5 ms·
Please correct me if I am wrong but government banned something because it is not useful ? Or were these soaps violating "No Harm Done" rule too ? When is gover
by tn13 10y ago
Please correct me if I am wrong but government banned something because it is not useful ? Or were these soaps violating "No Harm Done" rule too ? When is government banning Axe for failure to attract hot chicks ?
- MOARDONGZPLZ 10y agoFrom the article: "Antibacterial soaps are biologically active, and they have no proven efficacy. So, I don't see dumping tons of them into the environment each year as being a good idea."
- dredmorbius 10y agoJust noting, the comment above (as it stands now) is an exact quote from the article, though it's not indicated as such. (It also specifically addresses OP's false premises.)
- tn13 10y agoIs FDA authorized to ban things because of the impact it might have on environment ? I thought FDA was restricted to people
- ubernostrum 10y agoThe quote is from the article, which is an interview with someone who's an expert on this but who is not one of the FDA officials who made the final decision. The interview includes both questions about the FDA's action, and questions about the expert's own personal opinion. The quote you replied to is an answer to a question asking for the expert's own personal opinion. It's also not a very long article, and you could have read it to find this out for yourself instead of jumping to conclusions.
- kretor 10y agoHumans are a part of the environment.
- gohrt 10y agoDo you propose that selling products that don't behave as advertised should be legal?
- nucleardog 10y agoOf course! I mean the obvious solution is no government meddling. If people actually care about their products working as advertised, then they'll just go out and become a doctor and biologist so they can effectively and competently evaluate their choice of hand soap purchase.
- cmrdporcupine 10y agoLibertario Ad Absurdum
- tn13 10y agoYes. Everything except drugs would be illegal in such a scenario. Not sure why you missed the jibe at AXE.
- rcthompson 10y agoIndependent of any direct harm these products might cause to those using them, excess use of antibiotics is bad for everyone because it promotes the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of disease-causing bacteria in the wild. Everything we can do to minimize the unnecessary usage of antibiotics is beneficial.
- tn13 10y agoAn argument like that perhaps would have made sense but if the harm done by soap was worse than the benefit provided the soap could have been banned even if it was found useful.
- allengeorge 10y agoSeems like there are lots of undesirable externalities to misuse of these products, so, I'm all for banning them.
- scott_s 10y agoThe FDA has efficacy requirements for most things it regulates: it must be effective at doing the thing it claims to do.
- dredmorbius 10y agoYour misapprehension is addressed specifically at the top of the article: Of those chemicals, the most commonly found in liquid antibacterial soap is triclosan, and the most common in bar soap is triclocarban. These compounds have been found to disrupt development of the reproductive system and metabolism in animals, and may contribute to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics. In bringing attention to antibacterial soap, the FDA cited a study led by Stanford epidemiologist Stephen Luby showing no significant difference in results from plain soap and antibacterial soap. To better understand the issues around antibacterial soap, we spoke with Luby, a professor with the Stanford School of Medicine and a senior fellow with the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies. That is: * The ingredients listed as "active" have no measureable positive outcomes effects when tested. * Which means that the claims of manufacturers are not supported. If the manufacturers are making those claims with an awareness of this fact, they are committing fraud. * There are demonstrable and highly probable harms of the ingredents on the environment. So yes, your stated assumptions are incorrect. The product is not only "not useful", it is actively harmful, and doesn't work as advertised. Further cheap shots do little to ameliorate the initial false premises.
- tn13 10y agoAgain, why is AXE not banned ?
- DanBC 10y agoWhat harm does AXE cause?
- dredmorbius 10y agoIt is, arguably, a literal assault on the public's senses.... It's also, here, a very weak rhetorical ploy. Ultimately a tu coque fallacy.