Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#51

Post by bo1024 »

aresant wrote: 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.

I agree with the other respondent -- your post is confusing and/or misleading because the word "work" is completely ambiguous.

The question is not whether anti-bacterial soaps kill bacteria (they do). The question is whether using them has health benefits or not.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#53

Post by nknighthb »

switch007 wrote: post #21
lukifer wrote: post #13

Earlier 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.

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).

My understanding from what dentists have said to me in the past is that ordinary toothpaste in the abstract is of limited value, especially if you brush often, but it's a useful vehicle for fluoride.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#54

Post by gbog »

ars wrote: post #15
aresant wrote: 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.

> 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…

I like the Taleb way to decide on these choices: if you have a very low return on a new medical thing (eg drug) and is supposed to use it often, the very tiny risk inside becomes actually quickly bigger than the benefit. On the opposite, even there is only 70% chance for it to work, go for the new heart surgery technique because if you don't you die anyway. (I am simplifying)

So in result: say no to antibacterial soap, say yes to whatever Doctor House prescribes you.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#55

Post by Shivetya »

enkephalin wrote: post #27
DanBC wrote: post #4

The 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…

Always remembered stories about kids who grew up with animals did better long term, both emotionally and physically.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#57

Post by ljf »

Shivetya wrote: post #55
enkephalin wrote: post #27

Earlier 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…

Always remembered stories about kids who grew up with animals did better long term, both emotionally and physically.

As someone that grew up on a farm (and a data point of 1), I am pretty damn healthy and very rarely ill.

My wife on the other hand grew up in a spotlessly clean house, and has a range of allergies, asthma, coeliac disease, allergic to asprin and anaesthetics.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#58

Post by sten »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #35
VLM wrote: 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 o…

As an anecdote I gave up antiperspirant and deodorants after suffering rashes and pain in my under arms. I sweat more, but I was surprised to find I actually smell better. Or rather I'm told I smell better. Additionally I discovered that the stains in the underarms of my clothing went away, apparently it's caused by the deodorants. Diet may indeed play a factor, I am vegan. YMMV.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#59

Post by CWuestefeld »

aestra wrote: post #50
CWuestefeld wrote: post #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.

>It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body 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 aff…

facepalm

Nice attitude. Remember, you're on HN, not reddit.

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!!?

Aside from the fact that I don't typically snort lotion, it's true that there are plenty of things that come into contact with my body all the time. So maybe you can help me understand where to draw the line.

For example, why is hand soap of interest to the FDA, but not:

- dish detergent, since I'm actually ingesting some small remnant of their content

- laundry detergent, and especially softener, since that's rubbing against my skin for nearly 24 hours/day.

- building materials, whose outgassing I'm inhaling for much of the day

Further, in your quotation above, this part seems pretty much nonsensical: "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.". I read this to say that "you can sell any cosmetics you want - as long as you don't try to sell it".

mostly a wild west at the moment.

Is that necessarily a problem? Is there a reason that everything must be regulated? If you're worried about safety, as in your final quotation, then why not settle for warnings while letting the users determine if they've got, e.g., adequate ventilation, or if there's other circumstances that make the risk worthwhile. For example, I typically won't use antibacterial soap myself, but if I've got a cut, or doing something else for which sanitation is important, it may be worthwhile in that special case. Government regulations lead to one-size-fits-all, and that size is the lowest common denominator, with no accommodation for individual circumstances - take their position on experimental drugs for terminal patients, for example.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#60

Post by nate_meurer »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #59
aestra wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body 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 aff…

facepalm Nice attitude. Remember, you're on HN, not reddit. 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!!? Aside from the fact that I don't typically snort lotion, it's true that there are plenty of things that come into contact with my body all the time. So maybe you can help me understand where to draw the line. Fo…

If you were to simply argue that regulatory structures sometimes seem arbitrary and inefficient, I don't think you'd get much pushback here. In this case the reality is very simple; the FDA regulates cosmetics by law, and soap is a cosmetic. Pretty obvious.

But your argument that the FDA shouldn't be regulating products that are applied directly to the skin takes libertarian dogma to confusing heights. Do you think we should allow Tho-Radia cosmetics to still be sold for example?

And warning labels? Really? You realize that warning labels are also imposed by the FDA, right? And besides, exactly how do warning labels protect me from formaldehyde fumes (or radiation, as from Tho-Radia) caused by someone else in my vicinity who chooses to ignore them?

Post reply on HN