Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
09 October 2020 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Supplied
Disinfectants
Once they have an understanding of the development of disinfectant resistance, the Veterinary Biotechnology group will be able to make recommendations to hospitals and the agricultural industry on how to prevent the development of these resistant microorganisms.

SARS-CoV-2, an enveloped coronavirus, is susceptible to most disinfectants. Therefore, the majority of disinfectants, including those containing 70% ethanol, should be able to kill the virus fairly quickly.

Nevertheless, it was found that some bacteria are highly resistant to several commercially available disinfectants. These bacteria are currently still quite rare, and the work of the Veterinary Biotechnology group at the University of the Free State (UFS) aims to prevent the development of more highly resistant bacteria.

The research group in the Department of Microbial, Biochemical and Food Biotechnology is working on disinfectant resistance. They recently published an article, ‘Molecular basis of bacterial disinfectant resistance’.

Group members include: Prof Robert Bragg, professor in the department; Dr Charlotte Boucher, research associate; Samantha Mc Carlie, master’s student and laboratory manager; master’s students, Twyne Skein and Gunther Staats; honours students, Carlo Visser, Bernadette Belter, Boudine van der Walt, Jacky Huang, and Mart-Louise van Zyl; and an NRF intern, Gloria Kankam.

According to Mc Carlie, the work being done on disinfectant resistance is largely attributable to the major issues currently experienced with antibiotic resistance.

“Antibiotic resistance is becoming one of the biggest life-threatening challenges of our time – even overshadowing the current COVID-19 pandemic – as multidrug-resistant infections are becoming increasingly difficult to treat. Bacterial infections that are present in hospitals and agriculture are becoming unresponsive to many of the antibiotics currently in use, marking the start of a post-antibiotic era.”

It is predicted that by 2050, antimicrobial resistance could lead to as many deaths as cancer causes today and could account for between 10 million and 50 million deaths per year.

Lack of proper biosecurity

Mc Carlie says the resistance to antibiotics is spreading rapidly due to a lack of proper biosecurity measures in the food and agricultural industry as well as in the hospital environment, even if the COVID-19 pandemic has gone a long way towards increasing the awareness of hospital staff to the importance of good biosecurity. Millions of rands are lost every year due to multidrug-resistant infections in the dairy and poultry industries of South Africa, and superbugs are present in almost every major hospital in the country.

“Currently, the best viable protection we have against bacteria is biosecurity and disinfectants. Biosecurity relies heavily on the use of disinfectants to control bacterial growth. This makes it only more troubling that disinfectant resistance is emerging at an alarming rate.”

She believes it is important to understand the mechanisms of resistance in order to combat resistance to disinfectants. “Once the mechanisms are identified, possible solutions can be investigated.”

The research group is currently monitoring disinfectant resistance, looking at which microorganisms are resistant to which disinfectants. They take environmental samples and test the levels of disinfectant resistance to observe the development and spread thereof.

Once they have an understanding of the development of disinfectant resistance, the Veterinary Biotechnology group will be able to make recommendations to hospitals and the agricultural industry on how to prevent the development of these resistant microorganisms.

“As we learn more about these highly resistant isolates, it will direct day-to-day treatment of multidrug-resistant infections and hopefully aid in the fight against antibiotic and disinfectant resistance,” says Mc Carlie.

The dangers of over-prescribing

“Resistance to antimicrobials such as antibiotics and disinfectants is a natural occurrence. We did not invent antibiotics, we discovered them, and so bacterial resistance has been around for as long as antibiotics have – as a survival strategy.”

“However, the widespread use of antimicrobials creates selective pressure for those microorganisms that are resistant to the antimicrobial being used. Over-prescribing and improper use of antibiotics has led to widespread antibiotic resistance. We expect the same trend to be seen with disinfectant resistance in the near future,” says Mc Carlie.

She urges the public to take note that disease-causing microorganisms can become resistant to antibiotics and disinfectants if they are not used correctly. A course of antibiotics should always be taken at the correct time and until the last dose. In the same way, disinfectants should be used at the recommended level and not diluted below that level.

These resistant organisms are causing major issues in the agricultural and medical industries, but this effect has not been seen in households yet. As long as disinfectants are used correctly, most will be able to kill the novel coronavirus.

There is, however, a need to establish tests on the efficacy of the massive number of ‘hand sanitisers’ that are now suddenly available.

According to Prof Bragg, existing disinfectants and hand sanitisers have been specifically tested against SARS-CoV-2 and have been found to be effective. He says the undergraduate students in the department will be evaluating a wide range of different hand sanitisers as part of their practical training.

Mc Carlie adds that the excessive use of poor-quality disinfectants as hand sanitisers can result in bacteria developing resistance to these disinfectants. “It is therefore very important that reliable high-quality disinfectants are used as hand sanitisers during this COVID-19 crisis, otherwise we will be replacing one crisis with a potentially even bigger crisis.”

Mc Carlie believes there is a need to start looking at alternatives to control bacterial growth. “Disinfectants are currently the only viable option, and if these microorganisms become resistant to disinfectants as well, we will have nowhere else to turn,” she says.

News Archive

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept