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

111–120 of 255 posts

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#111

Post by bko »

nopinsight wrote: post #90
bko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is likely negative externality to other people from its widespread use (more bacterial resistance), and the benefit is at most a placebo effect. Many users may not even care that much--it's just another optional checkbox at little extra cost. The manufacturers also fall into a prisoner's dilemma and cannot avoid offering it if a number of buyers are not aware of or care about externalities. Only the government…

> Should we allow smoking in most public places?

I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay.

It's an interesting example you used because smoking is a vice enjoyed by many lower income individuals. Would you feel that day drinking ala brunch should be banned? I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#112

Post by bko »

omginternets wrote: post #101
bko wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit. You can argue that the benefits of drug use are actually a mirage since it's linked to so many other problems, health and social.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#113

Post by parineum »

balabaster wrote: post #74

Taking the article at face value: So they can order the removal of anti-bacterial agents because they haven't scientifically been proven beneficial and there are potentially unknown side effects. Err on the side of caution, that's a wise decision. ... yet they use terms like GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) for things like Roundup Ready crops which have been scientifically (allegedly, I haven't read and understood a…

Maybe you should stop and understand the science before you continue on your road of assumptions.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#114

Post by pdabbadabba »

mindcrime wrote: post #93
pdabbadabba wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always found it remarkable that people find this at all illuminating. I take it the applicability of that passage is supposed to go something like this: I, as a third party bystander, would not have the right to intervene(by force, if necessary) and stop person A from selling person B antibacterial soap. I suppose I get that intuition. But if you add in more pertinent details, I think we're just left begging the…

Of course, it should also be mentioned that there are perfectly good schools of political thought under which the powers of government are not merely the aggregated power of individuals. Certainly such schools of thought exist, but I'd stop short of calling them "perfectly good." I think Bastiat makes the case pretty strongly that there's no moral basis for saying that a group can hold any innate authority beyond tha…

> I have a hard time with that. How can merely aggregating a bunch of people together create a moral justification that doesn't exist otherwise? What's the basis for saying that this is so?

I tried to provide an explanation in my comment, but it must not have been very clear.

The answer will depend on one's reason for thinking that individual action was immoral. Often, an otherwise immoral act can nonetheless be justified through extrinsic circumstances. For example, assume that killing is generally wrong. But it can be justified if you have the proper level of confidence that the victim himself is a so-far-unpunished murderer and if killing him after a public trial in which his crime is exposed would send a morally important message. (I think these are fairly representative of the purported justifications for the death penalty.) But there is a problem: an individual acting alone is virtually never in a position to satisfy these criteria. It takes a lot of people acting together to satisfy them--a government.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#115

Post by bko »

Joof wrote: post #94
bko wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people enjoy using the product for whatever reason and spend their money on these products. Should we just ignore those preferences? Why are we so quick to disregard those preferences in some cases and not in others, such as recreational drug use?

Yes. The antibacterial claim is misleading because it's not actually more effective and is damaging to the environment. If homeopathy was damaging to the environment, you're damn right we should outlaw it. The whole purpose of the FDA is to evaluate these types of claims. They are doing their jobs properly.

Not sure how it works in the country in which you reside, but homeopathy and ineffective alternative "medicines" are pretty much legal in the US. I would prefer not to go to some government agency to determine whether I can use a product unless it has grave dangers. I don't think antibacterial soap passes this bar. You could disagree

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#116

Post by Kenji »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #105
Kenji wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay, what happens if I try to sell you random substances and the authorities dispatch police officers to stop me and I do not comply because I want to exercise my right to trade with you? I can tell you. Violence.

If you disagree with me again, I am going to punch you, but it's not violence because I'm not doing it if you don't do it again ;)

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#117

Post by dnautics »

nommm-nommm wrote: post #76
dnautics wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

You missed the part where the FDA lit a fire under the industry's ass in 2013 to prove antibacterial soap have value over non antibacterial soap and gave them a year timeline. Everyone saw the writing on the wall that a ban was coming.

maybe it's the groups that I run in, but I know several people among my friends (with an admittedly small sample size since I don't often accompany them on shopping trips) who specifically avoid antibacterial soap, myself included.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#118

Post by Eric_WVGG »

bko wrote: post #77
gknoy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ban [something] because it's not effective. In the case of antibacterial soap, it's somewhat harmful: those antibacterial chemicals get in the water supply, and exert extra evolutionary pressure on bacteria, leading to increased chance of resistant bacteria.

Some people enjoy using the product for whatever reason and spend their money on these products. Should we just ignore those preferences? Why are we so quick to disregard those preferences in some cases and not in others, such as recreational drug use?

Because unlike recreational drugs^, antibacterials re-enter the water supply, change the biology of your neighbors and farm animals, and cause existing strains of bacteria to become more antibiotic-resistant.

It is possible that within a decade or two, penicillin will be lose its usefulness, and we'll be back to the stage of history where cuts and scrapes could become life-threatening.

^ a related problem is the flushing of non-consumed, non-recreational antibiotic drugs, incidentally

[update] just after leaving this thread, I saw an article about a new comic book that is specifically about a post-antibiotic future, so here's a possibly more entertaining rundown: http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-horrifying-comic-book-future-where-...

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#119

Post by roasm »

balabaster wrote: post #74

Taking the article at face value: So they can order the removal of anti-bacterial agents because they haven't scientifically been proven beneficial and there are potentially unknown side effects. Err on the side of caution, that's a wise decision. ... yet they use terms like GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) for things like Roundup Ready crops which have been scientifically (allegedly, I haven't read and understood a…

I'm not defending Roundup at all, but the kicker here is the antibacterial chemicals don't do anything. If they did prove more effective in cleaning hands, I'd guess the FDA would probably look the other way on the side effects.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#120

Post by AstralStorm »

underdown wrote: post #102

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.

It is not heavy-handed at all. Educational campaigns have no chance against strong marketing.

How many smokers quit due to them?

Post reply on HN