As Ars has reported previously, scientists have found that triclosan and other antimicrobial soaps have little benefit to consumers and may actually pose risks. These include bolstering antibiotic resistant microbes, giving opportunistic pathogens a leg up, and disrupting microbiomes. In its final ruling, issued Friday, the FDA seemed to agree. “Consumers may think antibacterial washes are more effective at preventing the spread of germs, but we have no scientific evidence that they are any better than plain soap and water,” Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), said in a statement. “In fact, some data suggests that antibacterial ingredients may do more harm than good over the long-term.”
[…]
The ruling does not affect alcohol-based hand sanitizers or wipes, which the agency is reviewing separately. It also does not affect antiseptic products used in healthcare settings.
Good riddance.
That’s… odd. I’m not a fan of antimicrobial soaps as a rule but I’m equally not generally a fan of *banning* things without good reason.
I can’t be bothered Googling the entire basis of the decision but I hope there was something showing they were harmful to the environment or something rather than they just can’t prove they’re good. I dunno. Hmmm.
The way I understand it is that the reason they’re bad is because bacteria become resistant to the soap and create superbugs, so the ban is for a similar reason that doctors won’t prescribe antibiotics for minor illnesses that will go away on their own.
For sure, but I would expect to have positive supporting data before passing legislation, particularly considering we’re talking about something environmental and you still have widespread, inconsistent use of antibacterial cleaning products.
Using expired antibiotics or not finishing courses is 100% provably selecting for resistant bacteria, whereas this appears to have inconclusive evidence. I say this as someone who pretty much believes they are harmful, I’m just dubious about banning things on flimsy evidence. :P
Recent studies have indicated that triclosan, a chemical used in antibacterial soaps, weakens muscle function. Here’s Smithsonian (I have no idea why they covered it?) on the matter:
In recent years, though, research has shed light on a number of problems with employing triclosan so widely. Studies have shown that the chemical can disrupt the endocrine systems of several different animals, binding to receptor sites in the body, which prevents the thyroid hormone from functioning normally. Additionally, triclosan penetrates the skin and enters the bloodstream more easily than previously thought, and has turned up everywhere from aquatic environments to human breast milk in troubling quantities.
To this list of concerns, add one more: A new paper, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, indicates that triclosan impairs muscle function in both animals and humans. The study, conducted by researchers from the University of California, Davis, found that the chemical hinders human muscle contractions at the cellular level and inhibits normal muscle functioning in both fish and mice.
And here’s an earlier Ars article, including this gem:
In rats exposed to triclosan, Dr. Boles and his colleagues found that triclosan exposure made it more difficult, not less, for the rodents to fend off Staph invasions. Triclosan seems to make the bacteria “stickier”—better able to adhere to proteins and surfaces. That stickiness could be why Staph is so good at hunkering down in the schnoz, setting the stage for future infections.
There have been waves of reporting on the matter, followed by mostly silence. I kept an eye out after an FDA request for data earlier this year caused similar reporting.