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.
> 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. :/
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.
We used waterwipes as well but ended up switching at the time. I don't remember exactly the cause, but the fruit juice (I think it is grape or rapeseed extract) had some problems and was linked to some health problems. I honestly don't remember what it was (been a while) but give it a google, it may have been overblown at the time, or maybe not.
We still use very basic ones but don't really remember the brand, but if you are interested I can ping my wife tomorrow about it.
There was a scare a few years ago because Grapefruit Seed Extract was found to be contaminated from some suppliers. But Waterwipes in particular was never impacted, and tested their Grapefruit and found it pure.
As far as I know the only downside/limitation of Waterwipes is that they only last about a month after being opened. That's because mold can grow on them since the Grapefruit is only mildly fighting bacterial growth.
We've never had it be a problem but are also using them regularly. And as I said, they helped reduce diaper rash to almost being a non-issue.
PS - The irony is that Grapefruit Seed Extract was being contaminated with compounds which other wipes contain by design, like Triclosan and Benzethonium Chloride. So people switched away from Waterwipes (because it MIGHT be contaminated) into using a product which is designed with that "contamination." Irony of ironies.
We were relatively lucky since my wife gets access to medical supplies for almost free and we used the individually wrapped 'gauze' (not sure if the right name, basically squares of cotton in a gauze like pattern in layers) and water. If we go out, we researched and found other brands that had little ingredients as well and took those.
We also (if in the house) preferred to wash him over using nappies (small baby, fits well in a sink and its quite quick to clean up)
Our doc (in India) asked us to just use soft cotton and water. That worked really well. I have always found it quite difficult to clean properly with wipes and we use wipes only if we were stepping out. I'm curious as to why wipes are used especially something with juice.
People use wipes because they're convenient. The "juice" is 0.1% of the product and exists for its mild natural anti-bacterial properties. It isn't sticky like you're imagining, in fact if not told you would assume it was 100% water.
In general I think soft cotton and water is a great idea. I am contrasting Waterwipes against other "chemical" wipes on the market which often promote diaper rash and cannot be used on the face (e.g. Huggies, Pampers, supermarket own brand wipes).
> We've know for almost ten years (via peer reviewed science) that these compounds are unsafe and ineffective.
Ineffective? Evidence agrees.
Unsafe? Overall evidence does not agree (with exceptions for the very small number of people like me who appear to be allergic).
The main issue is that these things are ineffective and they can have some negative effects for small numbers of people. So, if they are ineffective, why take any risk at all?
FWIW, we found that we can dilute Dr. Brommer's soap with water and it works really well in those same foaming soap dispensers (and it foams!). Pure organic saponified oils for washing my hands... for the win.
I just want to plug another awesome use for Dr. Bronner's--as a replacement for spray cleaner. We used to get the windex or 409 or whatever it is, the stuff you'd spray on counters and wipe up with a paper towel.
No more, I now dilute a little Bronner's in an old spray bottle with a lot of water, spray it on, wipe up my kitchen debris, stuff smells great, cleans up the counters a treat, and is insanely cheap for the value.
Are you just re-purposing standard off the shelf foaming soap dispensers or did you buy something in particular (e.g. can I reuse a Method foaming dispenser)?
I have found that my homemade water-soap mixtures will eventually cause the foam soap dispenser to jam up and stop working. Adding in a small amount of glycerin seems to help keep the dispenser lubricated.
> Also why on our newborn I purchased Waterwipes (wiper + fruit juice only).
This is a tangent, but my wife and I switched to dry wipes and a squirt bottle (the kind you'd use in a kitchen for oil or vinegar) for our daughter. It's cheaper. It's way better at avoiding diaper rash aggravation. And it's nearly as convenient as prepackaged wet wipes. We keep the bottle filled with tap water (use purified if you're paranoid or your tap water is unsafe) and every so often run the bottle through the dishwasher.
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".
> Many liquid soaps labeled antibacterial contain triclosan, an ingredient of concern to many environmental, academic and regulatory groups. Animal studies have shown that triclosan alters the way some hormones work in the body and raises potential concerns for the effects of use in humans. We don’t yet know how triclosan affects humans and more research is needed.
> In addition, laboratory studies have raised the possibility that triclosan contributes to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Some data shows this resistance may have a significant impact on the effectiveness of medical treatments, such as antibiotics.
I feel like you're just being pedantic. The FDA has literally banned triclosan from hand soaps because they feel it does more harm than good, but calling it "unsafe" to you is simply "misinformation."
Plus there's a difference between "proven safe" and shown in animal studies to be unsafe. In this case not only has triclosan not been proven safe but animal studies have suggested it is unsafe.
They're also looking at: banning benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, chloroxylenol, and triclosan from hand sanitizers.
So you can be on any side of this issue you want, but the FDA sides with me. Triclosan is bad, likely unsafe, and definitely never proven safe.
It's interesting, I don't interpret the FDA excerpts as anything other than "we don't know".
The animal studies indicate that it alters the way hormones work. Is that sufficient to be unsafe? Wouldn't you have to show that the alterations cause negative health outcomes?
I also don't think the bacterial resistance issue is proven to the point where we should be so confident assessing that the triclosan is unsafe.
Rather, we should see it as no known benefit and some cousin-instances where it could be unsafe.
In cases like this, I wish people would reply with an explanation of why "unsafe" is too harsh a word rather than attempting to bury the post by downvoting it. That conversation could be helpful to others. Not seeing the post doesn't help anyone.
I do agree. Neither the HN Guidelines [1] nor the FAQ [2] are clear about what expectations they have for downvotes (unless I'm missing something). I never saw the original comment when it was, I assume, greyed out, prompting the second poster to ask about the downvotes. It is second-highest ranked now, so I assume the downvotes are a minor component to its rank.
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.
People here are very passionate about correctness, and get hung up around technical definitions of terms like "safe" and "unsafe". It's not a bad thing, just an expected outcome around a bunch of engineers.
IMO, its a lot of irrelevant noise. Even if it was safe to human health, its also ineffective, is marketed misleadingly, and has environmental impacts.
Many of the soap brands have both antibacterial and standard soaps available, including both Softsoap and store brands.
I'll also note that the reaction may not have been to triclosan or the like but to methylisothiazolinone, which is or has been used in a very wide variety of products and is often used with at least one other product also known for allergic contact dermatitis. I HIGHLY recommend checking your child's shampoo for this, the significant scalp and palm tingling I was encountering during showers disappeared with a change of shampoo and conditioner.
I will also note the irony of 'wipes' that cause an itchy tingling dermatitis reaction...
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.
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]
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What do you mean by "if left unattended?" I've yet to see a dog that would check if a human is around before licking whatever part of his anatomy he just wants to lick. And they're surprisingly agile when it come to that.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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).
No.
As best I can tell, the GP post was claiming that those considering making their own soap should not, due to environmental concerns. Exploring a scenario in which everyone in the world suddenly converting to home lye soap might be an interesting thought experiment, but has nothing to do with the real world.
> 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.
Perhaps I am, in a world in which everyone abruptly started making their own soap last week.
In this world, I'm talking about arguments that fail because they are predicated on extremely weak claims of economy of scale.
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 ?
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."
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.
Independent of any direct harm these products might cause to those using them, excess use of antibiotics is bad for everyone because it promotes the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of disease-causing bacteria in the wild. Everything we can do to minimize the unnecessary usage of antibiotics is beneficial.
An argument like that perhaps would have made sense but if the harm done by soap was worse than the benefit provided the soap could have been banned even if it was found useful.
Your misapprehension is addressed specifically at the top of the article:
Of those chemicals, the most commonly found in liquid antibacterial soap is triclosan, and the most common in bar soap is triclocarban. These compounds have been found to disrupt development of the reproductive system and metabolism in animals, and may contribute to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics.
In bringing attention to antibacterial soap, the FDA cited a study led by Stanford epidemiologist Stephen Luby showing no significant difference in results from plain soap and antibacterial soap. To better understand the issues around antibacterial soap, we spoke with Luby, a professor with the Stanford School of Medicine and a senior fellow with the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
That is:
* The ingredients listed as "active" have no measureable positive outcomes effects when tested.
* Which means that the claims of manufacturers are not supported. If the manufacturers are making those claims with an awareness of this fact, they are committing fraud.
* There are demonstrable and highly probable harms of the ingredents on the environment.
So yes, your stated assumptions are incorrect. The product is not only "not useful", it is actively harmful, and doesn't work as advertised.
Further cheap shots do little to ameliorate the initial false premises.
Of course! I mean the obvious solution is no government meddling. If people actually care about their products working as advertised, then they'll just go out and become a doctor and biologist so they can effectively and competently evaluate their choice of hand soap purchase.
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.