FDA ruling on antibacterial hand soap

[SparklyUnicorn]

So to sum up: I should toss and will no longer be able to buy the non-alcohol based hand sanitizer I use when camping or otherwise don't have soap and water available, which I use because the alcohol-based stuff hurts my eczema-prone hands, because it works no better than regular soap and water?

 

:glare:

 

I wonder if a mix of peroxide and water would be helpful.  Just throwing that idea out there.

[SKL]

Yeah, I rarely choose antibacterial soap, but there are those rare times when I have a reason to.  Like when I just got done cleaning up something toxic, and my next task is to feed someone.

 

I hate that they make my kids us it at school.  I tell them not to.  Sometimes they say they aren't allowed a choice.

Edited September 6, 2016 by SKL

[kitten18]

So to sum up: I should toss and will no longer be able to buy the non-alcohol based hand sanitizer I use when camping or otherwise don't have soap and water available, which I use because the alcohol-based stuff hurts my eczema-prone hands, because it works no better than regular soap and water?

 

:glare:

Is it the foam? The one I have has benzalkonium chloride. That is still available for now (it's also the ingredient in hand wipes) but it's on the list of ingredients that they will be looking at in the next year.

I use the Germ x foam because it's effective against stomach viruses, unlike the alcohol gels.

[Ravin]

I wonder if a mix of peroxide and water would be helpful.  Just throwing that idea out there.

 

I can't fathom that peroxide wouldn't sting as badly as alcohol.

[regentrude]

Yeah, I rarely choose antibacterial soap, but there are those rare times when I have a reason to.  Like when I just got done cleaning up something toxic, and my next task is to feed someone.

 

Why do you think an antibacterial soap would help against toxins better than regular soap???

 

[regentrude]

So to sum up: I should toss and will no longer be able to buy the non-alcohol based hand sanitizer I use when camping or otherwise don't have soap and water available, which I use because the alcohol-based stuff hurts my eczema-prone hands, because it works no better than regular soap and water?

 

No, hand sanitizer is exempt from the regulation. This is only about soap.

 

But then, people camped long before the invention of hand sanitizer. It is not necessary.

[Guest]

No, hand sanitizer is exempt from the regulation. This is only about soap.

 

But then, people camped long before the invention of hand sanitizer. It is not necessary.

My father in law had to do a six week course of oral and one week course of intravenous antibiotics because of a pathogen he picked up while camping. It was nearly twenty years ago and had been causing him progressively worse symptoms. People absolutely get very sick and sometimes die of things related to inadequate sanitizing and hygiene rurally, whether it be in this country or others - sanitizer has markedly improved safety in areas where proper waste disposal and clean water are not available, including here in Alaska.

 

I am not one who sterilizes my countertops or even uses antibiotics (my kids have had two courses among them, both for acute infections) except in dire circumstances, but antiseptics and sanitizers are a huge blessing when you're dealing with human waste or entrails and the only water sources are infested with numerous nasty parasites.

 

I'm super conservative in this area but I've seen too many problems from a ladies of sanitary conditions when camping or hunting to be overly cavalier about it. Especially when you have a limited supply of potable water, it changes the calculation in favor of alcohol or alcohol sanitizer and a rag ;)

[SKL]

Why do you think an antibacterial soap would help against toxins better than regular soap???

 

 

I was using "toxic" in a playful way.  Last time I recall actually wanting to use antibacterial soap, I had just finished taking out some nasty garbage or cleaned up after pets or something similar.

 

In my case, I'm sure I will be just fine without it, but I still think people should be allowed to choose it if they want it - given full disclosure.  I mean, people are still allowed to buy cigarettes as long as the pack states that it's gonna kill them and their babies.  Antibacterial soap seems a little less dangerous.

[Happy2BaMom]

I was using "toxic" in a playful way.  Last time I recall actually wanting to use antibacterial soap, I had just finished taking out some nasty garbage or cleaned up after pets or something similar.

 

In my case, I'm sure I will be just fine without it, but I still think people should be allowed to choose it if they want it - given full disclosure.  I mean, people are still allowed to buy cigarettes as long as the pack states that it's gonna kill them and their babies.  Antibacterial soap seems a little less dangerous.

 

If it affected only the individual, I would agree. And it is far, far more dangerous than cigarettes. 

 

We are losing antibiotics as a tool (see also this and this, for just two of many articles on the matter). As in, there will be few (if any) that will be left that work. This means surgery, C-sections, cancer treatment, ear infections, strep throat (just to name a few) will become very dangerous and deadly again. And it's not some "far in the future" scenario. Bacteria communicate to help each other resist antibiotics. Which is why there was so much hullabaloo (in certain circles) when the first ultra-superbug (resistant to ALL antibiotics) was discovered in the U.S. this spring. The constant use of antibacterial soaps and antibiotic use in farm animals (along with other things, such as over-prescription) exposed deadly bacteria to constant, daily influxes of antibiotics. The strong ones learned to survive it, and they bred more strong ones, and communicated with other bacteria, and here we are, looking over the abyss.

 

As I said above, it's really too late to really do anything about this issue. Getting antibacterial soaps off the market is rather like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but if it gives people peace of mind, heh, no harm in that. I'm not convinced taking antibacterial soaps off the market now really matters. But if this had happened many years ago, it might have really made a difference. 

 

But the idea that certain clueless individuals should be able to continue to buy this particular soap only because they want to ignores the much wider impact that such decisions have made upon the entire society. I dont' want to seem harsh, but my kids and their kids aren't going to be able to treat certain conditions due to the loss of effective antibiotics. So I get a little pissy about the whole 'individual rights' thing. 

 

Looking at the upside, as antibiotics fade into the distance, that whole pesky human overpopulation thing is probably going to be a lot less impactful than once feared. 

Edited September 7, 2016 by Happy2BaMom

[regentrude]

In my case, I'm sure I will be just fine without it, but I still think people should be allowed to choose it if they want it - given full disclosure.  I mean, people are still allowed to buy cigarettes as long as the pack states that it's gonna kill them and their babies.  Antibacterial soap seems a little less dangerous.

 

Definitely no to the bolded.

The antibiotic resistant bacteria the use of antibacterial soap helps breed are a public health threat - they will kill people even if they are not using the soap.

 

You would not advocate that smokers can expose the public to second had smoke, would you? It is a similar situation.

 

Antibiotic resistant germs are among the top public health problems, more dangerous than smoking which primarily harms the smoker himself, since society has considered it prudent to take steps to limit second hand smoke exposure.

Edited September 7, 2016 by regentrude

[Bluegoat]

My father in law had to do a six week course of oral and one week course of intravenous antibiotics because of a pathogen he picked up while camping. It was nearly twenty years ago and had been causing him progressively worse symptoms. People absolutely get very sick and sometimes die of things related to inadequate sanitizing and hygiene rurally, whether it be in this country or others - sanitizer has markedly improved safety in areas where proper waste disposal and clean water are not available, including here in Alaska.

 

I am not one who sterilizes my countertops or even uses antibiotics (my kids have had two courses among them, both for acute infections) except in dire circumstances, but antiseptics and sanitizers are a huge blessing when you're dealing with human waste or entrails and the only water sources are infested with numerous nasty parasites.

 

I'm super conservative in this area but I've seen too many problems from a ladies of sanitary conditions when camping or hunting to be overly cavalier about it. Especially when you have a limited supply of potable water, it changes the calculation in favor of alcohol or alcohol sanitizer and a rag ;)

 

Yes, I have used it almost exclusivly when I was in the army, in the field.  Washing facilities for cleaning up after toileting weren't reliably available, and frankly some of the toilets could become quite unsavoury if there was a delay in servicing which wasn't uncommon.  having some sanitizer was nice when you found yourself in one of those scenarios.

[EmseB]

Just to clarify -- there was no superbug discovered in the U.S. that is resistant to all antibiotics.

 

I'm all for the judicious use of abx, but sensational-izing the issue doesn't help, IMO.

[MerryAtHope]

I can't fathom that peroxide wouldn't sting as badly as alcohol.

 

I can't vouch for your eczema for certain, but hydrogen peroxide is definitely MUCH less painful on open wounds (sometimes it doesn't sting at all). 

[Happy2BaMom]

Just to clarify -- there was no superbug discovered in the U.S. that is resistant to all antibiotics.

 

I'm all for the judicious use of abx, but sensational-izing the issue doesn't help, IMO.

 

I stand somewhat corrected - the superbug discovered in May was the first discovered that was resistant to colistin but still was treated by other antibiotics. However.... "But researchers worry that its colistin-resistance gene, known as mcr-1, could spread to other bacteria that can already evade other antibiotics...." which was what the fuss was all about.

 

As far as 'sensationalizing'....that's your opinion.....I don't like fiddling while this all plays out, and the loss of many of the antibiotics we have come to rely on is going to change life in ways we can't even imagine. (You might want to check out the following article from today: "Superbug Explosion Triggers U.S. General Assembly Meeting - antibiotic resistance has grown so dire that it will be the subject of a global health summit later this month")

Edited September 7, 2016 by Happy2BaMom

[EmseB]

It is my opinion, yes. It's difficult to get people to take actual risks seriously if the end of the world is always nigh. The risk of a "superbug" has been touted for so long that people simply don't take it seriously anymore. People being desensitized to something via constant sensational breathless reporting on it (without they themselves experiencing any real catastrophe) makes a different problem entirely -- a populace that doesn't care if a superbug is coming because they've heard that one before.

 

But, aside from that philosophical difference in reporting, new antibiotics are being discovered/developed. From weird and interesting places.

 

And again, I'm all for judicious use of antibiotics.

[momacacia]

I just find it very odd that the FDA has allowed this stuff on the market this long and just now are.getting around to banning it. Good job, guys. Stuff the crunchy health nuts had figured out at least a decade ago. ðŸ˜