For many years, management of bacterial infections has depended on the utilization of antibacterial products or antibiotics. The high efficacy levels of antibiotics over the past years led to the neglect of other options for disease control and management. Antibiotics have been extensively applied against bacteria both in animals and in humans. However, scientists have discovered that antibiotics are no longer effective against bacteria because of issues like antibiotic resistance and the negative effect of antibacterial products on the environment. Given that antibacterial products are appealing to consumers today, it is vital to determine the harmful and ineffective nature of these products.
This paper argues that the use of antibacterial products is dangerous and ineffective because it creates antibiotic-resistant bacteria, is not more effective than regular soap and is bad for the environment.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Today, humans are experiencing an increasing challenge with antibiotic resistance, even though many people still trust that antibiotics kill germs. Antibacterial products are attractive because manufacturers advertise them by including the idea that the products are proven to kill 99 percent of bacteria. However, they fail to explain what happens to the remaining one percent. It is likely that the 1 percent will survive and spread and then develop antibiotic resistance to the point that every consumer is worse off than if antibiotics could never have been introduced. Studies have documented resistance of bacteria to triclosan, the main element in antibacterial soap (Bragg & Kock, 2013). Antibiotics have been used to promote growth among animals for a long time. However, there has been an increasing development of antibiotic resistance. The extensive and uncontrolled utilization of antibacterial products has resulted into a high rate of antibiotic resistance, for instance, there are reports of resistance of Salmonella to Fluoroquinolone across the globe (Le Hello et al., 2013). The main causes of antibiotic resistance include abuse and overuse of antibacterial products and the acquisition of components encoded in the plasmids (Nathan & Cars, 2014). Consequently, there is enough evidence to show that the use of antibiotics leads to antibiotic resistance, which means that antibacterial products are ineffective.
Besides causing antibacterial resistance, antibacterial products have been found to be ineffective at preventing diseases and decreasing levels of bacteria on the hands (Nathan, C., & Cars, O. (2014). These products are no more effective than ordinary soap. For example, for antibacterial soaps to act effectively, they must stay on the hands for a minimum of two minutes (Giuliano & Rybak, 2015). It can be noted that most people do not stay that long with soap on their hands. Therefore, the meaning of this is that people are not benefiting from antibiotics, which is bad news. The problem is that most consumers lack enough information regarding the ineffectiveness of antibacterial products and thus they keep using them with the expectation that they are effective at killing germs. Washing hands is regarded as an effective way to gain protection and hinder the spread of bacteria. A majority of soaps today have antibacterial agents, even though there is no evidence to prove their effectiveness. Studies have shown that antibacterial soaps do not offer protection against bacteria like E.coli and Salmonella (Le Hello et al., 2013). A study was carried out in which 200 homes with children were included. Each home received hygiene and cleaning supplies, which included household cleaners, detergents and soaps to use for a single year. Regular products without the addition of antibacterial agents were issues to a half of the participants while the second group received products with antibacterial agents. After one year, the families were surveyed and it was found out that participants who used antibacterial products had the same chance of getting sick as those who used ordinary products without antibacterial agents (Pommerville, Alcamo & Alcamo, 2013, p. 213). Evidence from such studies compelled the banning of the use of antibacterial agents due to the absence of evidence to support their efficacy.
Antibiotics have also been found to be bad for the environment. For example, while triclosan has been under the regulation of the Environmental Protection Agency as a pesticide, studies have shown that the agent interferes with the endocrine system of certain animals like rats (Wang & Tian, 2015). The discovery of the negative effect of this agent demonstrates that the agent is toxic to the environment. Triclosan is also toxic to aquatic life as it interferes with algae, which is a vital element in photosynthesis (Dhillon et al., 2015). Triclosan has also been found in the breast milk of nursing mothers (Dhillon et al., 2015). When this agent is exposed to sunlight, it produces carcinogenic and dioxins that cause birth defects (Dhillon et al., 2015). Antibiotics have also been found to impede the diversity of bacteria in the environment, which affects the structure of the community (von der Ohe, Schmitt-Jansen, Slobodnik & Brack, 2012). Concentrations of antibiotics in the environment can eradicate about 85 percent of the bacterial population (von der Ohe et al, 2012).
Other people argue that antibacterial products are ineffective because most manufacturers just state that their products are antibiotic without labeling them with the kind of antibiotic agent they have included. It could be that they do not include any antibiotic agent but just use the antibacterial name to market their products. Therefore, manufacturers should be compelled to label their products with the kind of the antibacterial agent they include in antibacterial products to ensure that the product is truly antibacterial.
Nevertheless, including an agent like triclosan into a product does not protect the user against germs because the important thing is how consumers use the product. For example, regarding the washing of hands, many people apply antibiotic soaps and wash it immediately. However, studies show that triclosan should stay on the hands for a minimum of two minutes to enhance its antibacterial impact (Giuliano & Rybak, 2015). Consequently, most people wash the antibacterial agent away before it can act effectively. Since this does not provide real protection from germs, including an antibiotic label confuses and misleads consumers.
In conclusion, antibiotics have been useful in the management of bacterial infections for many years now. They have been very efficient to the extent that other approaches for disease control have been ignored. However, due to the overdependence on antibiotics, abuse and overuse of these products have led to antibacterial resistance that has rendered antibiotics ineffective against bacteria. Antibiotics have also been found to be toxic to the environment. Most manufacturers of antibiotic products do not offer evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotic agents they include in hygiene products but only advertise that their products are antibacterial in nature. Consumers are the ones who are negatively affected because of their desire to protect themselves against diseases and germs. These products are appealing to consumers because of the antibacterial label that compels them to trust that such products are effective. However, as evidence has demonstrated, antibacterial products are harmful and ineffective. Even if manufacturers label the kind of antibiotic agent they include in products, the harmful and ineffective nature of antibacterial products will not change given that the same agents are ineffective and harmful.
References
Bragg, R. R., & Kock, L. (2013). Nanomedicine and infectious diseases. Expert review of anti- infective therapy , 11 (4), 359-361.
Dhillon, G. S., Kaur, S., Pulicharla, R., Brar, S. K., Cledón, M., Verma, M., & Surampalli, R. Y. (2015). Triclosan: current status, occurrence, environmental risks and bioaccumulation potential. International journal of environmental research and public health , 12 (5), 5657-5684.
Giuliano, C. A., & Rybak, M. J. (2015). Efficacy of triclosan as an antimicrobial hand soap and its potential impact on antimicrobial resistance: a focused review. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy , 35 (3), 328-336.
Le Hello, S., Bekhit, A. A., Granier, S., Barua, H., Beutlich, J., Zając, M. M., ... & Pinsard, J. L. (2013). The global establishment of a highly-fluoroquinolone resistant Salmonella enterica serotype Kentucky ST198 strain. Frontiers in microbiology , 4 , 395.
Nathan, C., & Cars, O. (2014). Antibiotic resistance—problems, progress, and prospects. New England Journal of Medicine , 371 (19), 1761-1763.
Pommerville, J. C., Alcamo, I. E., & Alcamo, I. E. (2013). Alcamo's fundamentals of microbiology . Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
von der Ohe, P. C., Schmitt-Jansen, M., Slobodnik, J., & Brack, W. (2012). Triclosan—the forgotten priority substance?. Environmental science and pollution research , 19 (2), 585- 591.
Wang, C. F., & Tian, Y. (2015). Reproductive endocrine-disrupting effects of triclosan: Population exposure, present evidence and potential mechanisms. Environmental pollution , 206 , 195-201.
