I found several articles dealing with this subject. Redbook Magazine published an article in its March 1999 issue called "It's true: a kid can be too clean." The LA Times quoted this article in their April 3 article called "Hygiene; fighting kid germs with ... germs." These articles said research is showing a correlation between our separation from germs and dirt to an increase in immune-system diseases. They talk about infants and children needing to encounter bacteria in order to develop immunities, like we were discussing in class today. They say that we can never destroy all the bad bacteria, so it is better to preserve the protective bacteria on our skin.

An article called "Handwashing with antibacterial soap...and a simple tip to make handwashing easy and effective" (Child Health Alert, Sep.1998) also addressed this problem. It states that scientists at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston report that triclosan (the most common antibacterial agent used in soaps) might actually encourage growth of triclosan-resistant bacteria. They make the point that soap and water or running water alone remove bacteria from the skin anyway, if done properly.

I even found an article from the Dec. 1997 issue of Prevention magazine discussing the inclusion of triclosan in toothpaste to fight gingivitus.

Despite the growing evidence that antibacterial agents in soaps might do more harm than good, doctors continue to recommend them as in an article by Kitty Shea in Colds and Flu, Jan. 1999.

The best article I have read on this subject was in the Feb/Mar issue of National Wildlife magazine, written by Adam Rogers. It was titled "Playing It Smart in the War Against Disease-Causing Bacteria." This article says that antibacterial products kill bacteria indiscriminately (both good and bad bacteria are killed if the product is effective) and compares the possible effects of this to the current problem with antibiotic resistance. It also states that triclosan kills bacteria by disrupting the assembly of their cell membranes, the same sort of attack that bacteria have overcome when dealing with antibiotics. Rather than risk development of more resistant bacteria, the author stresses proper handwashing and food handling safety. Since regular soap contains surfactants that lower the surface tension of water, it already helps to remove microbes from the skin which are then rinsed away. This article does a very good job of explaining the impossibility of sterilizing our world and the undesirability of doing so anyway.

I had been wondering about this subject because of the great proliferation of antibacterial products. Not just soap, but laundry and dish detergent, toothbrushes, cleaning sponges, pillows, bedding...something new every day. It seemed if this was really necessary we would all be sick already from the germs lurking everywhere in our environment. When I read Adam Rogers article in March, I was convinced that it was not necessary and perhaps even harmful. I have since tried to buy products that do not contain antibacterial agents and it is becoming nearly impossible. The last time I tried to buy plain liquid soap at WalMart, I could not find any in the whole aisle.

So, what do we do now, if we don't want to use these products?

The Adam Rogers article can be found on the web at http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/1999/healthf9.html.