Antibacterial soaps found USELESS at killing germs and cause harmful mutations (while posing a health risk to pregnant women and babies)
The over-used antibacterial chemicals in soaps, toothpaste, and everyday household items aren’t stopping harmful bacteria as advertised. These synthetic bactericides are causing harmful bacteria to mutate and develop resistant traits, making them more infectious, claims a new report.
Antibacterial soaps containing triclosan, triclocarban, and 19 other bactericides are useless for killing germs because these chemicals cause infectious bacteria to take on new traits so they can survive and dominate their environment. On top of all this, experts warn that these chemicals are disrupting the hormones of pregnant women and are harming babies at crucial development stages.
A report authored by 200 different scientists has claimed that these antibacterial chemicals are doing “more harm than good.” The modern day obsession with “killing bacteria” is creating hostile environments that suppress the natural environment of friendly bacteria. These antibacterial chemicals are essentially weaponizing bacteria against humans, encouraging the spread of infectious disease into the already deteriorated, undernourished cellular environments of humans.
Triclosan and antibacterial chemicals cause severe hormone disruption
Experts, such as the FDA’s Director of the Center for Evaluation and Research, now recommend just plain soap and hot water for cleaning up. Chemicals such as triclosan alter hormone activity in the body, which negatively impacts a child’s development, a women’s menstrual cycle, or a mom’s ability to produce quality breast milk. Rolf Halden, professor of engineering at Arizona State University, said: “Environmental and human exposures to triclosan and triclocarban are widespread, affecting pregnant women, developing fetuses, and breast-feeding babies.” Hormone disruption can lead to birth defects, miscarriage, and cancer. When triclosan degrades in the presence of UV radiation and chlorine water, it forms toxic dioxin compounds that persist in the water supply, which are linked to birth defects and cancer.
Dr. Barbara Sattler, environmental health professor at the University of San Francisco, said: “People think antimicrobial hand soaps offer better protection against illness, but generally, antimicrobial soaps perform no better than plain soap and water.” Dr. Janet Woodcock of the FDA says that these antibacterial ingredients are doing more harm over the long term. These antibacterial chemicals act on bacteria in similar ways as antibiotics, exciting resistant traits that are hard to treat.
The US banned triclosan from soap in 2016, but substitute chemicals are expected to pose similar problems. “I was happy that the FDA finally acted to remove these chemicals from soaps,” said Dr. Arlene Blum, executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute. “But I was dismayed to discover at my local drugstore that most products now contain substitutes that may be worse,” she continued. It doesn’t help that these chemicals are pervasive and found in all sorts of products, including food storage containers, school supplies, paints, exercise mats, electronics, kitchenware, flooring, clothes, home textiles, and countertops.
Methods of prevention that don’t readily cause bacterial resistance include essential oils, raw honey, and silverNatural antimicrobial compounds that are a part of plant’s makeup, are designed to coexist with bacteria in the environment. These natural compounds are more effective at holding harmful bacteria accountable because these compounds do not typically destroy friendly microbe activity. Instead, these natural compounds evolve alongside bacteria to protect the plants and retain balance in nature. If they are used wisely, natural antimicrobial compounds from plants are more effective for restoring the balance of microbial environments, allowing human cells the ability to adapt in the face of evolving pathogens.
This is why essential oils from plants are gaining popularity for helping people prevent and heal from infections. Similarly, raw honey, containing multiple antimicrobial properties from plants, is effective for restoring depleted cellular environments. Other antimicrobial actions are found in the element silver. The natural properties of a silver atom consistently break down harmful bacteria because a silver atom readily binds to bacteria cells and absorbs through their cell wall. Silver is designed in a way to kill harmful bacteria because it disrupts the bacteria cell’s metabolic functions without harming human cells.
The market is saturated with various kinds of soap, but many of these commercial brands are really all the same, a cheap chemical cocktail that contains a harsh detergent chemical called sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). This detergent chemical is a rogue emulsifier that removes natural oils from your hair and skin. In commercial soap making, SLS is cheap to pump out, but how safe or effective is it? How does it affect your skin?
A seven-member review panel, consisting of experts in dermatology, pharmacology, chemistry and toxicology, reviewed sodium lauryl sulfate. The seven-member panel of experts makes up the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) -- a group that thoroughly reviews and assesses the safety of cosmetic ingredients. The group is independent, and their results are published in open scientific literature.
SLS causes skin irritation that increases with concentration and exposure over time
The CIR panel found that sodium lauryl sulfate causes irritation in animal experiments and in some human experiments. They also found that higher concentrations of the detergent irritate the skin more. The CIR only deemed sodium lauryl sulfate safe if concentration does not exceed 1 percent of a product's formula. How do consumers know how much SLS is used in a soap product? The quick answer is: we don't. That's why it's best to find all natural soap that doesn't include SLS on the ingredient list.
Should a skin irritant really be added to soap? Shouldn't soap replenish and heal the skin, not irritate the skin and block pores?
SLS BLOCKS PORES, CAUSES "SEVERE EPIDERMAL CHANGES"
A study published in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology, Volume 2, Number 7, found sodium lauryl sulfate and ammonium lauryl sulfate to be irritants in concentrations beginning at just 2 percent. The patch tests clearly showed that irritation increased as the concentration of SLS increased. The study also found that SLS becomes even more irritating when used over time.
The study also found that SLS causes"...severe epidermal changes to the area of the skin of mice to which it was applied" and the study called for further studies to assess potential tumor-enhancing activity of the chemical.
In albino rabbit studies, SLS at 5 percent caused comedones to appear on the mammals. Comedones are blocked pores and damaged hair follicles that lead to severe acne-like whiteheads or blackheads that give skin a rough texture.
With so many better ingredients on the market that nourish the skin, like honey and hemp seed oils, it is counterproductive to lather up with SLS and other sulfates that strip the skin of its natural oils.
Live Pure News
Lance D. Johnson, founder of Live Pure Body Care, is also the managing editor for all studies represented on this site. Lance has published hundreds of articles for top health news site NaturalNews.com and dozens of other syndicated publications.