|
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It may be
virtually impossible to buy soap in the United
States that is not "antibacterial," but such
products are a waste of time, experts said on
Thursday.
Not only that, but their heavy
use could contribute to a whole new breed of
hard-to-kill superbugs, the researchers told a
meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of
America.
"It makes you wonder why they
call it antibacterial, because according to our
research, it isn't any more so than plain soaps,"
Elaine Larson, associate dean for research at the
Columbia University School of Nursing in New York,
said in a statement.
"We found antimicrobial or
antibacterial soaps provide no added value over
plain soap."
Soap and water works by
literally washing away germs, although soap itself
can kill bacteria and viruses.
Larson noted that several
studies suggest that alcohol-based gels are better
ways to kill germs instead of washing them away
and may be a good alternative for health care
workers whose hands are damaged by repeated
washings.
"If you've got a newborn or a
preschooler with a cold, you might consider using
an alcohol-based waterless product for a little
extra protection against germs," she said.
"But for daily hygiene,
hand-washing with regular soap is fine. Just be
sure to wash all of the surfaces on your hands,
the backs, between the fingers, and so on. It's
not the amount of time that's important, but
covering all the surfaces, as well as applying
friction."
For their study Larson's team
followed primary caretakers in 222 New York City
households. Half got an antimicrobial soap for
daily hand washing and half were given plain soap.
Neither was labeled.
The two groups were tested after
washing one time and after one year of regular use
of the assigned soap.
After a year, both groups had
fewer germs on their hands, with no differences
between the antibacterial soap group and the plain
soap group, Larson said. |
