
FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Consumer Soaps - Alex3917
http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-orders-antibacterials-removed-consumer-soaps-n642036
======
ythl
Good. 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.

~~~
bko
Ban [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

~~~
gknoy
> 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
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?

~~~
Joof
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
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

~~~
qdog
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. )

------
niels_olson
We 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
VERY 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
The 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!

------
a3n
> 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?

~~~
snowwrestler
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
> 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
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
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
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
There is no doubt that those people exist, but that's not who we are talking
about right now.

------
jmcgough
Really 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
What problems is it contributing to? The article says it doesn't actually
affect bacteria, so it can't be contributing to resistant strains.

~~~
jmcgough
[https://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
But 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
> 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-
an...](http://amrls.cvm.msu.edu/microbiology/molecular-basis-for-
antimicrobial-resistance/acquired-resistance/acquisition-of-antimicrobial-
resistance-via-horizontal-gene-transfer)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer)

~~~
refurb
_Any resistant strain will have an advantage in the future, which includes
resistance to any antibiotics that work similarly._

That's my point. Antibaterials work an entirely different way than
antibiotics. Triclosan resistance confers no resistance to beta-lactams.

------
mkane848
Is 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.

~~~
api
It'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
Do you have a source for this "blue crystals" term? I'm interested.

~~~
logfromblammo
I 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
At 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.

------
okreallywtf
I 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.

~~~
enave
You 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.

~~~
hooloovoo_zoo
It's not a misconception.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Resistance_concerns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Resistance_concerns)

------
gshakir
Finally! . 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
The brand isn't really important as long as it's plain soap.

~~~
bashinator
I like Dr. Bronner's for the very short ingredient list and the crazed
ranting.

------
koolba
What 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?

~~~
cylinder
Hand sanitizers aren't anti-bacterial

~~~
exclusiv
Alcohol kills bacteria.

------
mrfusion
It seems weird they get out in front of these ingridients but let bpa slide
for decades which has documented harm.

~~~
solipsism
Documented 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
I 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
I 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
Yes, 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-
head2to...](http://www.webmd.com/children/environmental-exposure-
head2toe/bpa?page=2)

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_disrupt...](https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/endocrine_disruptors_508.pdf)

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.

------
djschnei
I 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.

~~~
Vraxx
Well, 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
Not 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
That'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.

------
sitkack
> 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
On 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-t...](https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-
tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act)

------
unethical_ban
I'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?

~~~
rtkwe
It'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
Isn'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
Not 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.

~~~
001sky
_" 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"_

Lets hope its just one of those shitty translations of 'real science' being
lost in translation when subjected to a journalist-friendly press release.

Theres 40 years of data using humans. Nobody doubts that dial sope or other
similar soaps is safe in any meaningful sense. The science in this argument is
being lost.

If these were legitimate tests they would have been done years ago and there
would not be the various exemptions in this policy declaration.

I will insert the caveat here that I'm not a fan of everyday use of anti-
bacterials. I also don't doubt that using anti-bacterials and prbably more
importantly anti-biotics and various endocrine influencing chemicals and
plastics with loose regard for the environment has negative impacts on
society.

I think kids should eat dirt, assuming it's clean dirt, etc. They are made to
handle the stuff that nature thows at them.

------
mrfusion
I thought triclosan was already banned. They pulled it off the shelves a while
ago.

------
philip1209
What'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?

~~~
greglindahl
The article points out that soap is already achieving the same effect without
drugs... that's what the FDA concluded after studying the evidence.

------
vxNsr
Interesting 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

~~~
pnathan
Kirk's Castile is pretty nice.

[https://www.amazon.com/Kirks-Natural-Castile-Soap-
Original/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Kirks-Natural-Castile-Soap-
Original/dp/B001D4YDKU)

------
raverbashing
Good

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
> 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 ..._ ".

------
balabaster
Taking 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)

~~~
nxc18
The crops that contain Roundup Ready traits (and several other traits
including b.t. toxin for insect resistance) are not eaten raw - they are
heavily processed.

When you buy cornstarch, you're buying cornstarch. When you're buying ethanol
for fuel, you're buying ethanol for fuel.

People don't eat GM corn, they eat products that contain the products of GM
corn, having gone through so much processing that it is ridiculous to think
any residual roundup is going to be harmful.

There is just no huge amount of evidence that GM crops are harmful to people.
There is evidence that things like Roundup Ready corn & insect-resistant corn
are better for the environment, because in the first case they reduce tilling
(think erosion as huge amounts of soil are disrupted) and in the second they
reduce the need for conventional insecticides.

As for the correlation between food allergies, the timescale here is so long
you could correlate it with anything. A particularly fitting comparison in
this case would seem to be the internet, or perhaps devices shipping with
Windows NT kernels. Most data sets I find show the rise starting around 1997,
which would be fitting for food allergies and NT kernel adoption. (You might
say that NT kernel adoption was much faster than the proliferation of GMOs -
you'd be wrong)

A sane explanation that doesn't rely on a boogeyman is that parents aren't
exposing their children to contaminants like they used to. There are medical
products coming out to address this, but the consensus seems to be that
letting kids play outside, not dousing them in Clorox every 5 minutes, and
making them eat peanut butter,etc. early enough are likely to be effective.

See: [[http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/4/12371552/aralyte-peanut-
but...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/8/4/12371552/aralyte-peanut-butter-
allergy-antera)]

Finally, I'll leave with this note: anything you buy as a whole or minimally
processed food will be essentially devoid of GMO food. You should be much more
worried about the high amounts of sugar and sodium in those processed foods as
added sugars are well known to be dangerous and unhealthy - the bonus is that
if you avoid processed crap you'll also be avoiding GMOs.

~~~
balabaster
Haha I like the comparison between the uptick of food allergies and the uptick
of adoption of the NT Kernel. I thought this was considered GRAS, despite much
evidence to the contrary :D

------
blockednbcads
23 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.

------
Question1101
So what is the difference in effectiveness between normal soap and hand
sanitizer with ethanol and isopropanol?

~~~
marcosdumay
Alcohols 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.

------
underdown
I 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
It is not heavy-handed at all. Educational campaigns have no chance against
strong marketing.

How many smokers quit due to them?

~~~
eli
Smoking 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
Smoking 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
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=smoking+warning+labels+...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=smoking+warning+labels+impact)

------
ipunchghosts
Its so great to see science be put to work for the common person!

------
mtgx
So what does this say about Colgate Total, which uses Triclosan?

------
mrfusion
I 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.

~~~
gshakir
I 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
Replace substance with questionable efficacy that works anecdotally with
something even more nebulous?

------
Shivetya
can we get rid of all the dispensers popping up at work places, grocery
stores, and more?

------
Kenji
I 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.

~~~
Accacin
Isn'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.

~~~
kale
The 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.

