Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
41–50 of 68 posts
Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#42Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#43Not to mention increased resistance from bacteria And of course the needed contact with foreign agents to build immune resistance. Use antibacterial soap when needed: hospitals
Is there any evidence for this? Generally speaking, one would expect biocide resistant bacteria to be less antibiotic resistant.
Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Care to share your findings? I've already stopped using Listerine (which ended up being the right decision) and I'm growing skeptical even of "hippie" toothpastes. Thinking about moving to just baking soda paste.
What's wrong with Listerine?
Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#45In fact, hand-washing took a really long time to catch on, largely because doctors saw it as an inconvenience. Some surgeons used to pride themselves on wearing lab coats covered with blood; it was the sign of a busy practice.
This story in the New Yorker actually makes a much broader, interesting point, investigating why some innovations take so long to catch on. For example, anesthesia was discovered around the same time as antiseptics, but it caught on about a decade sooner.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/07/29/130729fa_fact_...
Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#46Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#47The US CDC has a nice document called "When is Clean Too Clean?" http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/70-0225_article.htm Some people are expected to wash their hands a lot. Clinicians, people preparing food, etc. It's important to us that they have clean hands. Some cleaning routines damage the skin, causing places where risky germs can hide. Sometimes cleaning just moves germs that are safely colonising skin into t…
> I'm not sure what the research is? at least for infants/children, the research is in favor of introducing bacteria to the immune system. Exposure to microbes during early childhood is associated with protection from immune-mediated diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and asthma. ... These results indicate that age-sensitive contact with commensal microbes is critical for establishing mucosal iNKT cell…
Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#48Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure what the research is? at least for infants/children, the research is in favor of introducing bacteria to the immune system. Exposure to microbes during early childhood is associated with protection from immune-mediated diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and asthma. ... These results indicate that age-sensitive contact with commensal microbes is critical for establishing mucosal iNKT cell…
So, clearly there are disadvantages to underexposure to bacteria (hygiene hypothesis etc.), but are they so bad that they outweigh the risks of allowing bacterial exposure? In other words, is there any evidence that the optimal level of exposure to bacteria (i.e. the level that minimizes the sum of the risk of pathogenic infection and the risk of cleanliness-related problems like allergies and autoimmunity) is nonzer…
If you believe that evolution generates behavior to maximize survival value, this fact about babies seems relevant.
Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks
#50There'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.
facepalm
Do you really think those products you are rubbing around your skin every day and sniffing up your nose don't get absorbed by your skin and lungs!!? I mean they make drugs that can be rubbed on like lotion, as well as medications that can be delivered in patch form and your telling me "well it isn't going in your body so it won't directly affect you."
We don't know yet. There are thoughts that triclosan might cause endocrine disruption. but I don't know and I don't think the science has been done yet. The FDA wants to find out. This is GOOD. The FDA should be doing more to vet the cosmetics industry which is mostly a wild west at the moment.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics explains: http://safecosmetics.org/section.php?id=75
The agency charged with oversight of cosmetics, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has no authority to require pre-market safety assessment as it does with drugs, so cosmetics are among the least-regulated products on the market. The FDA does not review – nor does it have the authority to regulate – what goes into cosmetics before they are marketed for salon use and consumer use. In fact, 89 percent of all ingredients in cosmetics have not been evaluated for safety by any publicly accountable institution.
Ironically, most consumers believe the U.S. government regulates the cosmetics industry the same way it regulates food and drugs sold in this country to make sure they're safe. The truth is, no one's minding the store when it comes to shampoo, skin moisturizers, baby products, lipstick or any other personal care product.
The FDA’s own Web site explains its limitations:
“FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency .... Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives.”
The emerging evidence on the body burdens of chemicals in the American people, as well as the new science on how small exposures to these chemicals can add up to harm, suggest that there is no health-based rationale for the difference in regulatory powers between the different FDA divisions.Here's a link about formaldehyde in hair straighteners:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-governme...
Josimov began to realize it was her life that was changing. Her progression of symptoms mirrored hundreds of other stylists – the burning eyes and sore throats followed by chronic runny noses. Respiratory infections settled in for months, accompanied by scabby blisters in the nose. With prolonged exposure came the asthma-like wheezing and shortness of breath.
After Arce's exposures, she started getting rashes, headaches and sore throats. Now she coughs up bloody mucous and is on two inhalers. Marino would get nauseated and dizzy, and would have to stick plastic bags in her purse in case she had to throw up in public. She was diagnosed with asthma and sinus infections.