‘Over' versus ‘under' toilet paper debate finally settled
The position of a toilet paper roll may seem innocuous, but TP trustees have long been embroiled in a heated debate over the proper angle of the next square.
There are two types of people in the world: The 'over' devotees who hang the roll so the on-deck wipe is facing the user, and the 'under' fans who position it so it's closer to the wall.
Thankfully, a professional has finally closed the book on the matter — a whopping 250 years since the hygiene tool's invention.
Are you 'over' or 'under'? Picture: iStock
Primrose Freestone, professor of clinical microbiology at the UK's University of Leicester, says the somewhat counterintuitive 'under' position is more hygienic and effective — despite the original 1800s patent showing the roll in the more natural-seeming 'over' orientation, the Daily Mail reported.
'For the under position, there is less likely to be whole roll contamination,' Freestone argued.
That's because 'handling of the toilet roll from the over position' requires the user to employ two hands to extract a square after doing one's business, per the microbiologist.
One hand is used to hold the roll in place so it doesn't keep spinning forward and depositing too much paper, while the other takes the next segment.
On the other hand, the 'under' method allows bathroom users to 'pin the sheets against the toilet wall' and tear them off with the same mitt without 'having to touch the exterior of the roll,' Freestone said.
'For the under position, there is less likely to be whole roll contamination,' Freestone said. Picture: iStock
The position of a toilet paper roll has been debated for years. Picture: iStock
By only using one hand to harvest a square, the odds of transferring hand bacteria to the toilet tissue and perhaps vice versa are reduced.
Meanwhile, using two hands increases the chances of spreading germs from one hand to the other.
'If someone who has wiped, say, once and the faecal matter has soaked through the layers of toilet paper and makes hand contact, the presumably right hand that did the wiping will likely be contaminated,' explained Freestone. 'Then that right hand may contaminate anything it touches as the toilet user reaches for more toilet paper, which they then fold for wipe two, possibly touching the left hand as it does so.'
This is especially important given that both hands have, by the time we've sat down on the toilet, likely touched multiple microbe-laden surfaces from the doorknob to the toilet seat and lid. Even seemingly harmless items like bath mats are dirtier than toilet seats, research suggests.
Women are most at risk of getting infected. Picture: iStock
Freestone said public rest rooms are of particular concern due to excrement potentially contaminating the toilet door, stall, seat and other areas.
Women, meanwhile, are the most at risk of getting infected via accidentally transferring microbes from the groin to the genitalia. On average, they also use more paper for both peeing and pooping.
Interestingly, Freestone's theory is not shared by everyone.
Dr Christian Moro, an associate professor of health sciences and medicine at Bond University in Australia, claimed that the 'under' method is the 'hanging' offence as it ups the likelihood that the toilet user will 'touch the wall behind when fishing for paper, leaving germs behind on that surface which can be spread to the next user.'
Coincidentally, studies show that 70 per cent of people still prefer it compared to 30 per cent in favour of the 'under.'
This article originally appeared in New York Post and was reproduced with permission
Originally published as 'Over' versus 'under' toilet paper debate finally settled
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
3 days ago
- Sky News AU
'Has not investigated individual allegations': Prince Harry's dispute with Sentebale charity continues despite watchdog findings
The breakdown of Prince Harry's relationship with his former charity Sentebale is not over despite the UK charity commission clearing the Duke of Sussex over racism claims. Founded in 2006, Sentebale was created by Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho to help children and adolescents struggling to come to terms with their HIV status, a cause championed by Harry's late mother Princess Diana. However, Harry, 40, issued a statement in April announcing he'd resigned from the role as the charity's patron "until further notice" amid alleged internal tensions with Sentebale chair Dr Sophie Chandauka. Dr Chandauka publicly accused the Duke of Sussex of 'harassment and bullying at scale' in a bombshell interview with Sky News UK, claims the ex-working royal has denied. Dr Chandauka also publicly accused the Sussex camp of 'misogyny and misogynoir (discrimination against black women)' against her and covering up her concerns. The dispute spilled over into a months-long inquiry by the UK-based Charity Commission to investigate Dr Chandauka's claims. On Tuesday, the commission "found no evidence of widespread or systemic bullying or harassment, including misogyny or misogynoir at the charity". However, the commission "criticised all parties to the dispute for allowing it to play out publicly", saying it had "severely impacted the charity's reputation". While the outcome appeared to signal a win for the Duke of Sussex, a spokesperson for Sentebale pointed out the commission has 'no power to adjudicate' Dr Chandauka's claims. 'It provides Sentebale with some degree of reassurance that the Charity Commission has not identified widespread bullying within the charity, but the Commission has acknowledged the strong perception of ill treatment felt by a number of parties to the dispute and the impact this may have had on them personally,' the charity told in a statement. 'The Charity Commission is explicitly clear, including in its public guidance, that it is not the Commission's responsibility to adjudicate or mediate internal disputes. 'This would include individual allegations of bullying, harassment, misogyny, misogynoir, etc. 'As a result, the Commission has not investigated any individual allegations and therefore has not made any findings in relation to individuals, including Prince Harry.' It is understood Sentebale has not ruled out pursuing the Duke of Sussex through other avenues over Dr Chandauka's claims. Meanwhile, an insider close to both Harry and the Prince of Lesotho has claimed the two royals are considering launching a coup to wrestle Sentebale's Lesotho arm back from Dr Chandauka. "There are a lot of complexities to the governance structure of Sentebale, which means we're not entirely clear as to, for example, whether or not Sentebale in Lesotho is a separate organisation and charity to Sentebale in the UK and it's something that Prince Seeiso is exploring," the insider told Newsweek. "If Prince Seeiso can find a way to extricate Sentebale in Lesotho from Sophie Chandauka he would do it in a heart beat.'
Daily Telegraph
3 days ago
- Daily Telegraph
Labor looks to speed up PBS listings amid calls from lobby groups
Don't miss out on the headlines from Illness. Followed categories will be added to My News. Health Minister Mark Butler says he is looking at recommendations to speed up medicine approvals amid pressure from lobbyists both within Australia and in the US. Medicines Australia has repeatedly highlighted that Australia lags behind comparable countries in listing new medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) – a list of federally subsidised medicines. It takes an average of 466 days from when the Therapeutic Goods Administration approves a medicine to when it becomes affordable on the PBS, according to the peak body. This is much longer than in the UK and Canada, for example. The lengthy timeline has also angered the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which has framed the PBS as a 'non-tariff trade barrier' that harms American companies in representations to the Trump administration. Lengthy PBS listing times is among PhRMA's core criticisms. Mr Butler said on Thursday he would look at Medicines Australia's recommendations to make the 'approvals system quicker'. Powerful pharmaceutical lobbyists in the US have accused Australia of 'freeloading' on the high prices paid by American consumers. Picture: Martin Ollman / NewsWire 'We're getting an enormous number of new medicining coming on to the market,' he told the ABC. 'We're living through a turbocharged period of discovery bringing more and more new medicine, so making sure that we can assess them and approve them very quickly to get them into patients as quickly as possible is something I've said is a real priority for us this term.' Because the PBS compels drugmakers to negotiate prices with the federal government, PhRMA has accused Australia of 'freeloading' on US-funded research and development. Meanwhile, American consumers pick up the bill, according to the lobby group. 'The medicines industry, understandably, given their interest, want to make prices higher as well, so there will be a bit of a debate about how we do that,' Mr Butler said. 'But I'm very much on the page of getting medicines more quickly into our system, our PBS system. 'It's a terrific system and we're trying to make medicines cheaper at the same time for Australians.' PhRMA has explicitly urged the Trump administration to 'leverage ongoing trade negotiations' to influence Australia's PBS policies. Mr Butler has echoed Anthony Albanese and fellow senior government ministers in ruling out any 'compromise' on the system as part of tariff talks. US President Donald Trump has written to 17 major drugmakers demanding they drop prices in line with other developed economies. Picture: Brendan Smialowski / AFP For the moment, Donald Trump's concern with the sector appears to be largely focused on bringing down prices in the US rather than punishing allies for having cheaper medicines. A RAND Corporation report found that Americans pay nearly four times more than Australians for medicines and about three times more than the average in other developed economies. The answer, according to the US President, is to make pharmaceuticals in the US. In a warning shot to firms, Mr Trump this week threatened to slap tariffs of up to 250 per cent on foreign-made products. With Australian pharma exports to the US worth more than $2bn in 2024, it would hit producers Down Under hard. Exports are mostly blood products and vaccines but also include packaged medicines and miscellaneous products, such as bandages. 'We'll be putting (an) initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals,' Mr Trump told US business news channel CNBC. 'In one year, 1½ years maximum, it's going to go to 150 per cent and then it's going to go to 250 per cent because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country.' He did not say what the initial rate would be, but earlier in the year he said duties on the sector would start from 25 per cent. Mr Trump last week wrote to 17 major pharmaceutical companies demanding they lower their prices for American consumers and bring them in line with prices overseas. Originally published as Labor looks to speed up PBS listings amid calls from lobby groups
News.com.au
3 days ago
- News.com.au
Labor looks to speed up PBS listings amid calls from lobby groups
Health Minister Mark Butler says he is looking at recommendations to speed up medicine approvals amid pressure from lobbyists both within Australia and in the US. Medicines Australia has repeatedly highlighted that Australia lags behind comparable countries in listing new medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) – a list of federally subsidised medicines. It takes an average of 466 days from when the Therapeutic Goods Administration approves a medicine to when it becomes affordable on the PBS, according to the peak body. This is much longer than in the UK and Canada, for example. The lengthy timeline has also angered the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which has framed the PBS as a 'non-tariff trade barrier' that harms American companies in representations to the Trump administration. Lengthy PBS listing times is among PhRMA's core criticisms. Mr Butler said on Thursday he would look at Medicines Australia's recommendations to make the 'approvals system quicker'. 'We're getting an enormous number of new medicining coming on to the market,' he told the ABC. 'We're living through a turbocharged period of discovery bringing more and more new medicine, so making sure that we can assess them and approve them very quickly to get them into patients as quickly as possible is something I've said is a real priority for us this term.' Because the PBS compels drugmakers to negotiate prices with the federal government, PhRMA has accused Australia of 'freeloading' on US-funded research and development. Meanwhile, American consumers pick up the bill, according to the lobby group. 'The medicines industry, understandably, given their interest, want to make prices higher as well, so there will be a bit of a debate about how we do that,' Mr Butler said. 'But I'm very much on the page of getting medicines more quickly into our system, our PBS system. 'It's a terrific system and we're trying to make medicines cheaper at the same time for Australians.' PhRMA has explicitly urged the Trump administration to 'leverage ongoing trade negotiations' to influence Australia's PBS policies. Mr Butler has echoed Anthony Albanese and fellow senior government ministers in ruling out any 'compromise' on the system as part of tariff talks. For the moment, Donald Trump's concern with the sector appears to be largely focused on bringing down prices in the US rather than punishing allies for having cheaper medicines. A RAND Corporation report found that Americans pay nearly four times more than Australians for medicines and about three times more than the average in other developed economies. The answer, according to the US President, is to make pharmaceuticals in the US. In a warning shot to firms, Mr Trump this week threatened to slap tariffs of up to 250 per cent on foreign-made products. With Australian pharma exports to the US worth more than $2bn in 2024, it would hit producers Down Under hard. Exports are mostly blood products and vaccines but also include packaged medicines and miscellaneous products, such as bandages. 'We'll be putting (an) initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals,' Mr Trump told US business news channel CNBC. 'In one year, 1½ years maximum, it's going to go to 150 per cent and then it's going to go to 250 per cent because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country.' He did not say what the initial rate would be, but earlier in the year he said duties on the sector would start from 25 per cent.
