Update: Antibacterials in Soap Put on Notice

FDA to soap industry: Prove it or lose it.

More than 80,000 chemicals are produced and used in the United States. This is one of their stories.

FDA to soap industry: Prove it or lose it.

America Is Awash in Antibacterial Products


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Killing microbes has become a full-time business for those in the business of selling personal hygiene products. There’s antibacterial toothpaste and antimicrobial hand sanitizers and antibacterial soaps. For a good many of these products the antibacterial agent is a chemical known as triclosan — a polychloro phenoxy phenol if you care to know.* More on triclosan in a moment. First let’s look at this whole killing microbes thing. You might think killing germs is always a good thing to do and you’d be wrong.

First Do No Harm

Stopping the spread of germs is roundly recommended by health experts. After all, germs have been a deadly agent for millennia. And so as the science has linked microbes to disease, we have found that good hygiene is key to good health. Not surprisingly then, the mantra of “cleaning your hands” appears among the several ways that the Centers for Disease Control recommends to stop the spread of germs.

But while good hygiene is generally a good thing, it’s also true that sometimes one can have too much of a good thing. A growing body of evidence suggests that our obsession with making our environment antiseptic is causing more harm than good. In fact, regular exposure to a rich soup of microbes — the kind of soup antibacterial soaps put the kibosh on — can be good for our health. (See here and here.) Which brings us to triclosan.

Is Triclosan Safe?

So there are good microbes and bad microbes, and we obviously want exposure to the former and avoidance of the latter, so where does triclosan fit into this cleanliness equation? Before answering that, let’s look at what we know about triclosan. First of all, understand that triclosan is a pesticide, regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Federal Insecticide, Rodenticide, and Fungicide Act. That’s right, when you wash yourself with an antibacterial soap containing triclosan, you are washing yourself with a pesticide.

Now, to be fair, there is no definitive proof that triclosan poses significant health risks. But, as discussed in an earlier TheGreenGrok post, the Food and Drug Administration is concerned that triclosan may “contribute to bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and may have unanticipated hormonal effects.” (Especially those related to the thyroid.)

Does Triclosan Provide a Health Benefit?

And here’s the kicker. While we’re not sure if triclosan poses any harm to us, what we do know is that washing with an antibacterial may not be any more protective than washing with soap and water. As the CDC puts it, “Antibacterial-containing products have not been proven to prevent the spread of infection better than products that do not contain antibacterial chemicals.” And now the Food and Drug Administration has gone one step further, writing that “[n]ew data suggest that the risks associated with long-term, daily use of antibacterial soaps may outweigh the benefits.”**

This message has been a long time coming (see hereherehere and here): If you use antibacterials for your personal hygiene you are quite possibly exposing yourself to a harmful insecticide for no good reason and that exposure carries risk that soaps without triclosan do not carry. And that’s why a new rule proposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would

“require manufacturers of antibacterial hand soaps and body washes to demonstrate that their products are safe for long-term daily use and more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections.”

With this move the FDA has inched closer to what ultimately may turn out to be a ban on triclosan and similar antibacterials in soaps.

“Under the proposed rule, manufacturers who want to continue marketing antibacterial products will be required to provide the agency with additional data on the products’ safety and effectiveness, including data from clinical studies to demonstrate that these products are superior to non-antibacterial soaps in preventing human illness or reducing infection.” (See entire FDA news release.)

A Small Step for Man and Triclosan

Many will applaud the FDA for finally moving on triclosan, but in fact it is a very, very small and tentative step. Instead of covering the laundry list of products in which triclosan is an agent, from hand wipes and toothpaste to sanitizers to antibacterial soaps used in emergency rooms and other health care settings, the rule “covers only those consumer antibacterial soaps and body washes that are used with water.” And the FDA expects that the earliest this rule could be finalized is September 2016.

There is some good news. If you think you’re ready to get some distance between triclosan and your body and the bodies of your family members sooner than 2016, you don’t have to wait for the FDA. Read the labels when you shop. Consider carefully before buying a product labeled as antibacterial, especially if the active ingredient is triclosan. As they say in the chemical marketplace – caveat emptor.

____________

End Notes

* A chemical called triclocarban is the other biggie.

** By the way, if you’re in the habit of using hand sanitizers to keep the flu bug away, think again. Antibacterial soaps and hand sanitizers provide no extra protection because influenza is a virus not a bacterial infection.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe