Did not want to thread jack the MERSA thread but was curious about the article you mentioned. what did it say? Im assuming that it was along the lines of the fact that we are killing all bacteria means we are killing the good ones, too. I could look it up, but im feeling lazy :giggle It sounds like it made some very convincing points, to influence you to throw all yours out, and Im interested in what it said. Thanks!! :)

I can't remember esactly but I'll look up some information for you. Give me a little bit of time, I'm in and out cleaning house and getting stuff done.

Basically, in a nutshell, two points - when we use anitbacterials, our body doesn't have a chance to develop immunities to germs, because the germs aren't there. We used to be out playing in the dirt, getting dirty, now we're such germaphobes that our bodies don't even know how to combat germs. They can't build immunities if there's nothing to build immunities too. This is also a suggested reason that the allergies in our kids are suddenly SO SEVERE (airborne peanut allergies, for example...) There is also a correlation with the antibac's and the antibiotic resistant bugs (such as MRSA), but I can't remember the logic of it off the top of my head.

BUT - I'll find some info for you.

Thanks!!! This is a thought ive had for a while now (just more pondering than actually looking for evidence or doing anything about it). My DH is constantly sanitizing Arianna lol For him its habit of working in the medical field and the Emergency Room, but for her im always telling him "Shes a kid, kids get dirty". Thanks!

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol7no3_supp/levy.htm

Here's an article from the Center for Disease Control...there's alot more scientific mumbo jumbo if you actually click on the link, but this is a basic outline of info.

I'll find more later :)

Antibacterial Household Products: Cause for Concern
Stuart B. Levy
Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The recent entry of products containing antibacterial agents into healthy households has escalated from a few dozen products in the mid-1990s to more than 700 today. Antibacterial products were developed and have been successfully used to prevent transmission of disease-causing microorganisms among patients, particularly in hospitals. They are now being added to products used in healthy households, even though an added health benefit has not been demonstrated. Scientists are concerned that the antibacterial agents will select bacteria resistant to them and cross-resistant to antibiotics. Moreover, if they alter a person's microflora, they may negatively affect the normal maturation of the T helper cell response of the immune system to commensal flora antigens; this change could lead to a greater chance of allergies in children. As with antibiotics, prudent use of these products is urged. Their designated purpose is to protect vulnerable patients.

Antibiotics are critical to the treatment of bacterial infections. However, after years of overuse and misuse of these drugs, bacteria have developed antibiotic resistance, which has become a global health crisis (1, 2). The relatively recent increase of surface antibacterial agents or biocides into healthy households may contribute to the resistance problem.

The antibacterial substances added to diverse household cleaning products are similar to antibiotics in many ways. When used correctly, they inhibit bacterial growth. However, their purpose is not to cure disease but to prevent transmission of disease-causing microorganisms to noninfected persons. Like antibiotics, these products can select resistant strains and, therefore, overuse in the home can be expected to propagate resistant microbial variants (3-6). Moreover, these agents, like antibiotics, are not cure-alls but have a designated purpose. Whereas antibiotics are designed to treat bacterial (not viral) infections, antibacterial products protect vulnerable patients from infectious disease-causing organisms. Neither are demonstrably useful in the healthy household.

Proliferation of Antibacterial Products
Seven years ago, only a few dozen products containing antibacterial agents were being marketed for the home. Now more than 700 are available. The public is being bombarded with ads for cleansers, soaps, toothbrushes, dishwashing detergents, and hand lotions, all containing antibacterial agents. Likewise, we hear about "superbugs" and deadly viruses. Germs have become the buzzword for a danger people want to eliminate from their surroundings. In response to these messages, people are buying antibacterial products because they think these products offer health protection for them and their families. Among the newer products in the antibacterial craze are antibacterial window cleaner and antibacterial chopsticks. Antibacterial agents are now in plastic food storage containers in England. In Italy, antibacterial products are touted in public laundries. In the Boston area, you can purchase a mattress completely impregnated with an antibacterial agent. Whole bathrooms and bedrooms can be outfitted with products containing triclosan (a common antibacterial agent), including pillows, sheets, towels, and slippers.

Development of Resistance
Bacteria are not about to succumb to this deluge, however. Through mutation, some of their progeny emerge with resistance to the antibacterial agent aimed at it, and possibly to other antimicrobial agents as well (4). Laboratory-derived mutants of Pseudomonas stutzeri with resistance to the cationic biocide chlorhexidine were also cross-resistant to antibiotics (nalidixic acid, erythromycin, and ampicillin) (7). In a recent study, 7% of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from the environment and food products showed resistance to quaternary ammonium compounds (8).

Laura McMurry in my laboratory group conducted experiments to determine whether triclosan had a particular cellular site for its antibacterial activity. She used a classic genetic technique, the isolation of resistant mutants of Escherichia coli, to identify its possible target. Surprisingly, finding the cellular site proved easy. In fact, mutants appeared with low, medium, and high-level resistance (3). They all had a mutation in one gene, the fabI gene (3) (Table 1). This finding indicated that triclosan had a target for the enoyl reductase essential in fatty acid biosynthesis. In the presence of triclosan or a know fabI inhibitor (diazoborine) fatty acid biosynthesis was inhibited, whereas the antibiotics chloramphenicol or ciprofloxacin with other targets had little effect on fatty acid biosynthesis (Table 2). In comparison with the wild-type E. coli, the mutant required up to 100 times more triclosan to show even minimal inhibition of fatty acid biosynthesis (3).