferer that hardly EVER remembers to wash my hands, and has recently invested in a bottle of anti-bac hand waterless hand cleaner, but I always forget to use it. I usually just wash my hands when they feel greasy or have make up or visible dirt on them, but generally I have to admit i'm quite slack - I probably have a great immune system but will never know for sure because of damn EMET always making me feel ill anyway!! GRRRRR!!!

[sage]

mjewell, I don't know what "study" you're referring to, but whatever it is, it's wrong. That's because gastrointestinal illnesses are caused by VIRUSES, not bacteria. So anti-BACTERIAL anything would have absolutely zero effect.


Thanks, Crimgoddess, for the factual info and links. I think facts really do calm people down. I'll put this thread on a sticky for a time at least.

[mjewell]

Sage -


here is one articleand the URL for the complete story is http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=14366. This is not where I saw the original story, which was morerecent,but this one came up when i did a search for it.
<H3>Using Hand Sanitizer Stops Germs from Spreading</H3>


Main Category: GastroIntestinal News
Article Date: 03 Oct 2004 - 0:00am (PDT)
| email this article | printer friendly | view opinions |




Stomach bug going around your home? You might want to reach for hand sanitizer, suggests research being presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA).

Families that used alcohol-based hand sanitizer gel had a 59 percent reduction in the spread of gastrointestinal illnesses compared with families that didn't use sanitizer, according to a Harvard Medical School study.
Edited by: mjewell

[crimgoddess]

Here is what I believe to be the majorflaw in this study:


&lt;&lt;&lt;The Healthy Hands, Healthy Families study included 292 families with at least one child in day care who were tracked for five months: 155 were provided with hand sanitizer and hand hygiene educational materials, and 137 were not given sanitizer and were provided only with materials about basic nutrition. Those provided sanitizer were told to place bottles of it around the house including in the bathroom, kitchen and baby's room and to apply it to their hands after using the toilet, before preparing food, after diaper changes and at other appropriate times. Investigators called the families every other week to record how much of the sanitizer they had used.&gt;&gt;&gt;


The group given the sanitizer were also given literature relating to hand hygiene, while the control group was not. It confound the variables, as it could be just as likely that the group given the sanitizer was healthier because they were better informed of how bacteria spread, and thus practiced better hygiene in general. They did not measure whether their control group practiced any hand hygiene (ie- washing their hands with soap and water).


In order to prove that the sanitizer was the definitive factor which reduced the spread of illness, they would have to have a control group which was given all the same info, and was also monitored on their hand hygiene. The article also states that part of their intent was to show that sanitizers were a good option when washing your hands in a sink was not available- then why test this in an environment where a sink was readily available? (as in the home, where this wastested).


I also wonderhowthey "measured" gastro illnesses-there are many reasons why people feel ill, not all of which are contagious (or even caused by a physical thing). I wonder if they relied on self-report, or they actually tested the stool of the sick family members to determine why they were ill and if there was a possibility of contagion.


I'm sorry to pick apart your article Mandee (lol- as a grad student, that's kinda what we do. Ad nauseum)- I have just yet to see conclusive evidence that sanitizer like Purell is any more advantageous than moderate handwashing. There are a lot of articles circulating promoting these products (some of which were even comissioned by the manufacturers themselves), and the majority don't have a control group that was instructed to wash properly with regular soap and water. Most seem to have a group that was instructed to use the sanitizer, and a group that was told nothing. In order to determine the effectiveness of the sanitizer, there would need to be three groups; one instructed to use the sanitizer at the appropriate times, one instructed to hand wash, and another that was told to do nothing, to get a baseline measure.


I actually used to carry Purell at all times.....but have ditched it. Dried out my hands, made me worry about possible "contamination" more, etc. That was two months ago- and I haven't caught anything yet....and this is like a record for me, who is usually always sick with something, lol.


*amber*

[ham_crisp]

its strange that I just read that...

cos yesterday saw a hand cleaner type thing...and I was tempted...but I told myself no...it would only make me more dependant and wouldnt help me get over my emet. Which I will do.

And I also thought back to my fun fun biology lessons and thought about germs becoming immune when something is overly used.

[jodi054]

thanks for all the info x

[sage]

deleted postEdited by: sage

[violet]

Thankx for the Info Alvin..

From someone who has been using anti bacterial handwash for a long time now, will it increase my chances of getting something if I use it less than I am at the moment, I have OCD so not all my handwashing is connected to this phobia.

Also it is alright then to wash down your work surfaces with detol/bleach solutions then?
something I do before I cook/eat and after, as my mother insists on putting things all over it.

Is it just as effective to was your hands with soap a few times after the bathroom as it is with using anti bacterial soap?

thankx again!

[sage]

SAGE ANSWERING NOW:


Violet - if you go back and read what Alvin wrote, I think it will answer all of your questions. I know it's tough, because you're so frightened, but if you can integrate the facts really clearly into your thinking it will help your anxiety. And this isn't just for you - it's a general comment to everyone. Often when we're so scared, we can't even absorb simple factual information, but instead we keep seeking something more. It's part of having the phobia.

[madisonsmom]

Great article Amber [img]smileys/smilies_39.gif[/img]


When we continue to use the antibacterial agents to wash with we are stripping our friendly bacteria away. These little guys help us fight germs.


I used to use antibacterial soap at home but I dont anymore. Washing your hands using regular soap and water and washing vigorously (this is the key) is as effective (washing for 20 seconds and thoroughly drying. I do however keep Lysol in my house and use a diluted solution of bleach for different things like cleaning my kitchen counters especially after preparing food...and in case of someone getting sick. But as far as using antibacterial soaps on my body...I dont use them.


BUT...I am a RN and when I work I do use the antimicrobial soaps to wash before and after each patient. They now tell you that you should use the hand sanitizer IN ADDITION to washing with the antimicrobial soap. I dont really like doing this but I do because supposively research shows it is the most hygenic practiceto do (while at work)


If I am somewhere where I cant wash my hands right away when I really need to I just keep my hands away from my face and hair until I can wash them. I do use hand sanitizer when I cannot wash them (which is effectiveagainst most bacteria and not viruses.) I used to carry sanitizer with me and use it all the time...but I dont anymore.


Washing with antibacterial soaps and using hand sanitizer all the time really dried my hands out BAD! Thats not good because thats a portal of entry for germs.


I do believe that the overuse of these these things do contribute to these Superbugs...Edited by: madisonsmom

[crimgoddess]

Thanksmadisonmom


It's funny, because my mom is friends with the CEO of the hospitals in her area. I asked her about the Purell thing, and she mentioned that she knew it wasn't effective in regards to noroviruses, but that they keep it around as a 'reminder' about hand hygiene. Apparently just having the bottles around reminds staff to wash their hands more often. That, and I guess the extra 2% of protection may make the difference when a patient is severely immuno-compromised.


My boyfriend sympathizes about the dry hands- he is also an RN, and has to both handwash and use purell several times a shift. Right now, he is also trying to petition the hospital for them to provide them with scrubs for the ICU when they are moving between patients, like they do in the ER. If their scrubs get extemely soiled they are given a pair of clean ones- but other than that, they are responsible for buying and maintaining them.....the amount of laundry I do is insane.


*amber*Edited by: crimgoddess

[madisonsmom]

I personally think handwashing is sufficient. I hate using the Purell...it definitely dries your hands out! Its nothing but alcohol!

[jandub]

But I have read that the hand gel is effective in some stomach virus strains, I know I have. It may not be norovirus, but if you have a virus on your hands, and you put the gel on it even though its antibacterial, won't it kill some at least of the germs? I just don't understand because I didn't think that the purell gel was JUST for bacteria, I thought it was for viruses too. I have definately heard that antibacterial stuff is bad for you, I've switched to normal soap, which is good because it smells so pretty and you can get it in a prettier bottle. Simple pleasures, eh. At the risk of sounding silly here, what is the benefit of using the hand gel? I mean is it possible that it kills germs from other strains of tummy bugs, or strep, or any other illness? I use that stuff like crazy. I make my boys wash their hands when we get home tho. I always get the "but we used the hand gel!" Ya but I'm the boss. Thank you for all the good info, I remember reading about that soap thing awhile ago and thinking maybe that is why bugs seem to be worse the older I've gotten. [img]smileys/smilies_06.gif[/img] Janna

[crimgoddess]

Janna-


The problems that I have seen relating to research on sanitizing gel is that it confounds the variables. In other words, with one group they give the gel ALONG with information relating to hand health and the spread of illness; to the other group they give nothing. There is no way to conclusively say that the gel was the definitive factor in them getting sick less often- it could be the fact that they are now more educated in how illnesses spread and are thus more careful in general. That, and simply having a bottle of something like Purell around subconsciously makes you more careful and wash your hands more often- it serves as a reminder without even being used!


That, and I would like to know how they measured "illness"- did they actually test the person's stool to see if they were in fact sick and with what, or did they rely on self report (ie- my family was sick from &lt;insert date&gt; to &lt;insert date&gt. If they relied on self report, then this is a big issue to me, as you have no real way of knowing if the person was actually ill- stress, indigestion, fatigue- things like this can all make your body feel as though it is "sick". The people in the control group may be more likely to report this as them being sick, as opposed to the sanitizer group who may think that they aren't sick because they used the gel.


I would say that it does absolutely nothing for stomach viruses- all stomach viruses fall under 'noro-type viruses'- I'm not sure about strep and things like rotovirus, but honestly to me the potential risks to using sanitizing gels SO aren't worth the pay off, especially for kids. Research is now telling us what antibacterial products are doing to kids immune and respiratory systems- I think it's inevitable that 10-20 years from now, we will end up seeing the unintended consequences of products like Purell.


.....but that's just my opinion


*amber*Edited by: crimgoddess

[kayron]

I was a nurse before I was a teacher and taught healthcare science for 2 years. Believe it or not I taught future nurses how to wash their hands. When you break it down, you actually trap the bacteria or germs in the bubbles and foam when you rub your hands together with the soap. Then the water washes them away. It really isn't the soap itself that kills the germs. That is why it is more important how long you wash them and that you get all areas, and not what kind of soap you use. I hate that germ-x stuff. The germs are still there. It's just some are dead, and the strong ones live. Hence, the resistant bacteria. Your hands aren't clean, you just have dead germs on them. Kinda sounds gross doesn't it.