15 ms·
FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps
- ythl 10y agoGood. 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 greatest baddies and keep immunity up-to-date.
- fastball 10y agoWhat about cooking? e.g. handling raw meat and such?
- frandroid 10y agoWe seem doing well with most workers in butcher shops and restaurants just washing their hands with regular soap.
- initram 10y agoAre they, though? I suspect most butcher shops and restaurants are using antibacterial soap at this point. I go out of my way to try to buy non-antibacterial soap and it's often impossible to find. I imagine most businesses just order whatever's the first thing they see in the catalog/web site, and it's probably antibacterial because that's what most people think they want at home.
- infecto 10y agoRegular soap works perfect here. You just need something to help breakdown the lipids and remove from the surface of your skin.
- afterburner 10y agoWell, if you're cooking, the bacteria on the raw meat and whatever you added with your hands get cooked. Most skin bacteria probably don't do too well in the mouth and stomach anyways.
- deelowe 10y agoWhat's wrong with regular soap? It worked fine for decades. You don't need to kill the bacteria. Just remove it.
- busyant 10y agoSoap is a remarkably good antibacterial as well. Im on mobile but will try to look up refs for this later. I used to work in this area and a colleague was an expert on antibacterial properties of detergents.
- vel0city 10y agoYes, cell membranes are largely made of phospholipids. Soap can disrupt the membrane and essentially leak the contents of cells.
- busyant 10y agoSoap is a remarkably good antibacterial as well. Im on mobile but will try to look up refs for this later. I used to work in this area and a colleague was an expert on antibacterial properties of detergents.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago> You don't need to kill the bacteria. Just remove it. I'm pretty sure the lipid-dissolving properties of soap kill bacteria by shredding their cell membranes. It's not effective against viruses, but neither is antibacterial soap.
- deelowe 10y agoThanks for the correction.
- Broken_Hippo 10y agoIt 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.
- bko 10y agoBan [something] because it's not effective. Un-ban [something] because it's not really harmful and it's about choice of what I do with my body I never understood which someyhing to put in which category. Perhaps you can argue that no one gets any utility for the thing you want to ban since it's a fraud, but people are spending their money on that thing so surely they get some utility. Not really my place to say
- manigandham 10y agoPeople (in mass) are generally stupid and public good is something that needs to be carefully maintained. Much of our regulation is around maintaining a balance between freedom for an individual against the safety and peace for everyone. In this case, there is far more harm than good.
- jcrites 10y agoI think the first category is "ban something if it's ineffective and there's a tragedy of the commons from using it". Antibacterial soaps are probably not any more effective than regular soaps, but they might contribute to bacterial immunity (to antibacterials).
- bko 10y agoSurely there is some negative effects to any recreational drug use, especially alcohol. Theres always a trade off , I just think that the bar to making something illegal should be higher.
- ethbro 10y agoDepends on whether one is thinking like a mountain or willing to be blind past the horizon of his or her own lifetime. Sometimes negative effects compound with time or, as jcrites noted, the negative effects of two people doing a thing is greater than 2x one person doing it.
- nopinsight 10y agoThere is likely negative externality to other people from its widespread use (more bacterial resistance), and the benefit is at most a placebo effect. Many users may not even care that much--it's just another optional checkbox at little extra cost. The manufacturers also fall into a prisoner's dilemma and cannot avoid offering it if a number of buyers are not aware of or care about externalities. Only the government can pull them out together. Should we allow smoking in most public places?
- DanBC 10y ago> Not sterilizing your hands all the time is actually good (in most cases) because it allows your body to sample the latest and greatest baddies and keep immunity up-to-date. The other reason people shouldn't be using harsh chemicals on their hands is because it damages the skin, and thus creates a better environment for bacterial contamination. The CDC was saying this years ago. Here's one good article that summarises the evidence in 2001. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/70-0225_article http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/70-0225_article > Issues regarding hand hygiene practices among health-care professionals have been widely discussed and may be even more complicated than those in the general public. Unless patient care involves invasive procedures or extensive contact with blood and body fluids, current guidelines recommend plain soap for handwashing (38,39); however, infection rates in adult or neonatal intensive care units or surgery may be further reduced when antiseptic products are used (40-42).
- Lawtonfogle 10y agoWould you say good to a ban on alcoholic drinks? They do a great deal of damage directly and indirectly. Education, not prohibition, is needed.
- ythl 10y agoIt depends, right? Prohibition of anti-bacterial usage in soap is unlikely to create black markets and mafias. Therefore prohibition is an effective solution. Prohibition of alcohol does create black markets and mafias, so an alternate solution is needed.
- qdog 10y agoAlcoholic drinks sold in a package come with warning labels. I've seen reports 1-2 drinks a day may improve longevity, but I doubt it would be acceptable to label every beer as "youth potion", you have to limit intake for possible benefit. For the soap, to receive a benefit also requires more than the label indicated. The substance banned takes hours to kill the bacteria (according to the article), so I would say it's marketed in a mis-leading way. I doubt many people actually buy the soap thinking a multi-hour exposure is needed.
- chii 10y agoAlcohol's effect is limited in scope. It affects the individual, affects the immediate surroundings, and perhaps their family. It cannot affect some one in another country. The resistant bacteria can grow to a problem of global proportion.
- arikrak 10y agoAfter traveling on the subway and picking up various germs should one make sure to put their hands in their mouth and eyes to sample the "latest and greatest"?
- mkane848 10y agoIs there any reason why these companies would include a seemingly ineffective element into their product other than being able to say "antibacterial" on the label? It couldn't possibly have been CHEAPER to add them to soaps when it became the new meta, so it'd be interesting if marketing was the sole reason for it.
- bluejekyll 10y agoMarketing to consumer misinformation is common. And once one company does it, others need to follow, because the cost of educating the consumer far out ways the cost of just following a trend.
- api 10y agoIt's called "blue crystals" in marketing jargon, after literal blue crystals and other pointless things. Anything that can be used for market differentiation or that creates a "health aura" effect can boost sales.
- staticvar 10y agoDo you have a source for this "blue crystals" term? I'm interested.
- logfromblammo 10y agoI think it's from laundry detergent. People will pay more for a white powder with useless colored crystals in it than they would for the plain white powder. Psychologically, the implication is that the crystals are some sort of secret sauce that makes the powder work better, or is responsible for all the brand-linked advertising claims. Since the actual chemistry is over most people's heads, the "blue crystals" are where they invest all the magic that makes it work just like the ads claim it will.
- stan_rogers 10y agoAt the time, a lot of people were regularly using laundry bluing as a whitening agent along with soap (not another detergent agent, real, honest-to-goodness soap, like Sunlight Soap or Ivory Snow); it was difficult to tell those people that a more effective detergent, by itself, could accomplish what soap and bluing together had been doing. Thus blue crystals in detergent.
- S_Daedalus 10y agoFinally. This was a long time coming from a public health perspective, and the FDA could have done this any time citing lack of efficacy.
- philip1209 10y agoWhat's the medical standard for soap? Also, this may sound silly, but does "anti-bacterial" vs. "anti-septic" factor in here? Could soap just be made more caustic to achieve the same effect without drugs?
- Terr_ 10y agoPossibly, but then it won't be the same kind of consumer product, and it'll be less-comfortable and harsher on skin.
- greglindahl 10y agoThe article points out that soap is already achieving the same effect without drugs... that's what the FDA concluded after studying the evidence.
- okreallywtf 10y agoI hope its not too little too late, we've known about bacterial resistance for decades at this point. Here is hoping animal feed is next.
- tmd83 10y agoYup that would probably be one of the big thing in the whole antibiotic crisis and just making sure the farm environment is good once you can't rely on just flooding them with antibiotic and keep them alive.
- pyre 10y agoFlooding them with antibiotics isn't just to "keep them alive." It makes them grow bigger (i.e. more meat to sell means more money). This is a big part of the resistance to ending the practice too.
- tmd83 10y agoDo you mean the antibiotics keeps them healthy and in turn bigger or antibiotics has some growth hormone type effect?
- enave 10y agoYou have a common misconception. Antibacterial soaps don't cause bacterial resistance. Antibiotics do, but that's because antibiotics must selectively kill bacteria while inside the human body and without harming human cells. Antibacterial doesn't really have a precise medical definition, but in practice they're dilute antiseptics. In many centuries of use, bacteria have not developed resistance to antiseptics. There's no danger of them developing resistance to these soaps either ...and even if they did, that wouldn't mean they were magically also resistant to some antibiotic. So basically, the marketing people wanted something more than "just soap" so they used antiseptics and made up a nicer sounding word: Antibacterial. You have (and perhaps this was the intent of the marketing people) assumed this has something to do with antibiotics.
- vxNsr 10y agoInteresting I knew that this was all marketing from previous reading but I had trouble finding a soap that didn't say anti-bacterial that was cheaper so I just went with it
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pnathan 10y agoKirk's Castile is pretty nice. https://www.amazon.com/Kirks-Natural-Castile-Soap-Original/dp/B001D4YDKU https://www.amazon.com/Kirks-Natural-Castile-Soap-Original/d...
- mrfusion 10y agoI thought triclosan was already banned. They pulled it off the shelves a while ago.
- mrfusion 10y agoIt seems weird they get out in front of these ingridients but let bpa slide for decades which has documented harm.
- solipsism 10y agoDocumented harm? Come on, stop making things up. There are hints at correlations between BPA exposure and adverse health effects. There are animal studies with extremely high doses. But there is no direct evidence of adverse health effects on any humans caused by BPA.
- joecool1029 10y agoI don't see why you're getting downvoted. He made a claim without evidence. I've also been unable to locate studies documenting an observed risk to humans.
- blockednbcads 10y agoI took the last part of his statement and entered it into Google, "adverse health effects on any humans caused by BPA.". The results are interesting. Search the results page for ".gov" sites.
- epistasis 10y agoYes, and the reliable sources contradict what he's said. Which makes me think that solipsism was not out of line to call him out for making stuff up. For example from WebMD: >The federal government is now funding new research into BPA risks. We don't know the results of these studies yet. Recommendations about BPA could change in the next few years. >For now, there are no restrictions on the use of BPA in products. The Food and Drug Administration does recommend taking "reasonable steps" to reduce human exposure to BPA in the food supply. The FDA has also expressed support for manufacturers who have stopped using BPA in products for babies and for companies working to develop alternatives to the BPA in canned foods. http://www.webmd.com/children/environmental-exposure-head2toe/bpa?page=2 http://www.webmd.com/children/environmental-exposure-head2to... Or the top .gov hit (for me): >There are data showing that exposure to BPA, as well as other endocrine disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity, may have e ects on obesity and diabetes. These data, while preliminary and only in animals, indicate the potential for endocrine disrupting agents to have e ects on other endocrine systems not yet fully examined. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/endocrine_disruptors_508.pdf https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/endocrine_disrupt... So in summary it seems that the FDA is acting appropriately, not out of the ordinary. They are studying the issue, but there's not yet documented harm.
- mrfusion 10y agoI use antibacterial soap once in a while when I get really bad body Oder and it seems to make it go away. Regular soap hasn't been effective when this happens.
- robotmlg 10y agoYou might want to see a doctor about that...
- gshakir 10y agoI would investigate some home remedy. Not too strong. You got to be careful with the herbal stuff, they can do a number on your hormones if not carefully used.
- joecool1029 10y agoReplace substance with questionable efficacy that works anecdotally with something even more nebulous?
- g8oz 10y agoTry any one of a pine tar soap, Dettol, a tea tree oil based wash or an alcohol cleanser.
- gshakir 10y agoFinally! . No more Triclosan and other dangerous stuff. I stopped using antibacterial soap a while ago. Switched to Method and have been using that brand for all my cleaning needs. Triclosan is also present in facial cleansing stuff and lots of other products like toothpaste etc. Scary stuff.
- blockednbcads 10y agoThe brand isn't really important as long as it's plain soap.
- bashinator 10y agoI like Dr. Bronner's for the very short ingredient list and the crazed ranting.
- treehau5 10y agoTriclosan is in anti-plaque toothpastes, but dentists say it actually has the opposite effect and actually causes more plaque to form.
- jmcgough 10y agoReally happy about this - literally just ranted to my partner this week about how we should ban antibacterial soap. It has no place outside of a hospital, and is only contributing to the problems we're facing.
- martincmartin 10y agoWhat problems is it contributing to? The article says it doesn't actually affect bacteria, so it can't be contributing to resistant strains.
- jmcgough 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Resistance_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Resistance_concerns At best, antibacterial soap is ineffective. At worst, it's contributing to resistance in some microbes.
- refurb 10y agoBut we don't use the antibacterials in soaps as therapeutic agents to treat infections. So if a bacteria becomes resistant to triclosan, it has no impact on the effectiveness of antibiotics.
- pdkl95 10y ago> we don't use the antibacterials in soaps as therapeutic agents to treat infections Why would you think that changes anything? The bacteria don't care about our intentions. Artificial selection works the same regardless. From the link you were replying to: [...] exposure to triclosan was associated with a high risk of developing resistance and cross-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. > if a bacteria becomes resistant to triclosan, it has no impact on the effectiveness of antibiotics. Do you think the bacteria magically lose their resistance to an antibiotic (or cross-resistance to a similar antibiotic biochemical mechanism)? Evolution doesn't care why a bacteria developed a mutation that produced a resistance to a particular chemical. All that matters is that they, as survivors, will pass on that mutation to future generations. Any resistant strain will have an advantage in the future, which includes resistance to any antibiotics that work similarly. By the way, heredity isn't the only way a resistant trait can spread to future bacteria. Horizontal gene transfer[1] is a thing. Bacteria can spread the resistance gene among the current-generation. [1] http://amrls.cvm.msu.edu/microbiology/molecular-basis-for-antimicrobial-resistance/acquired-resistance/acquisition-of-antimicrobial-resistance-via-horizontal-gene-transfer http://amrls.cvm.msu.edu/microbiology/molecular-basis-for-an... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
- koolba 10y agoWhat 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?
- coolsunglasses 10y agoHand sanitizers that are just alcohol should be fine if they're high enough concentration but there's sort of a skin damage / actually-killing-bacteria trade off there.
- cylinder 10y agoHand sanitizers aren't anti-bacterial
- exclusiv 10y agoAlcohol kills bacteria.
- davesque 10y agoIt mentions that in the article. They're doing a separate review process for alcohol-based products.
- middleclick 10y agoI use hand sanitizers, but only when there is no alternative, that is when there is no water/soap, or when the washroom is unusable (read: no paper towels).
- balabaster 10y agoThe McDouble will probably kill you faster than the hand sanitizer ;)
- amalcon 10y agoHand sanitizers are generally alcohol-based. The scientific consensus is that bacteria can't evolve resistance to alcohol any more than they can evolve resistance to (say) chlorine bleach. We just can't use it internally in effective concentrations, because at such concentrations it's also poisinous to the patient.
- raverbashing 10y agoGood No more soccer mom directed ads pumping BS about how good it is to have your kids live in a bacterial bubble The same crappy thinking that brought us allergy epidemics
- koolba 10y ago> No more soccer mom directed ads pumping BS about how good it is to have your kids live in a bacterial bubble That's not going to stop. They're just going to switch the messaging to "All natural ...".
- djschnei 10y agoI guess I'm weird; I have no idea why the government has the ability to dictate what is and isn't in the soap that I choose to buy. I agree however, anti-bacterial soap is silly. Looks like a lot of people here agree. Looks like a market segment to me. Didn't need a gun, theft, or a jail cell to create it.
- Kenji 10y agoYou are not weird. The FDA holds enormous power, dictating what substances we may use and what we may not use. A desire for self-determination is only natural.
- spankalee 10y agoIn this case, all humans are at a potentially grave risk from the actions of others. Seems like the perfect place for regulation.
- Vraxx 10y agoWell, the big one is that it's a joint effort as a society to not continually strengthen bacteria by selecting for strains that are resistant to these antimicrobials.
- djschnei 10y agoNot debating that. I agree. I guess I just think there is a more morally justifiable way to go about it than edict. Again, this non-antibacterial soap belief doesn't seem like one that needs force to spread.
- Vraxx 10y agoThat's true I suppose, laws are a lot harder to redact than to enact, so we should take care not to over-legislate. That being said, I think it's still an applicable scenario in this case due to the potentially society scale threat. In many other smaller-scale scenarios, I would tend to agree with your stance on it.
- cthalupa 10y ago
- Kenji 10y agoI love how the FDA shifts the burden of proof to the product makers. You now have to prove that your product works. It's not the state that has to prove that your product is harmful to ban it. I can't agree with this order, but it's just another case of classic FDA behaviour. I would like to live in a world where you have to show that something is bad before it gets banned. Not just a feeling, or that it doesn't work, but solid evidence that it's bad, that is, harming people or animals or destroying the environment, etc.
- Vraxx 10y agoIt's already proven that it's harmful. In the same that that overprescribing antibiotics is harmful. It artificially selects for bacteria resistant to these chemicals, which makes them less effective. So the ball was back in the maker's court, either show that this product is worth the risk or shut up and deal with the ban.
- Accacin 10y agoIsn't that what the USA basically does? That's why things are often banned in the EU before America, because the FDA (or whatever) normally has to prove it's bad before it gets pulled. In the EU it's the other way around. I could be wrong but I believe that's the general gist of it.
- Kenji 10y agoThat there are worse offenders of the principle that you have to show something to be harmful before you ban it doesn't make the behaviour of the FDA better. It's hard to compare the EU to America just like that, especially since the EU is not a state, but you may be right. The EU makes incredibly arbitrary judgements and bans sometimes. Some European countries, however, fare much better when it comes to avoiding such blatant authoritarianism.
- kale 10y agoThe FDA has tiers of regulation. Things like "supplements" are loosely regulated, while "pharmaceuticals" are much more highly regulated. With supplements, the FDA pretty much lets things go until they start causing problems. DMAA was legal for a long time until people started having heart attacks. Melatonin, which is a straight-up hormone, is over-the-counter in the US, and it's by prescription only in Europe. Now, if you're marketing something as a treatment for a disease, you have to have concrete data to back it up. So it's very possible to have something that the FDA will let you sell as a supplement (i.e. there's no evidence that it's dangerous), but not make any claims about its efficacy (i.e. you can't say it will treat XYZ). I experimented with nootropics at one point of my life (found them worthless, FYI), and it was funny how all of the labels just stated what it was, purity, and a blurb about the company selling it. There was no language whatsoever telling you what the supplement was for. Just a giant "PIRACETAM" label on the front.
- blockednbcads 10y ago23 3rd party Ad site's cookies were blocked (unless my count was off). :-) Glad the FDA wised up, anti-bacterial soap was causing skin rashes for us in my personal opinion.
- unethical_ban 10y agoI'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?
- Vraxx 10y agoIt's not necessarily unhealthy to an individual person, it's the effect that it has on the surviving bacteria. These soaps are dangerous to society as a whole because they become less effective the more widespread their usage is [0]. Thus, we don't need to use them for every single thing we get on our hands that we want off, we're not in mortal peril of those germs. [0]: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.htm#2 http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.ht...
- rtkwe 10y agoIt'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.
- 001sky 10y agoIsn'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.
- rtkwe 10y agoNot a straw man at all. Effectiveness should be simple to show and for safety they're not asking for perfect proof of safety just that it doesn't cause long term effects which is done a lot with animal studies. Hundreds of products go through FDA safety testing it's not some impossible test. Also these aren't the same soaps used in hospitals. Hospital soaps are much harsher and use different chemicals.
- ipunchghosts 10y agoIts so great to see science be put to work for the common person!
- niels_olson 10y agoWe have no evidence that surgeons scrubbing before donning gloves makes sense either. In fact, there's an undergraduate experiment where people scrub for up to 3-4 minutes and swab after every 10 seconds and plate the swab. The plates actually show more colony-forming units until about 3 minutes, which is much longer than most surgeons scrub. Which suggests that the scrubbing actually liberates bacteria found at the margin of the stratum corneum.
- boobsbr 10y agoVERY interesting. Care to share the paper? EDIT: Some surgeons argue that having a beard can carry more bacteria into a surgery room, while others argue that shaving might make the surgeon more susceptible to infection by bacteria from the surgery room, since epitelial cells are removed by the razor blade.
- niels_olson 10y agoThe experiment I described is done in undergrad bio labs, I honestly can't find a paper a paper on it. Anyone with an interest: there's a paper that could easily be published!
- Kristine1975 10y ago>Which suggests that the scrubbing actually liberates bacteria found at the margin of the stratum corneum. Wouldn't that mean that after scrubbing the bacteria are no longer there?
- deegles 10y agoYes, but they have to scrub for at least 3 minutes, which most people don't do.
- mattkrause 10y ago> which is much longer than most surgeons scrub. How sure are you about this? There's usually some kind of timer (and, sometimes, an assistant) to ensure that you wash for the specified amount of time. Also, I always figured that scrubbing was essentially a precaution in case the gloves ripped or snagged (which, being thin latex, is far from improbable).
- balabaster 10y agoTaking the article at face value: So they can order the removal of anti-bacterial agents because they haven't scientifically been proven beneficial and there are potentially unknown side effects. Err on the side of caution, that's a wise decision. ... yet they use terms like GRAS (Generally Regarded as Safe) for things like Roundup Ready crops which have been scientifically (allegedly, I haven't read and understood all the science, but it seems reasonably credible to the layman) proven to contain significantly increased doses of POISON in food on the supermarket shelves which (admittedly unproven but) highly suspiciously correlated skyrocketing food allergies. I don't get it (genuinely). Why one application of a seemingly sane rule with unknown repercussions in one instance and a complete disregard for it in the other in the face of a huge amount of evidence that it is in fact unsafe? Is this because antibacterial agents in soaps are not funded by Monsanto? (okay, I asked that facetiously, but still)
- parineum 10y agoMaybe you should stop and understand the science before you continue on your road of assumptions.
- balabaster 10y agoIf only I had 10 minutes to study the science of every last thing I don't understand... I'd be getting younger by the article. There's only so much time in a day to devote to so much activity while I'm waiting for code to compile.
- hx87 10y agoFine, but then don't make brazen statements like > but it seems reasonably credible to the layman > proven to contain significantly increased doses of POISON in food on the supermarket shelves
- roasm 10y agoI'm not defending Roundup at all, but the kicker here is the antibacterial chemicals don't do anything. If they did prove more effective in cleaning hands, I'd guess the FDA would probably look the other way on the side effects.
- underdown 10y agoI feel like a ban is heavy handed. If the government came out with an educational campaign that informed consumers of the dangers of our collective usage of antibacterial soaps and general ineffectiveness I think that would be enough to prevent their widespread usage.
- AstralStorm 10y agoIt is not heavy-handed at all. Educational campaigns have no chance against strong marketing. How many smokers quit due to them?
- eli 10y agoSmoking rates are declining in most of the world due in a large part to educational campaigns and warning labels. I agree with the FDA ban, but I don't think smoking is the best way to make your point.
- brewdad 10y agoSmoking rates may be declining due to public smoking bans limiting the number of places one is even allowed to smoke. At some point, quitting makes more sense than planning ones day around designated smoking areas.
- eli 10y agohttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=smoking+warning+labels+impact https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=smoking+warning+labels+...
- tombert 10y agoI don't know that that's true; there's nothing that would stop the antibacterial soap companies putting out advertisements that explained why the government is wrong, similar to what happened with vitamin supplements in the 90s.
- sitkack 10y ago> The FDA started asking about triclosan in 1978. What is happening now that will get "fixed" in 38 years. This is great news, but what is being done to reduce this latency? How about having over arching goals of separating people and chemicals, that all chemicals need approval before being introduced into the environment!
- sitkack 10y agoOn this same topic, it looks like the EPA can actually start doing its job. http://www.vox.com/2016/9/3/12776984/chemical-safety-act http://www.vox.com/2016/9/3/12776984/chemical-safety-act > The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-t...
- sitkack 10y agoBko is a trolling you.
- bko 10y agoI'm allowed to have a different opinion and value judgement without trolling. You're not contributing anything to the conversation.
- sitkack 10y agoYou appear as libertarian satire.
- sctb 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12414479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12414479 and marked it off-topic.
- Question1101 10y agoSo what is the difference in effectiveness between normal soap and hand sanitizer with ethanol and isopropanol?
- marcosdumay 10y agoAlcohols actually kill bacteria. They also harm your skin, that is protecting you from infection, so get your conclusions, because I don't have any study on it being healthier to use or not to use them.
- a3n 10y ago> Companies will no longer be able to market antibacterial washes with these ingredients because manufacturers did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both safe for long-term daily use ... Then why were they allowed to market them in the first place? If safety was an issue, and it demonstrably is because that's one reason they're being pulled, then why did they not have to prove before marketing?
- cwkoss 10y agoSeems like a bigger win would be to allow all soaps to be labeled as "anti-bacterial" and "anti-microbial". If soap manufacturers can get the same marketing benefit without the expense of including the chemicals, seems like they'd all jump at it.
- zaroth 10y agoThis is a great idea. The terms literally apply to all soaps, so let them all use it. Then, additionally, if they are adding the chemical require it be listed prominently in the front label. See how fast the market reacts.
- snowwrestler 10y agoYou can't prove something is safe, because there might always be future knowledge that you don't yet know. A sticker that repels tigers will seem safe until the day you are actually attacked by a tiger. But only one attack is needed to disprove the premise that stickers keep tigers away. In this specific case, the antibiotic agents started being added to soap decades ago. Of course we know a lot more about biology and health now than we did then. The FDA last year asked companies to prove they are safe for long-term use by the standards of 2015, and that is what they failed at. But obviously those standards were not available to guide a testing regime in the 1970s.
- colordrops 10y ago> You can't prove something is safe, because there might always be future knowledge that you don't yet know. Don't tell that to the religiously pro-GMO crowd.
- mtgx 10y agoSo what does this say about Colgate Total, which uses Triclosan?
- Shivetya 10y agocan we get rid of all the dispensers popping up at work places, grocery stores, and more?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- beedogs 10y agoI 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.