Live data from Hacker News

FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

usatoday.com

31–40 of 68 posts

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#31
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> may or may not work That's not accurate. It does work, as in, it does kill bacteria. The question is if this killing has any value. i.e. does it actually prevent illness. It's pretty clear that in a hospital or nursing home setting triclosan is worth it. It's not so clear if it's worth it in the home. Then there is a secondary question of does it cause resistance in the bacteria, which then causes it to be less eff…

> > may or may not work > That's not accurate. It does work, as in, it does kill bacteria. It's known to work in vitro, and it's known to work in toothpaste. It sounds like there is no body of evidence to indicate that it works in things like hand soaps. Considering how often agents like this are found to work under one set of circumstances and not under another, I'd say that suggests that whether the agent works for…

That's the wrong question.

Even if it does work (as in kill bacteria) on the hand, that doesn't mean it works (as in prevents illness).

And in medical settings it's yet another question: does it work (as in prevent the spread of bacteria), even if it doesn't prevent illness.

You have to be careful about what your goal is.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#33
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't used toothpaste regularly for about 8 years. I've never told my dentists. I have had 3 fillings but I'm not sure if not using toothpaste was a contributor (I used to be really lazy with flossing. I think that's more likely).

Whats your diet? I'm not trying to ignite the traditional HN flamewar about the evils of a science based paleo diet, but I have had a similar experience where not eating grains or sugar none the less results in a relatively tartar free mouth per my dentist. Even though I hate waiting and am impatient and do not visit every 3 months or whatever often its supposed to be. Archeologically, before people started eating gr…

These humans that died with good teeth, weren't they mostly dead by their 30's?

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#34
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > may or may not work > That's not accurate. It does work, as in, it does kill bacteria. It's known to work in vitro, and it's known to work in toothpaste. It sounds like there is no body of evidence to indicate that it works in things like hand soaps. Considering how often agents like this are found to work under one set of circumstances and not under another, I'd say that suggests that whether the agent works for…

That's the wrong question. Even if it does work (as in kill bacteria) on the hand, that doesn't mean it works (as in prevents illness). And in medical settings it's yet another question: does it work (as in prevent the spread of bacteria), even if it doesn't prevent illness. You have to be careful about what your goal is.

[deleted]

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#35
post #24

You have a natural gut flora; you have a natural skin flora. Screwing around with your gut flora is uncontroversially seen as a bad thing. Screwing around with your skin flora strikes me as a similar argument. I would be interested to know of any summary of dermatology studies on anti-bacterial soaps. I would theorize that much as screwing around with your gut flora leads to all manner of uncomfortable stinkiness, so…

Well, where "screwing around" == killing. Screwing around by taking probiotic supplements, eating fermented foods, etc. is generally considered to be good, or at least harmless.

The stinky hypothesis is interesting, I would think it would require an experiment designed around the use of deodorant soaps (which often contain anti-microbials). We know of course that people who wash very rarely often do have a distinct odor, though there's at least some implication that diet plays a part in exactly how stinky it is.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#36
There's definitely a potential for negative impact on your septic system, especially the newer aerobic type, which is much more sensitive.

But where does the FDA get the authority to regulate soap? It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all. Indeed, the whole point is that it's supposed to NOT directly affect you at all.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#37

There's definitely a potential for negative impact on your septic system, especially the newer aerobic type, which is much more sensitive. But where does the FDA get the authority to regulate soap ? It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all. Indeed, the whole point is that it's supposed to NOT directly affect you at all.

> But where does the FDA get the authority to regulate soap? It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all.

The FDA regulates cosmetics, which, like soap, are supposed to stay outside the body.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#38
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's wrong with Listerine?

Alcohol can inflame your gums which can lead to gum disease. Best to use non alcohol versions.

In that case, one should warn others away from drinking vodka and whiskey. Best to stick to beer, I guess. :-)

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#40
post #12

TL;DR: Core ingredient in most anti-bacterial soaps, triclosan, may or may not work. FDA asking manufacturers to prove it works. Scientists say that these chemicals may act as hormone disruptors, pointing to a link between triclosan exposure and allergies.

Also possibly harming animals such as dolphins: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=dolphin-dev...
Post reply on HN