Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

nbcnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 255 posts

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#51

Post by Accacin »

Kenji wrote: post #34

I love how the FDA shifts the burden of proof to the product makers. You now have to prove that your product works. It's not the state that has to prove that your product is harmful to ban it. I can't agree with this order, but it's just another case of classic FDA behaviour. I would like to live in a world where you have to show that something is bad before it gets banned. Not just a feeling, or that it doesn't work…

Isn't that what the USA basically does? That's why things are often banned in the EU before America, because the FDA (or whatever) normally has to prove it's bad before it gets pulled.

In the EU it's the other way around.

I could be wrong but I believe that's the general gist of it.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#52

Post by djschnei »

Vraxx wrote: post #38
djschnei wrote: post #33

I guess I'm weird; I have no idea why the government has the ability to dictate what is and isn't in the soap that I choose to buy. I agree however, anti-bacterial soap is silly. Looks like a lot of people here agree. Looks like a market segment to me. Didn't need a gun, theft, or a jail cell to create it.

Well, the big one is that it's a joint effort as a society to not continually strengthen bacteria by selecting for strains that are resistant to these antimicrobials.

Not debating that. I agree. I guess I just think there is a more morally justifiable way to go about it than edict. Again, this non-antibacterial soap belief doesn't seem like one that needs force to spread.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#53

Post by Vraxx »

unethical_ban wrote: post #40

I've seen several opinions here. Antibacterial soap is unhealthy and should be banned for health reasons. Antibacterial soap is largely ineffective, so should be banned for false advertising reasons. Antibacterial soap should not be banned. Which one is right? Is there any science or ethical political philosophy to justify this executive action?

It's not necessarily unhealthy to an individual person, it's the effect that it has on the surviving bacteria. These soaps are dangerous to society as a whole because they become less effective the more widespread their usage is [0]. Thus, we don't need to use them for every single thing we get on our hands that we want off, we're not in mortal peril of those germs.

[0]: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.ht...

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#54

Post by blockednbcads »

gshakir wrote: post #20

Finally! . No more Triclosan and other dangerous stuff. I stopped using antibacterial soap a while ago. Switched to Method and have been using that brand for all my cleaning needs. Triclosan is also present in facial cleansing stuff and lots of other products like toothpaste etc. Scary stuff.

The brand isn't really important as long as it's plain soap.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#55

Post by rtkwe »

unethical_ban wrote: post #40

I've seen several opinions here. Antibacterial soap is unhealthy and should be banned for health reasons. Antibacterial soap is largely ineffective, so should be banned for false advertising reasons. Antibacterial soap should not be banned. Which one is right? Is there any science or ethical political philosophy to justify this executive action?

It's explained pretty well in the article. Basically the FDA said in 2013 'show us that these chemicals are effective and safe for daily long term use' and companies didn't do it. So there's little to no support for the effectiveness and there may be some long term exposure issues from animal studies.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#56

Post by frandroid »

fastball wrote: post #49
ythl wrote: post #2

Good. It's pointless to disinfect and reinfect your hands so many times in a day. Soap should be used to make lipids and other grime water-soluble. That's it. If you need to sterilize your hands, then you should use a separate product dedicated to that because chances are you are a doctor. Not sterilizing your hands all the time is actually good (in most cases) because it allows your body to sample the latest and gre…

What about cooking? e.g. handling raw meat and such?

We seem doing well with most workers in butcher shops and restaurants just washing their hands with regular soap.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#57

Post by Kenji »

Accacin wrote: post #51
Kenji wrote: post #34

I love how the FDA shifts the burden of proof to the product makers. You now have to prove that your product works. It's not the state that has to prove that your product is harmful to ban it. I can't agree with this order, but it's just another case of classic FDA behaviour. I would like to live in a world where you have to show that something is bad before it gets banned. Not just a feeling, or that it doesn't work…

Isn't that what the USA basically does? That's why things are often banned in the EU before America, because the FDA (or whatever) normally has to prove it's bad before it gets pulled. In the EU it's the other way around. I could be wrong but I believe that's the general gist of it.

That there are worse offenders of the principle that you have to show something to be harmful before you ban it doesn't make the behaviour of the FDA better.

It's hard to compare the EU to America just like that, especially since the EU is not a state, but you may be right. The EU makes incredibly arbitrary judgements and bans sometimes. Some European countries, however, fare much better when it comes to avoiding such blatant authoritarianism.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#58

Post by infecto »

fastball wrote: post #49
ythl wrote: post #2

Good. It's pointless to disinfect and reinfect your hands so many times in a day. Soap should be used to make lipids and other grime water-soluble. That's it. If you need to sterilize your hands, then you should use a separate product dedicated to that because chances are you are a doctor. Not sterilizing your hands all the time is actually good (in most cases) because it allows your body to sample the latest and gre…

What about cooking? e.g. handling raw meat and such?

Regular soap works perfect here. You just need something to help breakdown the lipids and remove from the surface of your skin.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#59

Post by ryen »

unethical_ban wrote: post #40

I've seen several opinions here. Antibacterial soap is unhealthy and should be banned for health reasons. Antibacterial soap is largely ineffective, so should be banned for false advertising reasons. Antibacterial soap should not be banned. Which one is right? Is there any science or ethical political philosophy to justify this executive action?

The burden of proof should be on the manufacturers to prove, scientifically, that it's safe and effective. Not the FDA

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#60

Post by Vraxx »

djschnei wrote: post #52
Vraxx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the big one is that it's a joint effort as a society to not continually strengthen bacteria by selecting for strains that are resistant to these antimicrobials.

Not debating that. I agree. I guess I just think there is a more morally justifiable way to go about it than edict. Again, this non-antibacterial soap belief doesn't seem like one that needs force to spread.

That's true I suppose, laws are a lot harder to redact than to enact, so we should take care not to over-legislate. That being said, I think it's still an applicable scenario in this case due to the potentially society scale threat. In many other smaller-scale scenarios, I would tend to agree with your stance on it.
Post reply on HN