Antibacterial soap not so “different”

Antibacterial hand soaps containing triclosan – a chemical flagged as potentially risky – are not much better at killing germs than regular soap, researchers have said.

Many of us choose antibacterial soap thinking we are taking extra measures to protect ourselves from germs. There were significantly greater effects after more than nine hours, but not during the short time required for hand washing. The two soaps were exposed to 20 different bacterial strains and tested under conditions which replicated hand washing.

Today, manufacturers add triclosan to an array of products, including toothpaste, shampoo, clothing, kitchenware, furniture and toys, with the goal of reducing or preventing bacterial contamination and growth, the researchers said.

Bacteria was spread on the hands of 16 adults who had not used antibacterial soap for the previous week.

The samples were heated to 22 or 40 degrees Celsius, which simulated exposure to warm or hot water for 20 seconds which is the advised duration for hand-washing given by the World Health Organisation.

The researchers said consumers need to be made aware the antibacterial soaps do not guarantee germ protection. Yet again, there was no difference in the number of germs killed by the two types of soap, the specialists explain in a paper in the Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.

Interestingly, the problem wasn’t exactly that the bacterial soaps didn’t perform better… it was that it took them 9 hours to do their work, which is obviously little use when most people wash their hands for mere seconds. Another inconvenient might be that the maximum amount of triclosan allowed in soaps is only 0.3% and the agent was proven to be effective at a higher level.

Min Suk Rhee, co-author of the study, believes jargon should not be used to manipulate and confuse consumers into buying particular products.

“Nowadays, industry produces a variety of commercial soaps described as “antibacterial” or “antimicrobial”.

“FDA is engaged in an ongoing scientific and regulatory review of this ingredient”.

“…(T)he use of triclosan remains controversial because various adverse effects have been reported, including allergies, antibiotic resistance, endocrine disruption, acute/chronic toxicity and bioaccumulation; one study even identified carcinogenic impurities”, according to the study, which did not back up such claims with new data.