4 ms·

> Companies will no longer be able to market antibacterial washes with these ingredients because manufacturers did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both

by 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 ago
Seems 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 ago
  This 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 ago
You 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.
  - utternerd 10y ago
    You mean to say the scientific consensus at this point, which is that they are indeed safe. It's silly to refer to people who believe in scientific rigor as "religious".
    - colordrops 10y ago
      No, I know exactly what I meant to say. I'm not saying that GMOs are unsafe. They probably are safe. I'm just saying that there is always the possibility that some issue could be found with a specific GMO, just like any other product in existence. But there are some out there that for some reason think it is impossible. Those are the ones I labeled as "religious".
      - Joof 10y ago
        You're probably seeing a disproportionate backlash to the religious anti-GMO crowd. I'm not sure why, but people get equally stupid when they are defensive.
        colordrops 10y ago
        There is no doubt that those people exist, but that's not who we are talking about right now.
- a3n 10y ago
  You can demonstrate compliance with some definition of demonstrate and safe, like per whatever the FDA requires. But you make excellent points, thanks. And I suppose what got the manufacturers in trouble wasn't so much their products as their claims.

by a3n 10y ago

cwkoss 10y ago

Seems 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 ago
This 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 ago

You 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.
- utternerd 10y ago
  You mean to say the scientific consensus at this point, which is that they are indeed safe. It's silly to refer to people who believe in scientific rigor as "religious".
  - colordrops 10y ago
    No, I know exactly what I meant to say. I'm not saying that GMOs are unsafe. They probably are safe. I'm just saying that there is always the possibility that some issue could be found with a specific GMO, just like any other product in existence. But there are some out there that for some reason think it is impossible. Those are the ones I labeled as "religious".
    - Joof 10y ago
      You're probably seeing a disproportionate backlash to the religious anti-GMO crowd. I'm not sure why, but people get equally stupid when they are defensive.
      - colordrops 10y ago
        There is no doubt that those people exist, but that's not who we are talking about right now.
a3n 10y ago
You can demonstrate compliance with some definition of demonstrate and safe, like per whatever the FDA requires. But you make excellent points, thanks. And I suppose what got the manufacturers in trouble wasn't so much their products as their claims.