FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#171

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 6:49 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #148

omginternets wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

Not sure if you are serious, but markets don't work in the face of incomplete information, a state exacerbated by misleading advertising around antibacterial and germicidal products. Arguing that the market knows more than scientists about triclosan is...bizarre.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#172

Post by mratzloff » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 6:53 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #117

nommm-nommm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're a founder of a California 501(c)(3) nonprofit science research organization. I think it's safe to say it's the groups you run in. By contrast, my parents and family in the Midwest have no clue about it. Antibacterial means cleaner, right?

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#173

Post by sdabdoub » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 6:57 PM UTC

enave wrote: post #31

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.

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…

To quote from a review article[1]: "Antiseptics are biocides or products that destroy or inhibit the growth of microorganisms in or on living tissue". So antibiotics are a type of antiseptic.

>In many centuries of use, bacteria have not developed resistance to antiseptics. There's no danger of them developing resistance to these soaps either

This is not really true. In fact, the substance under question here, Triclosan, is a small 24-atom molecule so, in principle, there's no reason microbes couldn't develop resistance to it.

"TCS inhibits FabI, an enoyl-acyl carrier protein reductase (ENR). The FabI protein catalyzes the elongation cycle in the synthesis of fatty acids, an essential process for cell viability "[2]. Thus, one known mechanism of resistance is to alter the protein that TCS binds to:

"Mutation occurs whereby single or multiple amino acids are changed in the fabI gene, resulting in TCS-resistant FabI proteins"[2].

And it's not even just a matter of "well TCS is ineffective, so why not just leave it alone?". Triclosan is implicated in multi-drug cross resistance:

"In studies done on E. coli and P. aeruginosa, resistance to chloramphenicol and tetracycline increased 10-fold following TCS exposure"[2]. In addition, a survey of Acinetobacter baumanii (an increasingly common opportunistic pathogen found in hospital acquired infections) clinical isolates found that those that could resist low concentrations of TCS also exhibited "increased tolerance to amikacin, tetracycline, levofloxacin and imipenem."[2].

So in fact having TCS everywhere is actively harming our ability to use other effective antibiotics.

[1] McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and Disinfectants: Activity, Action, and Resistance. Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 1999;12(1):147-179. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC88911/

[2] Carey DE, McNamara PJ. The impact of triclosan on the spread of antibiotic resistance in the environment. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2014;5:780. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2014.00780. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4295542/

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#174

Post by nommm-nommm » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #117

nommm-nommm wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's the groups you run in.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#175

Post by balabaster » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 7:02 PM UTC

nxc18 wrote: post #169

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…

The crops that contain Roundup Ready traits (and several other traits including b.t. toxin for insect resistance) are not eaten raw - they are heavily processed. When you buy cornstarch, you're buying cornstarch. When you're buying ethanol for fuel, you're buying ethanol for fuel. People don't eat GM corn, they eat products that contain the products of GM corn, having gone through so much processing that it is ridicu…

Haha I like the comparison between the uptick of food allergies and the uptick of adoption of the NT Kernel. I thought this was considered GRAS, despite much evidence to the contrary :D

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#176

Post by balabaster » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

parineum wrote: post #113

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.

If only I had 10 minutes to study the science of every last thing I don't understand... I'd be getting younger by the article. There's only so much time in a day to devote to so much activity while I'm waiting for code to compile.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#177

Post by manigandham » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 7:05 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #66

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…

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

People (in mass) are generally stupid and public good is something that needs to be carefully maintained. Much of our regulation is around maintaining a balance between freedom for an individual against the safety and peace for everyone.

In this case, there is far more harm than good.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#178

Post by eli » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

brewdad wrote: post #135

eli wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Smoking rates are declining in most of the world due in a large part to educational campaigns and warning labels. I agree with the FDA ban, but I don't think smoking is the best way to make your point.

Smoking rates may be declining due to public smoking bans limiting the number of places one is even allowed to smoke. At some point, quitting makes more sense than planning ones day around designated smoking areas.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=smoking+warning+labels+...

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#179

Post by Bud » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 7:07 PM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #97

greglindahl wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason that we've had so many people hurt by nutritional supplements is that they're allowed to add anything until it's proven to be unsafe. In the medical field, which has strict rules today, it was the era of dangerous and ineffective "patent medicine" that caused our existing policies to be created. If you're going to advocate change, don't you think it's important to understand historical and modern examples…

I am certain that the FDA, with its ban on certain substances, has caused more deaths and misery than it has ever prevented. Not to mention financial losses. Before you ask accusory questions, why not refine your own position and brush off the smugness?

You aren't actually certain. You think you're certain, based on...nothing. There's a difference.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#180

Post by Bud » Fri, Sep 02, 2016, 7:08 PM UTC

Kenji wrote: post #140

allengeorge wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Examples then? Are are you speaking only in unverifiable "if only" hypotheticals?

Uhh... Pretty much the entire war on drugs? I am surprised you even had to ask. There is much more though, as you can find in this comment, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12414467

You need to get your facts straight. The FDA has had zero (0.0000) role in the War on Drugs.