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

231–240 of 255 posts

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#231

Post by omginternets »

hga wrote: post #167
ideonexus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. For smoking in public places, I believe that falls in the same category covered by the quote, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." People smoking in restaurants, malls, and other public places aren't just hurting their own health, but the health of those sharing that public s…

but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect? Me, I'm in a funny place, since I have serious allergies and cigarette smoke (but only that in this area, not e.g. pipe tobacco smoke) is a severe problem for me, the sort of thing tha…

>Errr, you do know that the FDA (I think it was that part of the Federal government) had to re-define scientific "truth" to come up with that general effect?

Could you elaborate? What did they do?

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#232

Post by StephanTLavavej »

smsm42 wrote: post #201
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.

The same reason why we see sugar with label "carbon free" and water with label "no GMO". Marketing. Yes, it gets old with time and they have to look for the next gimmick. But if that brings them some income in the meantime, that's what they do.

Sugar contains carbon. Perhaps you're thinking of gluten.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#233

Post by stan_rogers »

logfromblammo wrote: post #211
staticvar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

At the time, a lot of people were regularly using laundry bluing as a whitening agent along with soap (not another detergent agent, real, honest-to-goodness soap, like Sunlight Soap or Ivory Snow); it was difficult to tell those people that a more effective detergent, by itself, could accomplish what soap and bluing together had been doing. Thus blue crystals in detergent.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#234

Post by refurb »

pdkl95 wrote: post #221
refurb wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

Any resistant strain will have an advantage in the future, which includes resistance to any antibiotics that work similarly.

That's my point. Antibaterials work an entirely different way than antibiotics. Triclosan resistance confers no resistance to beta-lactams.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#235

Post by Joof »

jjnoakes wrote: post #209
initram wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they, though? I suspect most butcher shops and restaurants are using antibacterial soap at this point. I go out of my way to try to buy non-antibacterial soap and it's often impossible to find. I imagine most businesses just order whatever's the first thing they see in the catalog/web site, and it's probably antibacterial because that's what most people think they want at home.

Impossible to find? Where do you shop? Where I live, the non-antibacterial soap outnumbers the anti-bacterial soap 4:1 or more on the shelves.

Can confirm that where I live near Houston it's very difficult to find.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#236

Post by Joof »

colordrops wrote: post #220
utternerd wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You're probably seeing a disproportionate backlash to the religious anti-GMO crowd. I'm not sure why, but people get equally stupid when they are defensive.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#237

Post by big_surprise »

chillwaves wrote: post #225
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.

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?

Scene: FDA officials appearance at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health)

Representative 1: We've been following this antibacterial resistance case closely for a few years now. Every year, a greater number of my constituents have related to me the story of how they lost a loved-one due to MSRA - and staph infection, as I understand, isn't even the only thing that this, uhh, the resistance to bacteria dru--err- medications. So, as you know, we've asked you here today to better understand how we can plan to solve this looming crisis. What have you got for us?

FDA1: Well, generally speaking, we've been working with a number of the same antibiotics that have been in use for many decades now. Their effectiveness has been continuously diminishing since the first introduction of each antibiotic. The general consensus here at the FDA is, we need to encourage the development and mass production of multiple new drugs to combat the inevitable growing resistance.

REP2: And what is it that you mean by inevitable?

FDA2: If I may field this question - what my colleague is referring to here is the fact that long-term exposure to specific antibiotics necessarily results in resistance to the same.

REP3: So, you're talkin' about evolution here, right? Just so we're all on the same page.

(Indistinguishable snickering throughout the room)

FDA2: Ye-- That's one way to describe it.

REP2: So what exactly is it that you need from us to enact your plan?

FDA1: Well, that's why we came to you. You see, it's not a very lucrative business opportunity -- developing a new antibiotic. Our custo-- your constituents would have to buckle their belts a little, because we need at least $30 million more for our budget to be pumped into early research in the university system.

(The whole crowd erupts in laughter!)

REP1: Hahahaha! Tax reallocations in this political climate! Don't get me started... But we did tell you to give us your pie in the sky ideas first, so what else do you have for us today?

FDA3: The abuse of antibiotics in the livestock industry is not onl--

REP2: Oh no... We've been through this before. How else are we going to get chickens big enough to feed the world?

FDA1: Well, there's an other option too. We could stop using antibacterial soaps more than necessary in hospitals, which as you know, are the hotbeds of new infe--

REP1: Let me stop you right there. Do you even have any idea as to how much we spent on the last - washing your hands saves lives - campaign? If our const-- your patients knew that you were just washing your hands with regular soap, do yo-- no. Not even an option. We don't want to call you here again for this same issue next year.

FDA4: What if we just banned them for personal use? No one would be negatively affected, and it would appear to be a decisive action to solve the problem.

REP1: That does sound reasonable... Any objections from the committee?

REP4: No, I don't have any soap manufacturers in my state-- hahaaha

REP1: Then a voiced vote shall suffice. All those in favor

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#238

Post by Joof »

mratzloff wrote: post #172
dnautics wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Friends agreed with the science poster. Mom yelled at me and left the house alongside my sister to buy new soap.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#239

Post by colordrops »

Joof wrote: post #236
colordrops wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You're probably seeing a disproportionate backlash to the religious anti-GMO crowd. I'm not sure why, but people get equally stupid when they are defensive.

There is no doubt that those people exist, but that's not who we are talking about right now.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#240

Post by gareim »

big_surprise wrote: post #237
chillwaves wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Scene: FDA officials appearance at the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (Subcommittee on Health) Representative 1: We've been following this antibacterial resistance case closely for a few years now. Every year, a greater number of my constituents have related to me the story of how they lost a loved-one due to MSRA - and staph infection, as I understand, isn't even the only thing that this, uhh, the resistance…

I've never understood these posts. They're not funny and they take forever to get a point across.
Post reply on HN