I see this has turned into a libertarian circle-jerk as usual. You guys really need to learn to pick your battles. Antibacterial soap is not the hill to die on.
FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
241–250 of 255 posts
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
And the best part is, no one knows why.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's not meant to be funny, and if you don't have the time to read it and understand the context, well then -- it wasn't meant for you
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not thinking of anything, it's an actual registered trademark. Of course, they meant "carbon neutral", as in "carbon dioxide emissions neutral", but that's not what it said on the label. It said "carbon free". Yes, I studies chemistry in school and know that carbon-free sugar is water :) But people who are the target audience of this marketing gimmick don't really seem to be bothered with it.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#245I've seen several opinions here. Antibacterial soap is unhealthy and should be banned for health reasons. Antibacterial soap is largely ineffective, so should be banned for false advertising reasons. Antibacterial soap should not be banned. Which one is right? Is there any science or ethical political philosophy to justify this executive action?
It's explained pretty well in the article. Basically the FDA said in 2013 'show us that these chemicals are effective and safe for daily long term use' and companies didn't do it. So there's little to no support for the effectiveness and there may be some long term exposure issues from animal studies.
Isn't this a straw man? These products are used in hostpitals everyday. Nobody doubts they are 'safe'in any meaningful sense. Otherwise they would need to be banned outright.
OCD people, and their kids, are a huge problem in society and should be dealt with, but this is not 'science based' public policy at all.
Its like asking someone to prove a negatve, which is absurd in many contexts. "why did something not happen" does not have a finite, knowable answer in the vast majority of contexts.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#246Earlier 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?
Alcohol is completely irrelevant in relation to this issue. You don't not fix things just to stay superficially consistent. What you're proposing would be like refusing to fix a particular bug because there's another bug report open that is considered (for whatever reason) not as important.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The usual data massaging wasn't enough, like ignoring 19 of the 30 existing studies as of then, so they changed the confidence level required from the standard 95% to 90%. Look up commentary on their 1993 "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" for more details.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The antibacterial claim is misleading because it's not actually more effective and is damaging to the environment. If homeopathy was damaging to the environment, you're damn right we should outlaw it. The whole purpose of the FDA is to evaluate these types of claims. They are doing their jobs properly.
Not sure how it works in the country in which you reside, but homeopathy and ineffective alternative "medicines" are pretty much legal in the US. I would prefer not to go to some government agency to determine whether I can use a product unless it has grave dangers. I don't think antibacterial soap passes this bar. You could disagree
Homeopathic "drugs" are sold in pharmacies in the us to an extent. It isn't a problems so long as they are clearly lableled and the contents actually reflect labeling (zicam got in trouble for containing active ingredients). Most times, they can't say they cure or help, and at most can say, "may help with X". Heck, these are even legal to sell in Norway, and we don't have a lot of the supplements available (melatonin is prescription).
The main thing with alternative medicine is that it is generally as harmless as water. Unless you are forcing it as the only treatment to your children or others, you aren't harming anyone else.
Antibacterial soap isn't in these categories. People truly think they are healthier for using the stuff - this is partially advertising and false claims. In addition, these things contribute to making the world unhealthier and a more unhealthy place by helping antibiotic resistance - general use does this. It is posing a grave general danger. This danger is the same reason antibiotics are prescription and we try not to prescribe them unnecessarily. It isn't that one will have immediate grave dangers themselves, but it is bad for humans in general.
"I prefer not to go to some government agency..." I think this is really key to your sentiment, and the solution to this isn't to eshew safety regulators, but work to make them more effective and honest and vote for folks (especially congress members) that share those sorts of interests. I don't think any of us have the time or energy to be able to parse out respectable information on each product to make sure it is safe, though we think we do. If you do, look around you. Do you think all of your neighbors do? All college students? I'm very doubtful on this - antibacterial soap is an example. We hear it causes grave dangers, but we buy it anyway. Advertising and culture at work, perhaps.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#249Good. 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…
What about cooking? e.g. handling raw meat and such?
It is actually more important to wash your hands properly than it is to use antibacterial soap. This is why most restaurants and medical facilities teach folks how to do it - and why some places install timers on their sinks. Basically, you need to lather for 10-15 seconds, making sure to get between the fingers, top part of the wrist, and your fingernails.
I've heard this action is actually more important than the soap bit for the anti-bacterial properties. But soap helps remove things like grease and 'juice' from the meat really well and helps us be less lazy when doing so.
Re: FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
#250What about hand sanitizers? Should we not be using those as well or is limited usage ( say keeping a bottle in the car for use before you scarf down a McDouble ) ok?
Alcohol-based hand sanitizers work differently. Instead of having some lasting effect on your skin to not only kill bacteria and keep it off, alcohol-based sanitizers simply kill the stuff on your hands at the time. In general, I haven't come across anything that says it is bad or has the lasting effects of the anti-bacterial soaps.