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

221–230 of 255 posts

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#221

Post by pdkl95 »

refurb wrote: post #199
jmcgough wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Resistance_concerns At best, antibacterial soap is ineffective. At worst, it's contributing to resistance in some microbes.

But we don't use the antibacterials in soaps as therapeutic agents to treat infections. So if a bacteria becomes resistant to triclosan, it has no impact on the effectiveness of antibiotics.

> we don't use the antibacterials in soaps as therapeutic agents to treat infections

Why would you think that changes anything? The bacteria don't care about our intentions. Artificial selection works the same regardless. From the link you were replying to:

    [...] exposure to triclosan was associated with a high risk of
    developing resistance and cross-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus
    and Escherichia coli.
> if a bacteria becomes resistant to triclosan, it has no impact on the effectiveness of antibiotics.

Do you think the bacteria magically lose their resistance to an antibiotic (or cross-resistance to a similar antibiotic biochemical mechanism)? Evolution doesn't care why a bacteria developed a mutation that produced a resistance to a particular chemical. All that matters is that they, as survivors, will pass on that mutation to future generations. Any resistant strain will have an advantage in the future, which includes resistance to any antibiotics that work similarly.

By the way, heredity isn't the only way a resistant trait can spread to future bacteria. Horizontal gene transfer[1] is a thing. Bacteria can spread the resistance gene among the current-generation.

[1] http://amrls.cvm.msu.edu/microbiology/molecular-basis-for-an... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#222

Post by jmde »

greglindahl wrote: post #85
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.

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…

My position is that the FDA's role should be strictly limited to testing products for labeling fraud (i.e., that ingredients are as they appear on the labeling) and maybe doing tests and releasing those results to the public so consumers can make informed decisions. They should have no regulatory authority beyond those things.

I don't buy antibacterial soaps, but I'm concerned about this decision because it seems overreaching. I get the tragedy of the commons aspect, though, so am a bit unsure of that.

However, I agree with original position taken by one of the parent posters: there's a very politically dangerous position implicitly being supported in the US now, which is the default is that citizens are not competent to do anything, and that they have to show that they are, as opposed to the alternative, which is to assume that they are competent, and that the burden of proof should be to show that they aren't. What people are implicitly buying into, without meaning to seem hyperbolic, is a totalitarian state, where the default is lack of rights that you have to earn, rather than a default of rights that the state has to take away.

Sure, along time ago medicine was full of quack remedies, etc. But what do we have now? A corrupt system run by monopolies in all corners, and unaffordable by most citizens.

If people take nutritional supplements, that's their decision and their responsibility. If a supplement manufacturer adulterates their products, the problem is fraud, not the ability of the consumer to make the decision.

People do all sorts of stupid things. Preventing them from doing so is not the responsibility of the government.

I keep going back to the example of taxes, which is a good parallel. Imagine that the government, a year from now, mandates that no one can do their own taxes anymore, and that only individuals with a specific degree and license, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars, and years of training, can do any taxes. What would people think of that? There would be an outcry, and legitimate concerns about corruption and collusion. But we are completely fine with the government telling us what to eat, and how to wash our hands, and what drugs we should be putting into our bodies, and what not.

The same government that classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance, so dangerous that no one should possess it. Absolutely no problem with government regulation of health decisions. Totally trustworthy. (btw, I've never used cannabis either, so that's not my skin in the game)

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#223

Post by bsder »

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 actually glad you mentioned this because it's a very similar problem--a complete lack of market choice.

The big economic problem with smoking was the fact that smokers spend money--a LOT of money. Smokers spend so much more money than non-smokers that no business was ever willing to be non-smoking and consequently there was no choice.

This was similar with respect to anti-bacterial soaps. It was almost impossible to find one that wasn't anti-bacterial because the anti-bacterials sold so much better.

Side note: Ivory was one of the few that still produced a hand soap without an anti-bacterial. It's often very hard to find on a retail shelf.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#224

Post by bashinator »

blockednbcads wrote: post #54
gshakir wrote: post #20

Finally! . No more Triclosan and other dangerous stuff. I stopped using antibacterial soap a while ago. Switched to Method and have been using that brand for all my cleaning needs. Triclosan is also present in facial cleansing stuff and lots of other products like toothpaste etc. Scary stuff.

The brand isn't really important as long as it's plain soap.

I like Dr. Bronner's for the very short ingredient list and the crazed ranting.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#225

Post by chillwaves »

bko wrote: post #73
jcrites wrote: post #71

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.

What is the positive in this trade?

Antibacterial soaps just plain do not work. The exposure time average seconds when it needs minutes to do the job.

Triclosan has been linked with cancer. The ineffective usage makes bacteria more resistant. What is the upside? Corporate profit and marketing lies?

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#226

Post by pkroll »

tmd83 wrote: post #185
pyre wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flooding them with antibiotics isn't just to "keep them alive." It makes them grow bigger (i.e. more meat to sell means more money). This is a big part of the resistance to ending the practice too.

Do you mean the antibiotics keeps them healthy and in turn bigger or antibiotics has some growth hormone type effect?

It makes them grow bigger, like a growth hormone effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#228

Post by analog31 »

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

Ban [something] because it's not effective.

Sounds like the antibacterial soaps fall into this category. As I understand it, if a product makes a health or nutrition claim, then it falls under the purview of the FDA, and the FDA rule is that if you make a health claim, then it has to be proven effective.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#229

Post by joshvm »

mkane848 wrote: post #3

Is there any reason why these companies would include a seemingly ineffective element into their product other than being able to say "antibacterial" on the label? It couldn't possibly have been CHEAPER to add them to soaps when it became the new meta, so it'd be interesting if marketing was the sole reason for it.

Someone elsewhere made the point that if there was any financial (or practical, since better soap = more money) benefit to the companies from keeping these chemicals in, you can bet they would have lobbied like hell to protect their ingredient list.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#230

Post by omginternets »

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

Yes, it was meant as a value judgement, and this brings us back to the original point: the reason we as a society ban antibacterial soap and not Elijah Craig is because we value the latter for cultural and social reasons. This value judgement is reflected in our laws.

It's a feature, not a bug.

I don't get it. Don't you want to prevent epidemics of incurable diseases and enjoy a beer? I mean no disrespect but I don't understand what's so shocking or surprising about these laws.

Post reply on HN