FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#101

Post by omginternets » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #73

jcrites wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the first category is "ban something if it's ineffective and there's a tragedy of the commons from using it ". Antibacterial soaps are probably not any more effective than regular soaps, but they might contribute to bacterial immunity (to antibacterials).

Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. Theres always a trade off , I just think that the bar to making something illegal should be higher.

>Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol.

There are also significant benefits to recreational drug use, especially alcohol.

The same is not true of antibacterial soaps.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#102

Post by underdown » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

I feel like a ban is heavy handed. If the government came out with an educational campaign that informed consumers of the dangers of our collective usage of antibacterial soaps and general ineffectiveness I think that would be enough to prevent their widespread usage.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#103

Post by deelowe » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

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?

What's wrong with regular soap? It worked fine for decades.

You don't need to kill the bacteria. Just remove it.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#104

Post by treehau5 » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

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.

Triclosan is in anti-plaque toothpastes, but dentists say it actually has the opposite effect and actually causes more plaque to form.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#105

Post by nommm-nommm » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #63

ryen wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not violent to disallow me to sell you some random substances. You're being hyperbolic to the extreme.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#106

Post by Jemmeh » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #69

mratzloff wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

I wouldn't really call it stupidity, more like lack of information.

If I'm never told that antibacterial soap can harm the environment, then I might just show up at the store, see that one seems to be "better" and grab that one.

And I shouldn't have to spend an hour researching every item I find on my grocery store shelf. If we've done enough studies on an ingredient to know it's harmful, I'd rather there just be a law to not allow that ingredient.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#107

Post by amalcon » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

koolba wrote: post #26

What 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?

Hand sanitizers are generally alcohol-based. The scientific consensus is that bacteria can't evolve resistance to alcohol any more than they can evolve resistance to (say) chlorine bleach. We just can't use it internally in effective concentrations, because at such concentrations it's also poisinous to the patient.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#108

Post by g8oz » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

mrfusion wrote: post #15

I use antibacterial soap once in a while when I get really bad body Oder and it seems to make it go away. Regular soap hasn't been effective when this happens.

Try any one of a pine tar soap, Dettol, a tea tree oil based wash or an alcohol cleanser.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#109

Post by DanBC » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

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…

> Not sterilizing your hands all the time is actually good (in most cases) because it allows your body to sample the latest and greatest baddies and keep immunity up-to-date.

The other reason people shouldn't be using harsh chemicals on their hands is because it damages the skin, and thus creates a better environment for bacterial contamination.

The CDC was saying this years ago. Here's one good article that summarises the evidence in 2001. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/70-0225_article

> Issues regarding hand hygiene practices among health-care professionals have been widely discussed and may be even more complicated than those in the general public. Unless patient care involves invasive procedures or extensive contact with blood and body fluids, current guidelines recommend plain soap for handwashing (38,39); however, infection rates in adult or neonatal intensive care units or surgery may be further reduced when antiseptic products are used (40-42).

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#110

Post by epistasis » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

blockednbcads wrote: post #62

joecool1029 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, and the reliable sources contradict what he's said. Which makes me think that solipsism was not out of line to call him out for making stuff up.

For example from WebMD:

>The federal government is now funding new research into BPA risks. We don't know the results of these studies yet. Recommendations about BPA could change in the next few years.

>For now, there are no restrictions on the use of BPA in products. The Food and Drug Administration does recommend taking "reasonable steps" to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. The FDA has also expressed support for manufacturers who have stopped using BPA in products for babies and for companies working to develop alternatives to the BPA in canned foods.

http://www.webmd.com/children/environmental-exposure-head2to...

Or the top .gov hit (for me):

>There are data showing that exposure to BPA, as well as other endocrine disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity, may have e ects on obesity and diabetes. These data, while preliminary and only in animals, indicate the potential for endocrine disrupting agents to have e ects on other endocrine systems not yet fully examined.

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/endocrine_disrupt...

So in summary it seems that the FDA is acting appropriately, not out of the ordinary. They are studying the issue, but there's not yet documented harm.