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

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#61

Post by kingkawn »

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…

Bacterial killing is not inherently valuable since so much of your homeostasis is regulated by native bacterial flora, both on the skin and inside the body. It could be that even beyond the skin damage of anti-bacterial soaps, that regularly wiping out your endogenous bacteria could increase certain infectious susceptibilities.

This has been seen with C. difficile infections that occur after broad-spectrum antibiotic administration. These infections are 50% fatal when treated with more antibiotics. Use of fecal transplants, aka the poop of a healthy person put it into the c. difficile patient's stomach, seems to drop that fatality rate to less than 1%. The impact appears to be from the reestablishment of bacterial homeostasis in the gastrointestinal tract.

Study is still ongoing on the broad efficacy of this method, but regardless there is at the very least a substantial subset of the population who are demonstrably at risk from the loss of native flora due to bactericidal treatment.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#62

Post by aestra »

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…

Old school soaps the FDA stays out of anyways. They only regulates synthetic detergents.

http://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/productandingredientsafety/Prod...

>Ordinary soap is solely made up of fats and an alkali. In the past, people made their own soap from animal fats and wood ashes.

>Today there are very few true soaps in the traditional sense on the market. You might recognize these soaps as products marketed with characteristics such as "pure." "True" soaps are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not FDA, and do not require ingredient labeling.

Also, the second a product claims to be "Antibacterial" it is making a drug claim, and needs to have a drug list on the bottle.

>If a drug claim is made on a cleanser or soap, such as antibacterial, antiperspirant, or anti acne, the product is a drug, and the label must list all active ingredients, as is required for all drug products.

And the other examples you gave all have their own regulatory agencies which in theory should protect the public. The FDA is concerned with food, drugs, and cosmetics. Period. Cosmetics are certainly ingested (think lipstick, lipgloss) as well as absorbed into the body. It makes senses for the FDA to have that under their wing.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#63

Post by CWuestefeld »

nate_meurer wrote: post #60
CWuestefeld wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

your argument that the FDA shouldn't be regulating products that are applied directly to the skin takes libertarian dogma to confusing heights

If you go back, you'll see that I never actually said that. I asked a question, I didn't argue against it.

So you're not interested in answering the line-drawing question: why soap, but not fabric softener or dish detergent?

And the problem with lowest-common-denominator solutions remains. Why must I, a terminally ill cancer patient, be subject to the same rules as a healthy person? In bureaucracy, there's no room for anyone to be different.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#64

Post by nate_meurer »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #63
nate_meurer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

your argument that the FDA shouldn't be regulating products that are applied directly to the skin takes libertarian dogma to confusing heights If you go back, you'll see that I never actually said that. I asked a question, I didn't argue against it. So you're not interested in answering the line-drawing question: why soap, but not fabric softener or dish detergent? And the problem with lowest-common-denominator solut…

Hmm... so you're just a disinterested observer asking for help in understanding the reasons for which the government classifies some things and not others as cosmetics for regulatory purposes? I'm afraid I can't help you there, and you're right, I'm not really interested.

My personal opinion is that products that are dangerous by their very nature, such as radium-containing makeup, lead paint, and formaldehyde-laden hair products, should be strictly regulated. Given that, I naturally support the existence of regulatory agencies to do the work, by force if necessary.

I don't know enough about triclosan to have a strong opinion about it. I'm a pragmatist by any measure, and I generally lean toward the conservative side in this area. But I'm not so rash that I would question the very existence of all regulations just because said agencies make a decision that I don't like.

Edit: My last sentence reads a bit harshly. I'm not calling you rash, but rather reflecting on my own thought process.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#65

Post by rcthompson »

jblow wrote: post #49
rcthompson wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Left to its own devices, a baby will stick pretty much everything into its mouth. If you believe that evolution generates behavior to maximize survival value, this fact about babies seems relevant.

Left to its own devices in a modern America, a human will typically become obese from overeating and eating unhealthy foods (guess how I know!). That doesn't make this behavior adaptive. Humans didn't evolve under an environment of plenty, so their behavior in such an environment does not necessarily maximize survival value. Ditto for an environment where parents don't pay attention to what their infants put in their mouths.

In summary, it's a long, long shot to claim that babies being willing to eat anything constitutes evidence that bacterial exposure is beneficial.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#66

Post by rcthompson »

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

What do you call antibiotics, then, if not drugs?

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#67

Post by enkephalin »

rcthompson wrote: post #65
jblow wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Left to its own devices, a baby will stick pretty much everything into its mouth. If you believe that evolution generates behavior to maximize survival value, this fact about babies seems relevant.

Left to its own devices in a modern America, a human will typically become obese from overeating and eating unhealthy foods (guess how I know!). That doesn't make this behavior adaptive. Humans didn't evolve under an environment of plenty, so their behavior in such an environment does not necessarily maximize survival value. Ditto for an environment where parents don't pay attention to what their infants put in their…

consider that babies rely solely on instincts, whereas our behavior as we get older, depends greatly on factors such as upbringing, our experiences and expectations, media exposure etc.

Re: FDA: Antibacterial soaps could pose health risks

#68

Post by rcthompson »

enkephalin wrote: post #67
rcthompson wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Left to its own devices in a modern America, a human will typically become obese from overeating and eating unhealthy foods (guess how I know!). That doesn't make this behavior adaptive. Humans didn't evolve under an environment of plenty, so their behavior in such an environment does not necessarily maximize survival value. Ditto for an environment where parents don't pay attention to what their infants put in their…

consider that babies rely solely on instincts, whereas our behavior as we get older, depends greatly on factors such as upbringing, our experiences and expectations, media exposure etc.

I don't see how that's relevant or detracts from my point.
Post reply on HN