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

141–150 of 255 posts

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#141

Post by foota »

bko wrote: post #115
Joof wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Antibiotic resistance has the potential to throw society back to times where people died regularly from a variety of bacterial infections, I think it's one of the most important issues today.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#142

Post by yongjik »

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.

> So by default, everything should be banned, and it should only be legal if you can show it's safe?

...Yes?

If I want to manufacture/import and sell a car, I have to show it passes safety regulations.

If I want to open a restaurant, I have to obtain permits and show that food are stored and processed in an approved fashion.

If I want to build and sell a house, I have to prove that it won't collapse on itself, spontaneously catch fire, or electrocute its residents.

Every one of these points is, yes, enforced at gunpoint, because so many people have died in the past in gruesome, preventable accidents that we have collectively decided "Well, fuck it, we will make everyone prove what they are selling is safe, and we'll enforce it at gunpoint!"

That said, (hopefully) nobody arrests a pair of seven-year-olds for selling lemonade on the corner. You see, these gunpoints can be actually quite reasonable; they have centuries of experience.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#143

Post by nopinsight »

bko wrote: post #111
nopinsight wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The negative effects of smoking and drinking are fairly local. In this case, the question would be:

Is it worth taking chances with multidrug resistance bacteria for this miniscule psychological benefit?

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#144

Post by sitkack »

> The FDA started asking about triclosan in 1978.

What is happening now that will get "fixed" in 38 years. This is great news, but what is being done to reduce this latency?

How about having over arching goals of separating people and chemicals, that all chemicals need approval before being introduced into the environment!

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#146

Post by awqrre »

mattkrause wrote: post #133
niels_olson wrote: post #65

We 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…

> which is much longer than most surgeons scrub. How sure are you about this? There's usually some kind of timer (and, sometimes, an assistant) to ensure that you wash for the specified amount of time. Also, I always figured that scrubbing was essentially a precaution in case the gloves ripped or snagged (which, being thin latex, is far from improbable).

Many hospitals banned latex but your point probably applies to it's replacement too.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#147

Post by sitkack »

okreallywtf wrote: post #10

I hope its not too little too late, we've known about bacterial resistance for decades at this point. Here is hoping animal feed is next.

Most antibacterial resistance comes from http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378100.ht...

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#148

Post by bko »

omginternets wrote: post #138
bko wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. >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. You could, but you'd be ignoring the health benefits of certain patterns of consumption. What you can't do is argue that antibacterial soap has the same s…

> The point is rather that one of the two categories (drugs) has a positive counterweight to its negative effects while the other does not.

That's a value judgement. I would argue it does have a positive counterweight as people spend money to buy the product. That's pretty much the purpose of a market. To tease out the value people put in certain items and to direct resources into said products

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#150

Post by Lawtonfogle »

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…

Would you say good to a ban on alcoholic drinks? They do a great deal of damage directly and indirectly.

Education, not prohibition, is needed.

Post reply on HN