7 ms·

> Ban [something] because it's not effective. In the case of antibacterial soap, it's somewhat harmful: those antibacterial chemicals get in the water supply,

by gknoy 10y ago

> Ban [something] because it's not effective. In the case of antibacterial soap, it's somewhat harmful: those antibacterial chemicals get in the water supply, and exert extra evolutionary pressure on bacteria, leading to increased chance of resistant bacteria.

bko 10y ago
Some people enjoy using the product for whatever reason and spend their money on these products. Should we just ignore those preferences? Why are we so quick to disregard those preferences in some cases and not in others, such as recreational drug use?
- fl0wenol 10y ago
  Some people are dumb. They also pay extra to buy shampoo with vitamins in it despite most of them knowing it does nothing. They just want an excuse to buy the more complex version of a banal product to exert some control over their banal lives. In this case, the FDA can exert some back-pressure because of the significant risk to developing resistant bacteria against the soap constituents, which are needed in medical settings, so they are. Unfortunately there isn't anything to do be done about rinsing vitamins down the shower drain. Not yet anyway.
- Joof 10y ago
  Yes. The antibacterial claim is misleading because it's not actually more effective and is damaging to the environment. If homeopathy was damaging to the environment, you're damn right we should outlaw it. The whole purpose of the FDA is to evaluate these types of claims. They are doing their jobs properly.
  - bko 10y ago
    Not sure how it works in the country in which you reside, but homeopathy and ineffective alternative "medicines" are pretty much legal in the US. I would prefer not to go to some government agency to determine whether I can use a product unless it has grave dangers. I don't think antibacterial soap passes this bar. You could disagree
    - foota 10y ago
      Antibiotic resistance has the potential to throw society back to times where people died regularly from a variety of bacterial infections, I think it's one of the most important issues today.
    - qdog 10y ago
      Anti-bacterial is marketed as "better", but is actually worse. If cocaine was legal, you still wouldn't be able to advertise its properties falsely. Homeopathy stuff is actually clearly labeled not evaluated by fda etc. You could probably still sell anti-bacterial soap if it is clearly labeled "not recommended for daily use, may cause harm to consumer and environment", but what market are you going to sell it to, then? Consumers buy it because it advertises anti-bacterial prominently as though it was a plus, my wife buys it because of this (sometimes she doesn't believe me, arguing "hey all these companies sell it, it has to do something!", And she hates I'm usually right on this stuff, heh. )
    - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
      Homeopathic "drugs" are sold in pharmacies in the us to an extent. It isn't a problems so long as they are clearly lableled and the contents actually reflect labeling (zicam got in trouble for containing active ingredients). Most times, they can't say they cure or help, and at most can say, "may help with X". Heck, these are even legal to sell in Norway, and we don't have a lot of the supplements available (melatonin is prescription). The main thing with alternative medicine is that it is generally as harmless as water. Unless you are forcing it as the only treatment to your children or others, you aren't harming anyone else. Antibacterial soap isn't in these categories. People truly think they are healthier for using the stuff - this is partially advertising and false claims. In addition, these things contribute to making the world unhealthier and a more unhealthy place by helping antibiotic resistance - general use does this. It is posing a grave general danger. This danger is the same reason antibiotics are prescription and we try not to prescribe them unnecessarily. It isn't that one will have immediate grave dangers themselves, but it is bad for humans in general. "I prefer not to go to some government agency..." I think this is really key to your sentiment, and the solution to this isn't to eshew safety regulators, but work to make them more effective and honest and vote for folks (especially congress members) that share those sorts of interests. I don't think any of us have the time or energy to be able to parse out respectable information on each product to make sure it is safe, though we think we do. If you do, look around you. Do you think all of your neighbors do? All college students? I'm very doubtful on this - antibacterial soap is an example. We hear it causes grave dangers, but we buy it anyway. Advertising and culture at work, perhaps.
- Eric_WVGG 10y ago
  Because unlike recreational drugs^, antibacterials re-enter the water supply, change the biology of your neighbors and farm animals, and cause existing strains of bacteria to become more antibiotic-resistant. It is possible that within a decade or two, penicillin will be lose its usefulness, and we'll be back to the stage of history where cuts and scrapes could become life-threatening. ^ a related problem is the flushing of non-consumed, non-recreational antibiotic drugs, incidentally [update] just after leaving this thread, I saw an article about a new comic book that is specifically about a post-antibiotic future, so here's a possibly more entertaining rundown: http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-horrifying-comic-book-future-where-antibiotics-dont-w-1786100167?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-horrifying-comic-book-future-where-...
  - bko 10y ago
    Some would equally argue that use of recreational drugs is harmful to the user, harms relationships and undermines society in a lot of respects. These things can all be true but it's not necessarily enough grounds to use the power and resources of the state to actively ban a substance.
    - hx87 10y ago
      > it's not necessarily enough grounds to use the power and resources of the state to actively ban a substance It's not enough grounds because the cost of enforcement is so high that it is equal to or surpasses the cost of the drugs themselves. That isn't the case with antibiotic soap--it's not an addictive productive, so it's unlikely that there will be dealers slinging triclosan on street corners.
    - Eric_WVGG 10y ago
      One could argue that recreational drugs harm families and communities, sure. Maybe even nations, if you are talking about drug enforcement. Antibiotic abuse could wind up affecting human civilization. It could make plague-level events possible. This is a whole different league, and it's ludicrous to turn this into some kind of libertarian talking point.
balabaster 10y ago
So much for GRAS... is the FDA turning over a new more pro-caution leaf or is this because someone didn't grease the right palms? Perhaps Monsanto could give them some pointers ;)
- smaddox 10y ago
  The FDA is extremely conservative, but the evidence in this case is overwhelming. No need to think anything about the FDA has changed.

by gknoy 10y ago

bko 10y ago

Some people enjoy using the product for whatever reason and spend their money on these products. Should we just ignore those preferences? Why are we so quick to disregard those preferences in some cases and not in others, such as recreational drug use?

fl0wenol 10y ago
Some people are dumb. They also pay extra to buy shampoo with vitamins in it despite most of them knowing it does nothing. They just want an excuse to buy the more complex version of a banal product to exert some control over their banal lives. In this case, the FDA can exert some back-pressure because of the significant risk to developing resistant bacteria against the soap constituents, which are needed in medical settings, so they are. Unfortunately there isn't anything to do be done about rinsing vitamins down the shower drain. Not yet anyway.
Joof 10y ago
Yes. The antibacterial claim is misleading because it's not actually more effective and is damaging to the environment. If homeopathy was damaging to the environment, you're damn right we should outlaw it. The whole purpose of the FDA is to evaluate these types of claims. They are doing their jobs properly.
- bko 10y ago
  Not sure how it works in the country in which you reside, but homeopathy and ineffective alternative "medicines" are pretty much legal in the US. I would prefer not to go to some government agency to determine whether I can use a product unless it has grave dangers. I don't think antibacterial soap passes this bar. You could disagree
  - foota 10y ago
    Antibiotic resistance has the potential to throw society back to times where people died regularly from a variety of bacterial infections, I think it's one of the most important issues today.
  - qdog 10y ago
    Anti-bacterial is marketed as "better", but is actually worse. If cocaine was legal, you still wouldn't be able to advertise its properties falsely. Homeopathy stuff is actually clearly labeled not evaluated by fda etc. You could probably still sell anti-bacterial soap if it is clearly labeled "not recommended for daily use, may cause harm to consumer and environment", but what market are you going to sell it to, then? Consumers buy it because it advertises anti-bacterial prominently as though it was a plus, my wife buys it because of this (sometimes she doesn't believe me, arguing "hey all these companies sell it, it has to do something!", And she hates I'm usually right on this stuff, heh. )
  - Broken_Hippo 10y ago
    Homeopathic "drugs" are sold in pharmacies in the us to an extent. It isn't a problems so long as they are clearly lableled and the contents actually reflect labeling (zicam got in trouble for containing active ingredients). Most times, they can't say they cure or help, and at most can say, "may help with X". Heck, these are even legal to sell in Norway, and we don't have a lot of the supplements available (melatonin is prescription). The main thing with alternative medicine is that it is generally as harmless as water. Unless you are forcing it as the only treatment to your children or others, you aren't harming anyone else. Antibacterial soap isn't in these categories. People truly think they are healthier for using the stuff - this is partially advertising and false claims. In addition, these things contribute to making the world unhealthier and a more unhealthy place by helping antibiotic resistance - general use does this. It is posing a grave general danger. This danger is the same reason antibiotics are prescription and we try not to prescribe them unnecessarily. It isn't that one will have immediate grave dangers themselves, but it is bad for humans in general. "I prefer not to go to some government agency..." I think this is really key to your sentiment, and the solution to this isn't to eshew safety regulators, but work to make them more effective and honest and vote for folks (especially congress members) that share those sorts of interests. I don't think any of us have the time or energy to be able to parse out respectable information on each product to make sure it is safe, though we think we do. If you do, look around you. Do you think all of your neighbors do? All college students? I'm very doubtful on this - antibacterial soap is an example. We hear it causes grave dangers, but we buy it anyway. Advertising and culture at work, perhaps.
Eric_WVGG 10y ago
Because unlike recreational drugs^, antibacterials re-enter the water supply, change the biology of your neighbors and farm animals, and cause existing strains of bacteria to become more antibiotic-resistant. It is possible that within a decade or two, penicillin will be lose its usefulness, and we'll be back to the stage of history where cuts and scrapes could become life-threatening. ^ a related problem is the flushing of non-consumed, non-recreational antibiotic drugs, incidentally [update] just after leaving this thread, I saw an article about a new comic book that is specifically about a post-antibiotic future, so here's a possibly more entertaining rundown: http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-horrifying-comic-book-future-where-antibiotics-dont-w-1786100167?utm_campaign=socialflow_io9_twitter&utm_source=io9_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-horrifying-comic-book-future-where-...
- bko 10y ago
  Some would equally argue that use of recreational drugs is harmful to the user, harms relationships and undermines society in a lot of respects. These things can all be true but it's not necessarily enough grounds to use the power and resources of the state to actively ban a substance.
  - hx87 10y ago
    > it's not necessarily enough grounds to use the power and resources of the state to actively ban a substance It's not enough grounds because the cost of enforcement is so high that it is equal to or surpasses the cost of the drugs themselves. That isn't the case with antibiotic soap--it's not an addictive productive, so it's unlikely that there will be dealers slinging triclosan on street corners.
  - Eric_WVGG 10y ago
    One could argue that recreational drugs harm families and communities, sure. Maybe even nations, if you are talking about drug enforcement. Antibiotic abuse could wind up affecting human civilization. It could make plague-level events possible. This is a whole different league, and it's ludicrous to turn this into some kind of libertarian talking point.

balabaster 10y ago

So much for GRAS... is the FDA turning over a new more pro-caution leaf or is this because someone didn't grease the right palms? Perhaps Monsanto could give them some pointers ;)

smaddox 10y ago
The FDA is extremely conservative, but the evidence in this case is overwhelming. No need to think anything about the FDA has changed.