Its so great to see science be put to work for the common person!
FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
61–70 of 255 posts
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Documented harm? Come on, stop making things up. There are hints at correlations between BPA exposure and adverse health effects. There are animal studies with extremely high doses. But there is no direct evidence of adverse health effects on any humans caused by BPA.
I don't see why you're getting downvoted. He made a claim without evidence. I've also been unable to locate studies documenting an observed risk to humans.
I took the last part of his statement and entered it into Google, "adverse health effects on any humans caused by BPA.". The results are interesting. Search the results page for ".gov" sites.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#63I'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
What? That is an incredibly strange notion. So by default, everything should be banned, and it should only be legal if you can show it's safe? That is not how it works. A ban is an authoritarian action that has to be enforced at gunpoint, always keep that in mind. It is not only a very extreme stance to take, it is a violent one. A ban should only apply on things that are shown to be bad and harmful.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#64I 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.
You're not weird, in fact, you're thinking about a very interesting question. What is "government" or "law"? From whence does it derive its "authority"? What is a valid application of this thing called "government" or "State"?
They're old now, but I think some of the best answers to this are found in the writings of Frederic Bastiat.[1]
This bit in particular is relevant:
------
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
------
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#65We have no evidence that surgeons scrubbing before donning gloves makes sense either. In fact, there's an undergraduate experiment where people scrub for up to 3-4 minutes and swab after every 10 seconds and plate the swab. The plates actually show more colony-forming units until about 3 minutes, which is much longer than most surgeons scrub. Which suggests that the scrubbing actually liberates bacteria found at the margin of the stratum corneum.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#66Good. 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…
Ban [something] because it's not effective.
Un-ban [something] because it's not really harmful and it's about choice of what I do with my body
I never understood which someyhing to put in which category. Perhaps you can argue that no one gets any utility for the thing you want to ban since it's a fraud, but people are spending their money on that thing so surely they get some utility. Not really my place to say
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#67What about hand sanitizers? Should we not be using those as well or is limited usage ( say keeping a bottle in the car for use before you scarf down a McDouble ) ok?
I use hand sanitizers, but only when there is no alternative, that is when there is no water/soap, or when the washroom is unusable (read: no paper towels).
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#68I 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.
The FDA has tiers of regulation. Things like "supplements" are loosely regulated, while "pharmaceuticals" are much more highly regulated.
With supplements, the FDA pretty much lets things go until they start causing problems. DMAA was legal for a long time until people started having heart attacks. Melatonin, which is a straight-up hormone, is over-the-counter in the US, and it's by prescription only in Europe.
Now, if you're marketing something as a treatment for a disease, you have to have concrete data to back it up.
So it's very possible to have something that the FDA will let you sell as a supplement (i.e. there's no evidence that it's dangerous), but not make any claims about its efficacy (i.e. you can't say it will treat XYZ).
I experimented with nootropics at one point of my life (found them worthless, FYI), and it was funny how all of the labels just stated what it was, purity, and a blurb about the company selling it. There was no language whatsoever telling you what the supplement was for. Just a giant "PIRACETAM" label on the front.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#69I 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.
It contributes to antibacterial resistance, which is a shared good. It's a case of the tragedy of the commons, which the free market is incapable of moderating on its own. This is exactly the kind of thing the government should be doing.
actually that's kind of not true. There's a throwaway line in the article where manufacturers have already started the process of removing the antibacterial compounds, before FDA guidance came in, because it seems like the market itself has already started to reflect the scientific wisdom; as in: People aren't that stupid. (Or maybe they're buying into the whole probiotic fad?)
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#70Is there any reason why these companies would include a seemingly ineffective element into their product other than being able to say "antibacterial" on the label? It couldn't possibly have been CHEAPER to add them to soaps when it became the new meta, so it'd be interesting if marketing was the sole reason for it.
I saw some funny old ads from the 50s for toothpaste and mouthwash WITH CHLOROPHYLL!
Same thing there, it had probably just entered shared knowledge, it sounded sciency and natural at the same time, so why not add it to toothpaste? It must be good, right?
Completely worthless, pure marketing gimmick, yet people bought it.