151–160 of 255 posts
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.
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.
Frankly, it's apples and oranges IMO.
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.
You have a common misconception. Antibacterial soaps don't cause bacterial resistance. Antibiotics do, but that's because antibiotics must selectively kill bacteria while inside the human body and without harming human cells. Antibacterial doesn't really have a precise medical definition, but in practice they're dilute antiseptics. In many centuries of use, bacteria have not developed resistance to antiseptics. There…
No bacteria, ever, is going to develop a resistance to 99% EtOH, or 10:1 dilute NaClO. Ever.
Many, many bacteria develop resistance to triclosan.
The FDA just banned the one that sucks.
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.
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
Homeopathy stuff is actually clearly labeled not evaluated by fda etc. You could probably still sell anti-bacterial soap if it is clearly labeled "not recommended for daily use, may cause harm to consumer and environment", but what market are you going to sell it to, then? Consumers buy it because it advertises anti-bacterial prominently as though it was a plus, my wife buys it because of this (sometimes she doesn't believe me, arguing "hey all these companies sell it, it has to do something!", And she hates I'm usually right on this stuff, heh. )
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.
"I have no idea why" seems like a good place to start doing some research. In short (and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread), "the soap you choose to buy" may affect the ecosystem we live in. In particular, the bacteria that may infect us. When products on the market cause a public health concern, it is absolutely within the purview of government to regulate said products.
Then why were they allowed to market them in the first place? If safety was an issue, and it demonstrably is because that's one reason they're being pulled, then why did they not have to prove before marketing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
They are alternatives for allergic patients (and surgeons), but they're a little thicker and a bit more expensive.
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.
Prohibition of alcohol does create black markets and mafias, so an alternate solution is needed.