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

181–190 of 255 posts

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#181

Post by fl0wenol »

bko wrote: post #77
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.

Some people enjoy using the product for whatever reason and spend their money on these products. Should we just ignore those preferences? Why are we so quick to disregard those preferences in some cases and not in others, such as recreational drug use?

Some people are dumb.

They also pay extra to buy shampoo with vitamins in it despite most of them knowing it does nothing. They just want an excuse to buy the more complex version of a banal product to exert some control over their banal lives.

In this case, the FDA can exert some back-pressure because of the significant risk to developing resistant bacteria against the soap constituents, which are needed in medical settings, so they are.

Unfortunately there isn't anything to do be done about rinsing vitamins down the shower drain. Not yet anyway.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#182

Post by cwkoss »

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.

Recreational hand soap

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#183

Post by cwkoss »

a3n wrote: post #158

> Companies will no longer be able to market antibacterial washes with these ingredients because manufacturers did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both safe for long-term daily use ... Then why were they allowed to market them in the first place? If safety was an issue, and it demonstrably is because that's one reason they're being pulled, then why did they not have to prove before marketing?

Seems like a bigger win would be to allow all soaps to be labeled as "anti-bacterial" and "anti-microbial".

If soap manufacturers can get the same marketing benefit without the expense of including the chemicals, seems like they'd all jump at it.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#184

Post by chii »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #150
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…

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.

Alcohol's effect is limited in scope. It affects the individual, affects the immediate surroundings, and perhaps their family. It cannot affect some one in another country.

The resistant bacteria can grow to a problem of global proportion.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#185

Post by tmd83 »

pyre wrote: post #22
tmd83 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup that would probably be one of the big thing in the whole antibiotic crisis and just making sure the farm environment is good once you can't rely on just flooding them with antibiotic and keep them alive.

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?

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#186

Post by jowiar »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #156
jowiar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I have no idea why" seems like a good place to start doing some research. In short (and as mentioned elsewhere in this thread), "the soap you choose to buy" may affect the ecosystem we live in. In particular, the bacteria that may infect us. When products on the market cause a public health concern, it is absolutely within the purview of government to regulate said products.

What about all the pain caused by alcohol? From liver damage to its use as a date rape drug to drunk driving. The liver damage is personal, so that might get a pass, but the rest hurts people who don't choose to drink. Is there evidence showing antibacterial soap does more harm than alcoholic drinks?

Well, with alcohol, we tried (and largely for the reasons you mentioned). On net, the effects caused by the abolition of alcohol (and probably other drugs) were arguably worse than the effects caused by its existence. In particular, demand for (and use of) alcohol didn't disappear, and thus black markets + organized crime thrive, which cause problems worse than the original problem.

I'm highly skeptical that if antibacterial soap were banned, demand would drive a a black market. People are far more aware of and particular about their Shiraz and Saison (and the intoxicating effects thereof) than their Softsoap's antimicrobial properties.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#187

Post by snowwrestler »

bko wrote: post #112
omginternets wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Surely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. There are also significant benefits to recreational drug use, especially alcohol. The same is not true of antibacterial soaps.

But people spend millions on this product every year? Surely they get some benefit. 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.

People also spend millions every year on a regulatory apparatus to help identify and address tragedies of the commons and other threats that each person, individually, would be ill-equipped to address on their own.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#189

Post by dnautics »

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?

Scientists are not my primary social group.

Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps

#190

Post by snowwrestler »

a3n wrote: post #158

> Companies will no longer be able to market antibacterial washes with these ingredients because manufacturers did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both safe for long-term daily use ... Then why were they allowed to market them in the first place? If safety was an issue, and it demonstrably is because that's one reason they're being pulled, then why did they not have to prove before marketing?

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 and health now than we did then. The FDA last year asked companies to prove they are safe for long-term use by the standards of 2015, and that is what they failed at. But obviously those standards were not available to guide a testing regime in the 1970s.

Post reply on HN