3 ms·

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. This is the same FDA that stopped ethanol producers from making hand sanitizer, at the behest of the purell of course[0]. The

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. This is the same FDA that stopped ethanol producers from making hand sanitizer, at the behest of the purell of course[0]. The feds have done practically nothing for the States making them compete each other for ppe and also confiscated shipments [1] while saying the national stock pile isn't for the States [2]. At this point I hope they just ignore the feds. We might be better off revisiting the articles of confederation at this point. Edit: adding sources 0: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ethanol-sanitizer/u-s-calls-ingredients-in-some-ethanol-based-hand-sanitizers-unsafe-idUSKBN22C0LG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ethano... 1: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-admin-seizing-ppe/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-admin-seizing-ppe/ 2: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/strategic-national-stockpile-description-altered-after-kushners-remarks-163181 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/03/strategic-national-...

social_quotient 6y ago
Any sources for this handy?
- alistproducer2 6y ago
  Updated to add sources
  - social_quotient 6y ago
    Top notch - thx!
greglindahl 6y ago
[0] includes text like: > In one case, the FDA said it had found significant levels of the carcinogen acetaldehyde in ethanol supplied by a company for use in hand sanitizer, according to a recent email exchange seen by Reuters. Is anyone surprised that using fuel ethanol might not be a good idea for hand sanitizer?
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  They also stopped distilleries from doing so. Unless the argument there is "you can ingest alcohol made in this facility, but not put it on your skin"...
- loeg 6y ago
  > Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit,[10] and is produced by plants. It is also produced by the partial oxidation of ethanol by the liver enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase Doesn't really sound like a problem in a topical solution like hand sanitizer given people ingest it regularly.
  - greglindahl 6y ago
    The quote said "significant levels" -- before dismissing it as "doesn't really sound like a problem", you might want to look a little harder.
    - loeg 6y ago
      I read the quote. Is significant some quantifiable term of art in this context? Edit: Here's the current guidance (may not be the same as from the time of that article): https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-temporary-policy-preparation-certain-alcohol-based-hand-sanitizer-products-during https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan... I don't see any explicit guidance on Acetaldehyde. The requirements show 95% ethanol for ethanol-based sanitizer, with a footnote saying actually, "Lower ethanol content alcohol falls within this policy so long as it is labeled accordingly, and the finished hand sanitizer meets the ethanol concentration of 80%." It goes on to add, "Ethanol produced in facilities normally producing fuel or technical grade may be considered for use if the ethanol is produced from fermentation and distillation as would be typically used for consumable goods, and no other additives or other chemicals have been added to the ethanol. ... Because of the potential for the presence of potentially harmful impurities due to the processing approach, fuel or technical grade ethanol should only be used if it meets USP or FCC grade requirements and the ethanol has been screened for any other potentially harmful impurities not specified in the USP or FCC requirements." Edit2: Here's the USP guidance on hand sanitizer, which lists Not More Than 10uL/L Acetaldehyde / Ethanol: https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/health-quality-safety/usp-hand-sanitizer-ingredients.pdf https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/health-... Again, it's an ordinary metabolite of ethanol in the body, so this is probably pretty conservative. Wikipedia notes, "After intravenous injection, the half-life in the blood is approximately 90 seconds." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde#Exposure_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde#Exposure_limits and "According to European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety's (SCCS) "Opinion on Acetaldehyde" (2012) the cosmetic products special risk limit is 5 mg/l."
thesz 6y ago
Ethanol-based sanitizers can be ingested by desperate people. I know what binge can do. These in need found a way to drink denatured alcohol [1], doing very little to clean it up. So, please add a point to your discourse. In my opinion, FDA did more good than bad for population of US in that particular case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol
- FireBeyond 6y ago
  There are many, many products approved by the FDA that can be abused by "desperate people". Given the limitations on sale, demand, and other things that would appear to be a lesser evil. I'd definitely disagree with the conclusion that preventing this "did more good for the population of the US". Even more so given that many of these facilities were mainly doing "personal" size efforts, 10-15ml bottles. Even at 96% alcohol (which is what the distillery here was getting), 10ml of alcohol won't put much of a dent in the alcoholic who is debating drinking hand sanitizer. It's barely a shot of vodka.
  - thesz 6y ago
    For me to better understand your position, I have to ask you simple question: can you name single thing FDA did right? Not exactly right now, but anywhere in history of FDA.
- greglindahl 6y ago
  I'm not sure why this comment is downvoted -- it's definitely true, and the FDA does care about stuff that people ingest even if they aren't supposed to.

social_quotient 6y ago

Any sources for this handy?

alistproducer2 6y ago
Updated to add sources
- social_quotient 6y ago
  Top notch - thx!

greglindahl 6y ago

[0] includes text like: > In one case, the FDA said it had found significant levels of the carcinogen acetaldehyde in ethanol supplied by a company for use in hand sanitizer, according to a recent email exchange seen by Reuters. Is anyone surprised that using fuel ethanol might not be a good idea for hand sanitizer?

FireBeyond 6y ago
They also stopped distilleries from doing so. Unless the argument there is "you can ingest alcohol made in this facility, but not put it on your skin"...
loeg 6y ago
> Acetaldehyde occurs naturally in coffee, bread, and ripe fruit,[10] and is produced by plants. It is also produced by the partial oxidation of ethanol by the liver enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase Doesn't really sound like a problem in a topical solution like hand sanitizer given people ingest it regularly.
- greglindahl 6y ago
  The quote said "significant levels" -- before dismissing it as "doesn't really sound like a problem", you might want to look a little harder.
  - loeg 6y ago
    I read the quote. Is significant some quantifiable term of art in this context? Edit: Here's the current guidance (may not be the same as from the time of that article): https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-temporary-policy-preparation-certain-alcohol-based-hand-sanitizer-products-during https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan... I don't see any explicit guidance on Acetaldehyde. The requirements show 95% ethanol for ethanol-based sanitizer, with a footnote saying actually, "Lower ethanol content alcohol falls within this policy so long as it is labeled accordingly, and the finished hand sanitizer meets the ethanol concentration of 80%." It goes on to add, "Ethanol produced in facilities normally producing fuel or technical grade may be considered for use if the ethanol is produced from fermentation and distillation as would be typically used for consumable goods, and no other additives or other chemicals have been added to the ethanol. ... Because of the potential for the presence of potentially harmful impurities due to the processing approach, fuel or technical grade ethanol should only be used if it meets USP or FCC grade requirements and the ethanol has been screened for any other potentially harmful impurities not specified in the USP or FCC requirements." Edit2: Here's the USP guidance on hand sanitizer, which lists Not More Than 10uL/L Acetaldehyde / Ethanol: https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/health-quality-safety/usp-hand-sanitizer-ingredients.pdf https://www.usp.org/sites/default/files/usp/document/health-... Again, it's an ordinary metabolite of ethanol in the body, so this is probably pretty conservative. Wikipedia notes, "After intravenous injection, the half-life in the blood is approximately 90 seconds." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde#Exposure_limits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde#Exposure_limits and "According to European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety's (SCCS) "Opinion on Acetaldehyde" (2012) the cosmetic products special risk limit is 5 mg/l."

thesz 6y ago

Ethanol-based sanitizers can be ingested by desperate people. I know what binge can do. These in need found a way to drink denatured alcohol [1], doing very little to clean it up. So, please add a point to your discourse. In my opinion, FDA did more good than bad for population of US in that particular case. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol

FireBeyond 6y ago
There are many, many products approved by the FDA that can be abused by "desperate people". Given the limitations on sale, demand, and other things that would appear to be a lesser evil. I'd definitely disagree with the conclusion that preventing this "did more good for the population of the US". Even more so given that many of these facilities were mainly doing "personal" size efforts, 10-15ml bottles. Even at 96% alcohol (which is what the distillery here was getting), 10ml of alcohol won't put much of a dent in the alcoholic who is debating drinking hand sanitizer. It's barely a shot of vodka.
- thesz 6y ago
  For me to better understand your position, I have to ask you simple question: can you name single thing FDA did right? Not exactly right now, but anywhere in history of FDA.
greglindahl 6y ago
I'm not sure why this comment is downvoted -- it's definitely true, and the FDA does care about stuff that people ingest even if they aren't supposed to.