The tide may be finally turning against anti-bacterial soap. Not only does it not improve health, it becomes lodged in your nose and allows antibiotic-resistant germs to breed there.
In the meantime, however, researchers seem to be digging up more and more dirt on the chemicals, particularly triclosan. This antimicrobial is widely used in not just hand soaps, but body washes, shampoos, toothpastes, cosmetics, household cleaners, medical equipment, and more. And it’s just as pervasive in people as it is in homes and clinics. Triclosan easily enters bodies by ingestion (think toothpaste) or skin absorption. It’s commonly found in people’s urine, blood, breast milk, and even their snot.
A 2014 study led by microbiologist Blaise Boles of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor tested 90 adults and found that 41 percent (37 people) had triclosan-laced boogers. Antimicrobial-snot paradoxically doubles your odds of having the potentially-infectious Staphylococcus aureus bacteria up your nose.
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.
The article goes on to say they are having an adverse effect on wastewater treatment processes, and possibly on aquatic ecosystems downstream although that doesn’t seem conclusive.
The way I think of clean chemistry, we can break substances into three categories: (1) those we know are useful, non-toxic and safe (basic soap, for example), (2) those that are useful but we know or suspect they may not be safe (laundry and dishwasher detergents for example), and (3) those that are useless and we do not know if they are safe (antibacterial soap is a perfect example!). Saying no to category 3 should be the easy part! They should be banned, and leaders of companies that push these products should be held accountable. The hard part is finding substitutes from category 1 that are just as effective and cost-effective as the ones in category 2. We put up with category 2 because the functions are important enough to us that we are willing to put up with the risks. But consumers are not good judges of that risk, and companies not only are willing to sell them dangerous products, they are willing to use cynical marketing campaigns to boost demand for them.