Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about cooking? e.g. handling raw meat and such?
What's wrong with regular soap? It worked fine for decades. You don't need to kill the bacteria. Just remove it.
[deleted]
FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
161–170 of 255 posts
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#162Taking 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…
But Roundup actually works and works really well. There is no proof that food allergies are related. Anti-bacterial soap isn't proven to work better than regular soap and we have legitimate concerns about anti-bacterial resistance.
Also, Roundup has some big advantages in inherent safety. It's a competitive inhibitor of an enzyme that's necessary to synthesize aromatic amino acids like L-tryptophan ... and only plants can do this, we animals have to get ours from plants, or animals that eat plants, or animals that eat....
So its mechanism of action is entirely irrelevant to us animals. Maybe it's toxic in some other way, but that's been tested, to the point people are willing to drink the stuff.
Now, the surfactants it's normally formulated with, to get past waxy coatings and the like that plants protect themselves with are another matter altogether, but then again, there's a reason we avoid putting soap in our eyes, with or without triclosan....
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#163Good. 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.
Alcoholic drinks sold in a package come with warning labels. I've seen reports 1-2 drinks a day may improve longevity, but I doubt it would be acceptable to label every beer as "youth potion", you have to limit intake for possible benefit. For the soap, to receive a benefit also requires more than the label indicated.
The substance banned takes hours to kill the bacteria (according to the article), so I would say it's marketed in a mis-leading way. I doubt many people actually buy the soap thinking a multi-hour exposure is needed.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay. It's an interesting example you used because smoking is a vice enjoyed by many lower income individuals. Would you feel that day drinking ala brunch should be banned? I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely…
> 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 space with their second-hand smoke. So no. Your right to slowly kill yourself with your addiction ends when you are in a public space and are slowly killing those around you.
> I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.
They are a harm to those around them. That's why being drunk in public is against the law and drunk tanks get filled to the brim every Friday and Saturday night. Your right to be drunk ends the moment you endanger people in public spaces.
Again, bacterial soaps fall under the same category. You want to use a product with absolutely no proven scientific benefit to yourself, but is scientifically proven to make bacteria more dangerous to those around you? Unacceptable, and since some companies and consumers are refusing to stop endangering public health, the law must step in to prevent your behavior from infringing on the rights of those around you to pursue happiness, which includes the pursuit of good health.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#165Earlier 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.
It's not violent to disallow me to sell you some random substances. You're being hyperbolic to the extreme.
[deleted]
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#166Earlier 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.
Except that, unlike anti-bacterial soap, alcohol is quite effective at what it does. For a proper analogy, imagine that alcohol tasted like water and didn't really affect your mental state, but still had some harmful effect when used by large groups. Maybe now it seems more reasonable to ban?
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should we allow smoking in most public places? 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. It's an interesting example you used because smoking is a vice enjoyed by many lower income individuals. Would you feel that day drinking ala brunch should be banned? I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely…
> 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 that for the last 2 decades can push me over into a sinus infection, when I'm exposed to it I bag my clothing and take a shower and wash my hair, etc. And we can be sure there are many others for whom it is also bad.
On the other hand, I can choose not to patronize a restaurant, that's getting to a level I'm uncomfortable with, for we know the extremes of the anti-smoking crusaders: echoing another comment I've made here, was all this worth killing Eric Garner? Because I'm glad I don't have any of his blood on my hands....
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#168Earlier 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.
Equating these two markets is a little unfair. One major thing is that if they banned recreational drugs people would be mad and would still want to use them where if they ban antibacterial soap no one is going to care. I think that's why drugs get a warning label and soap just gets banned, they could mandate a large warning label on antibacterial soap but that just seems strange to me and would probably lead to the same outcome as banning them anyway.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#169Taking 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 ridiculous to think any residual roundup is going to be harmful.
There is just no huge amount of evidence that GM crops are harmful to people. There is evidence that things like Roundup Ready corn & insect-resistant corn are better for the environment, because in the first case they reduce tilling (think erosion as huge amounts of soil are disrupted) and in the second they reduce the need for conventional insecticides.
As for the correlation between food allergies, the timescale here is so long you could correlate it with anything. A particularly fitting comparison in this case would seem to be the internet, or perhaps devices shipping with Windows NT kernels. Most data sets I find show the rise starting around 1997, which would be fitting for food allergies and NT kernel adoption. (You might say that NT kernel adoption was much faster than the proliferation of GMOs - you'd be wrong)
A sane explanation that doesn't rely on a boogeyman is that parents aren't exposing their children to contaminants like they used to. There are medical products coming out to address this, but the consensus seems to be that letting kids play outside, not dousing them in Clorox every 5 minutes, and making them eat peanut butter,etc. early enough are likely to be effective.
See: [http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/4/12371552/aralyte-peanut-but...]
Finally, I'll leave with this note: anything you buy as a whole or minimally processed food will be essentially devoid of GMO food. You should be much more worried about the high amounts of sugar and sodium in those processed foods as added sugars are well known to be dangerous and unhealthy - the bonus is that if you avoid processed crap you'll also be avoiding GMOs.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, if you're cooking, the bacteria on the raw meat and whatever you added with your hands get cooked. Most skin bacteria probably don't do too well in the mouth and stomach anyways.
Cross contamination is almost always the concern here. Handle raw -> prepping vegetables for a salad, for instance. Or handling chicken then almost anything else.
Which is again handled by simply washing the bacteria off of your hands and down the drain.