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

211–220 of 255 posts

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#211

Post by logfromblammo »

staticvar wrote: post #9
api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called "blue crystals" in marketing jargon, after literal blue crystals and other pointless things. Anything that can be used for market differentiation or that creates a "health aura" effect can boost sales.

Do you have a source for this "blue crystals" term? I'm interested.

I think it's from laundry detergent. People will pay more for a white powder with useless colored crystals in it than they would for the plain white powder. Psychologically, the implication is that the crystals are some sort of secret sauce that makes the powder work better, or is responsible for all the brand-linked advertising claims.

Since the actual chemistry is over most people's heads, the "blue crystals" are where they invest all the magic that makes it work just like the ads claim it will.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#212

Post by arikrak »

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…

After traveling on the subway and picking up various germs should one make sure to put their hands in their mouth and eyes to sample the "latest and greatest"?

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#214

Post by smaddox »

balabaster wrote: post #84
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.

So much for GRAS... is the FDA turning over a new more pro-caution leaf or is this because someone didn't grease the right palms? Perhaps Monsanto could give them some pointers ;)

The FDA is extremely conservative, but the evidence in this case is overwhelming. No need to think anything about the FDA has changed.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#215

Post by bko »

nitrogen wrote: post #171
bko wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Markets and prices exist precisely due to imperfect information. Do you know all the resources that go into making a product? Probably not. This is pretty basic economics:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/the_powe...

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#216

Post by utternerd »

colordrops wrote: post #205
snowwrestler wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't prove something is safe, because there might always be future knowledge that you don't yet know. A sticker that repels tigers will seem safe until the day you are actually attacked by a tiger. But only one attack is needed to disprove the premise that stickers keep tigers away. In this specific case, the antibiotic agents started being added to soap decades ago. Of course we know a lot more about biology an…

> You can't prove something is safe, because there might always be future knowledge that you don't yet know. Don't tell that to the religiously pro-GMO crowd.

You mean to say the scientific consensus at this point, which is that they are indeed safe. It's silly to refer to people who believe in scientific rigor as "religious".

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#217

Post by adrusi »

mikeash wrote: post #154
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.

Your alcohol use does not affect me. Your use of antibacterial chemicals does. That's the difference.

More precisely When a drunk driver crashes their car, the total damage they're likely to cause to others is about equal to the total damage they'll cause to themselves. Sometimes they'll hit a family car and kill 3 people, more often they'll run into a tree and kill only themselves. It comes out pretty similarly if you look at other harm caused by alcohol.

When you use antibacterial soap, you hurt everyone in the world equally. You hurt me as much as you hurt yourself, but you also hurt 7 billion other people. That means antibacterial soaps cause 7 billion times more damage to others than to oneself on average, while the ratio is about 1 for alcohol.

So someone acting purely in self-interest will mediate their use of alcohol fairly effectively, while a self-interested antibacterial soap user won't mediate their use at all.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#218

Post by vel0city »

busyant wrote: post #122
deelowe wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with regular soap? It worked fine for decades. You don't need to kill the bacteria. Just remove it.

Soap is a remarkably good antibacterial as well. Im on mobile but will try to look up refs for this later. I used to work in this area and a colleague was an expert on antibacterial properties of detergents.

Yes, cell membranes are largely made of phospholipids. Soap can disrupt the membrane and essentially leak the contents of cells.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#219

Post by byuu »

djschnei wrote: post #33

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.

My issue was that I can't find non-anti-bacterial hand soap at my local grocery store. The only option would be bar soap, and I hate those. They get all slimy on the bottom between uses, and it's gross and inconvenient.

I would buy hand soap without it, if it were for sale. But everyone seems to think it's safer, so all the manufacturers are encouraged to add it, and it's a negative feedback loop.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#220

Post by colordrops »

utternerd wrote: post #216
colordrops wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't prove something is safe, because there might always be future knowledge that you don't yet know. Don't tell that to the religiously pro-GMO crowd.

You mean to say the scientific consensus at this point, which is that they are indeed safe. It's silly to refer to people who believe in scientific rigor as "religious".

No, I know exactly what I meant to say. I'm not saying that GMOs are unsafe. They probably are safe. I'm just saying that there is always the possibility that some issue could be found with a specific GMO, just like any other product in existence. But there are some out there that for some reason think it is impossible. Those are the ones I labeled as "religious".
Post reply on HN