FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/safety

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/safety

Postby Thesh » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:10 pm UTC

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/16/health/fda-antibacterial/
(CNN) -- Manufacturers of antibacterial hand soap and body wash will be required to prove their products are more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of infection, under a proposed rule announced Monday by the Food and Drug Administration.

Those manufacturers also will be required to prove their products are safe for long-term use, the agency said.

"Millions of Americans use antibacterial hand soap and body wash products," the agency said in a statement. "Although consumers generally view these products as effective tools to help prevent the spread of germs, there is currently no evidence that they are any more effective at preventing illness than washing with plain soap and water.

"Further, some data suggest that long-term exposure to certain active ingredients used in antibacterial products -- for example, triclosan (liquid soaps) and triclocarban (bar soaps) -- could pose health risks, such as bacterial resistance or hormonal effects."
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:43 pm UTC

About time? The free market wasn't doing shit about bacterial resistance.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:52 pm UTC

sardia wrote:About time? The free market wasn't doing shit about bacterial resistance.


The phrase "free market" is not identical to "unregulated market". Free means freedom from price controls, etc.

Requiring that claims actually be, yknow, true, makes the market more effective. It does not make the market less free.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6894
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby ucim » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:53 pm UTC

sardia wrote:About time? The free market wasn't doing shit about bacterial resistance.
This is not something the free market would do anything about. In fact, it's something that the free market exploits - it passes costs on to "somebody else". These are the kinds of externalities that show that a completely unregulated free market is not in our best interests.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

While I'm pleased to see some scrutiny on any sort of health claim like this, I have to wonder if they're targeting the wrong industry. Sure, the antibacterial soap market may be falsely inflating their claims, but surely there's SOME validity to what they're selling, as opposed to, say, the entire homeopathic industry?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:10 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:While I'm pleased to see some scrutiny on any sort of health claim like this, I have to wonder if they're targeting the wrong industry. Sure, the antibacterial soap market may be falsely inflating their claims, but surely there's SOME validity to what they're selling, as opposed to, say, the entire homeopathic industry?


I think it's fairly likely that while it's meaningless puffery on some soaps, actual anti-bacterial soaps exist(or can be made), and in any case, an anti-bacterial soap seems less likely to be used as a replacement for actual medicine. So yeah, homeopathy is probably worse on both counts.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6894
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby ucim » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:11 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:...surely there's SOME validity to what they're selling, as opposed to, say, the entire homeopathic industry?
At least the homeopathic industry does not do much harm. The rise of superbugs caused in part by antibacterial soap could usher back the pre-penicillin days. That would be bad.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Thesh » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:14 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:While I'm pleased to see some scrutiny on any sort of health claim like this, I have to wonder if they're targeting the wrong industry. Sure, the antibacterial soap market may be falsely inflating their claims, but surely there's SOME validity to what they're selling, as opposed to, say, the entire homeopathic industry?

I agree that the homeopathy industry needs to be shut down, but right now I think the antibacterial obsession is a major public health concern. We are weakening our immune systems while at the same time creating drug resistant bacteria. Yes, fake drugs can kill too, but I do believe this is a more serious problem.

That said, overprescription of antibiotics is probably worse than antibacterial soaps, and what we really need is to educate the public that sanitizing everything is at best unnecessary, and at worst harmful.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:17 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:...surely there's SOME validity to what they're selling, as opposed to, say, the entire homeopathic industry?
At least the homeopathic industry does not do much harm. The rise of superbugs caused in part by antibacterial soap could usher back the pre-penicillin days. That would be bad.

Jose


I do not believe that antibiotics like penecillin form a normal part of antibacterial soap. Instead, "antibacterial" things include ingredients like Triclosan or ethyl alcohol. I believe these are distinct from the traditional medical antibiotics(though antibacterial soaps also see hospital use). Resistance may still be an issue in a similar fashion, but it should be entirely seperate, and indeed, is only an issue if the soaps actually work to begin with.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6894
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby ucim » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:22 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I do not believe that antibiotics like penicillin form a normal part of antibacterial soap. Instead, "antibacterial" things include ingredients like Triclosan or ethyl alcohol...
Good point, although anything that helps breed stronger bacteria is probably something to be avoided. And yes, overprescription of antibiotics is probably a bigger issue here.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:34 pm UTC

I'm reminded of that species of stupid hardy bacteria or whatnot that was found in NASA cleanrooms. The best means for killing it is crowding it out with other bacteria.

As with all things, I think education would be so much easier than bothering with this. The point isn't to eliminate 95 or 99% of bacteria, but to be conscientious of cleanliness, and in the process, not spread communicable diseases. Picking up a baby? Wash your hands before and after. Cooking chicken for friends? Wash your hands before handling the silverware. Going about your daily grind? You probably don't need to sterilize your environment every 15m.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:37 pm UTC

There certainly is nothing wrong with education, I agree. I think MORE people need to understand concepts like resistance...it's almost mind boggling that so many people don't see the dangers in taking antibiotics for half the needed time or what not.

But, from a truth in advertising perspective, something advertising as anti-bacterial should indeed be effective against bacteria. Education doesn't replace this need, it merely complements it.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:58 pm UTC

There's an argument to be made that you can't expect everyone to be knowledgable about everything. Instead they argue we should have everyone being an expert on several things, while everyone else relys on the experts to guide us.

I hope the consumer protection bureau gets in on this kind of crap marketing pulls. We don't need people thinking sugar yogurt is good for you, or that lunchables is good idea for lunch.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:06 pm UTC

sardia wrote:There's an argument to be made that you can't expect everyone to be knowledgable about everything. Instead they argue we should have everyone being an expert on several things, while everyone else relys on the experts to guide us.


Oh sure, but basic knowledge on sanitation and disease avoidance strikes me as something that should be fairly highly prioritized. The lifespan differences between modern sanitation and prior, less sanitized practices are pretty significant. Some basic knowledge should be known by as many people as practical so it can be used.

Now, this bar is harder than it seemed to me at first. Proving that x substance kills bacteria is...pretty easy. That's been done. They kill the shit out of bacteria. The issue here is that they must demonstrate illness prevention. Soap and water may not kill bacteria, but they get rid of it. Those can be functionally equivalent in many cases....but probably not quite all cases. It may be that soap and water is sufficiently effective that a proper handwashing is basically 100% effective....but the antibacterial soap may help in cases where people do not wash their hands long enough or what not. I wonder if this will suffice under this ruling.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby sardia » Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:39 pm UTC

Yea, drawing the line is hard. How would you even regulate "antibacterial stuff is bad because it builds resistance, so you can't advertise (or even can't add antibacterial ingredients) to the product." Would they have to pull the marketing line? Recall the product? Remove the ingredients? There's so many halfassed steps the manufacturer can take.
Last edited by sardia on Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:46 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:43 pm UTC

Isn't soap by its very nature antibacterial? It's fairly basic (ph), it kills things.

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby BattleMoose » Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:00 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Isn't soap by its very nature antibacterial? It's fairly basic (ph), it kills things.


The issue is that the greater proportion of a population that you kill, the more effective will be the natural selection in breeding resistance. We've probably been using soap for long enough to be confident that we won't be breeding super resistant bacteria strains. Antibacterial soaps and things that a lot of people use, much less clear.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:41 am UTC

Ill admit I don't know too much about the subject. I just assumed "antibacterial" was just a bullshit extra word they put in the box to sell more, like pure sugar being advertised as "fat free" or "sugar free vegetable oil" or something stupid like that.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:51 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Ill admit I don't know too much about the subject. I just assumed "antibacterial" was just a bullshit extra word they put in the box to sell more, like pure sugar being advertised as "fat free" or "sugar free vegetable oil" or something stupid like that.


It denotes the inclusion of an additional antibacterial agent. Soap normally works, IIRC by breaking the bond holding the bacteria too you, so the bacteria is not necessarily killed by the usual soap and water, but it is removed, which is normally just as good. Provided, of course, that you wash thoroughly.

There may be situations where this is less practical or effective. Maybe small children suck at washing hands thoroughly. Maybe this area has a bad shortage of clean water to wash with, and antibacterial products are advisable. I'm not against requiring claims be proven, but there does need to be a degree of nuance here.

qetzal
Posts: 862
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:54 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby qetzal » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I do not believe that antibiotics like penecillin form a normal part of antibacterial soap. Instead, "antibacterial" things include ingredients like Triclosan or ethyl alcohol. I believe these are distinct from the traditional medical antibiotics(though antibacterial soaps also see hospital use). Resistance may still be an issue in a similar fashion, but it should be entirely seperate, and indeed, is only an issue if the soaps actually work to begin with.


This. Let's keep in mind that "stronger" is not a one-dimensional scale when discussing resistant bacteria. Excessive use of antibacterial soap might well breed bacteria that are more resistant to the those specific agents. It's not going to make them generically stronger and more resistant to everything else. (Look at the NASA cleanroom bugs: great at surviving NASA's cleaning agents, terrible at thriving when there are other bacteria around.)

I'm a big fan of requiring drug makers to prove that their products actually work before allowing them to be marketed. In this case, however, I'm fairly ambivalent. If manufacturers are suggesting that their soaps reduce infections, then I agree they should have to prove it. If certain ingredients like Triclosan may not be as safe as previously thought, I also agree that more study may be needed to continue using them.

However, I really don't have a problem if a manufacturer says their soap is "proven to kill X% of germs commonly found on your hands" or something like that. (As long as they have data to prove that, of course.) I don't think they should have to prove a reduction in infections. At most, just make them clearly state something like "this product has not been shown to reduce infections."

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:25 pm UTC

The problem is they can imply one thing by stating an unrelated fact. Saying something is antibacterial while regular soap doesn't implies that there's a bacterial problem in the first place. Nothing on there states how excessive use of antibacterial agents makes things worse.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:47 pm UTC

Nor does it delineate between harmful and helpful bacteria.

99% of the bacteria on my hands right now is a helpful symbiotic skin bacteria. Killing that bacteria actually makes me less healthy and more susceptible to attacks from harmful bacteria. If they want to claim that there's a positive effect that outweighs the negative, they should be able to verify that claim or at least make it clear that they're just guessing that it's more helpful than harmful.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:45 pm UTC

sardia wrote:The problem is they can imply one thing by stating an unrelated fact. Saying something is antibacterial while regular soap doesn't implies that there's a bacterial problem in the first place. Nothing on there states how excessive use of antibacterial agents makes things worse.


Right, but this is inherently an advertising problem, not a problem with the existence of the product.

We can't reasonably expect a single commercial to fully educate a person about all possible interactions of the product...it is enough that the commercial is honest and informative at all(and frankly, we have work to do there). This likely means that rather than focusing on just this one product, we need stronger truth in advertising enforcement in general.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:52 pm UTC

I rather we treat it like lead in gasoline or abestos in houses. You just forbid the use of antibiotics so we can save them for actual medical needs, not this feel good crap. Would you want a gas station to print giant stickers saying has lead additives that stops engine knocking? Because that's how I feel when I see anti-bacterial blurbs; the problem is that resistance in bacteria hasn't been hammered into people yet. Most people only know of it because their doctor told them to eat all their pills. Maybe. At worst, people just think their doctors are being assholes.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I rather we treat it like lead in gasoline or abestos in houses. You just forbid the use of antibiotics so we can save them for actual medical needs, not this feel good crap. Would you want a gas station to print giant stickers saying has lead additives that stops engine knocking? Because that's how I feel when I see anti-bacterial blurbs; the problem is that resistance in bacteria hasn't been hammered into people yet. Most people only know of it because their doctor told them to eat all their pills. Maybe. At worst, people just think their doctors are being assholes.


Penicillin, this ain't. A little ethyl alcohol in your soap isn't going to make you get superbugs that laugh at antibiotics*. It might make them more resistant to ethyl alcohol, sure, but your doctor probably isn't going to prescribe drinking a bottle of that.

*Well, not inherently. Biology is complex, and anything can affect how bacteria grow to some degree, but the idea that resistances are inherently interchangeable is definitely incorrect.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:49 pm UTC

You're right, the next superbug isn't going to be on humans, it's going to originate in our food supply. The chickens/poultry are fed tons of antibiotics so they don't spread disease due to their cramped factory farms. The FDA/EPA ruling is going to affect them the most, assuming the government has enough balls to take on Big Agriculture.

Is there any purpose to antibacterial anything? Like do the immune compromised people buy them or something?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

I'm not so sure why big agri is so opposed to restrictions that would end up shrinking the food supply. Due to the nature of food market price elasticity, a supply reduction would probably increase total revenue.

For example, lets say at $10/lb, people will eat 1/2 pound of beef a day. But at $1/lb, people will only eat a pound of meat. If beef was free, you wouldn't see people consuming infinite amounts of beef. Ata certain point you'd have to actually pay people to get them to devour more (this is why I don't believe all Econ charts should be restricted to the first quadrant of the Cartesian plane). Better to sell half a pound for $5 than a pound for $1.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:21 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You're right, the next superbug isn't going to be on humans, it's going to originate in our food supply. The chickens/poultry are fed tons of antibiotics so they don't spread disease due to their cramped factory farms. The FDA/EPA ruling is going to affect them the most, assuming the government has enough balls to take on Big Agriculture.


Well, misuse/overuse in humans is a significantly greater problem than misuse and overuse in animals. Both ARE problems, but the difficulty in jumping species, etc greatly reduces the risks from animal resistance as compared to misuse in humans.

And it seems the government has already answered the question of if they'll take on big Ag. The answer is no. They are advising that antibiotic sellers voluntarily decline sales for the unhealthy animal uses. There's nothing wrong with this...but it is a very weak step.

Is there any purpose to antibacterial anything? Like do the immune compromised people buy them or something?


Mostly, they are just marketed and used as regular soap or whatever. They do have a valid role in cases where killing bacteria is desirable, but right now, that probably doesn't map well to actual use.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:27 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Is there any purpose to antibacterial anything? Like do the immune compromised people buy them or something?
Food prep, people around kids (protecting yourself and the kids!), flu season, etc.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6814
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 18, 2013 5:50 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
sardia wrote:Is there any purpose to antibacterial anything? Like do the immune compromised people buy them or something?
Food prep, people around kids (protecting yourself and the kids!), flu season, etc.

I guess this is why the FDA wanted the studies done. Do we have any proof that antibacterial blank is better than washing hands with soapy hot water? Like if you used it for this activity, you have a statistically significant difference?

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby BlackSails » Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:16 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
sardia wrote:Is there any purpose to antibacterial anything? Like do the immune compromised people buy them or something?
Food prep, people around kids (protecting yourself and the kids!), flu season, etc.

I guess this is why the FDA wanted the studies done. Do we have any proof that antibacterial blank is better than washing hands with soapy hot water? Like if you used it for this activity, you have a statistically significant difference?


Im only familiar with the literature on hospital hand sanitizers, but chlorhexidine gluconate hand cleansers have activity that continues after you wash your hands, unlike normal soap and water or alcohol based products.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 18, 2013 11:39 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
sardia wrote:Is there any purpose to antibacterial anything? Like do the immune compromised people buy them or something?
Food prep, people around kids (protecting yourself and the kids!), flu season, etc.

I guess this is why the FDA wanted the studies done. Do we have any proof that antibacterial blank is better than washing hands with soapy hot water? Like if you used it for this activity, you have a statistically significant difference?


Realistically, if you wash your hands thoroughly, your hands will be pretty clean, regardless of soap. We know these agents kill bacteria. If they do better vs a good handwashing is doubtful, but the soap alone will beat a crappy handwashing job. Given that hospitals feel it worthwhile to conduct handwashing classes for staff, it seems probable that this is common.

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:14 pm UTC

How many infections are actually caused by bacteria, anyway, in comparison to viral infections?

Antibacterial soap probably runs a marginally better chance of preventing foodborne illness, but it won't do lickety-split against the flu or a common cold. And I'd guess that it's a little like passwords. Just like length introduces more entropy than special characters, extended handwashing time probably produces more cleanliness than special soap ingredients.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby EMTP » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:29 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:How many infections are actually caused by bacteria, anyway, in comparison to viral infections?


Viral illnesses are more common, but with the odd exception (HIV, SARS, etc.) they are self-limiting, which is to say, you feel lousy for a while, but then your immune system takes care of the problem (assuming it functions normally.)

Bacterial infections are less common, but more frequently are so acute and severe that they have significant morbidity and mortality absent antibiotics (bacterial pneumonia, UTIs, cellulitis, bacterial meningitis are all potentially lethal absent prompt treatment).

Antibacterial soap probably runs a marginally better chance of preventing foodborne illness,


Why do you think so? It may do no good at all. Remember antioxidants? (1) Remember PSA screening for prostate cancer? (2) Remember vitamins? (3)

Intuition is a poor guide to biology; as with most science, you really need data. Which is what the FDA is asking for in this case.

----------------------------------------------

1. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... iTUIBvc_IU
2. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforc ... eening.htm
3. http://hub.jhu.edu/2013/12/17/vitamins-might-be-harmful
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 19, 2013 3:36 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:How many infections are actually caused by bacteria, anyway, in comparison to viral infections?


Viral illnesses are more common, but with the odd exception (HIV, SARS, etc.) they are self-limiting, which is to say, you feel lousy for a while, but then your immune system takes care of the problem (assuming it functions normally.)

Flu, viral pneumonia.

EMTP wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Antibacterial soap probably runs a marginally better chance of preventing foodborne illness,


Why do you think so? It may do no good at all. Remember antioxidants? (1) Remember PSA screening for prostate cancer? (2) Remember vitamins? (3)

Intuition is a poor guide to biology; as with most science, you really need data. Which is what the FDA is asking for in this case.

My point was that if antibacterial soap is any better at all, it's probably going to be more a specific case like foodborne illness than the general case like handwashing to prevent communicable diseases.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 19, 2013 4:52 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:How many infections are actually caused by bacteria, anyway, in comparison to viral infections?

Antibacterial soap probably runs a marginally better chance of preventing foodborne illness, but it won't do lickety-split against the flu or a common cold. And I'd guess that it's a little like passwords. Just like length introduces more entropy than special characters, extended handwashing time probably produces more cleanliness than special soap ingredients.


Proper handwashing would go a long way, sure.

Antivirus properties will vary depending on agent and mechanism involved. Tetrasodium EDTA works via metal sequestration, targeting metals that bacteria need to replicate. This has some cross-over functionality. Also, you probably shouldn't eat the stuff. Chelating agents are no joke.

But yeah, you can't count on them killing a virus overall. Might help, might not.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby EMTP » Thu Dec 19, 2013 5:19 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:Flu, viral pneumonia.


No. Very, very rarely lethal in immunocompetent persons. Try Ebola.

Infectious diseases are numerous and their clinical courses are varied. Any statement about bacterial illness vs viral illness is a broad generalization with many exceptions.

davidstarlingm wrote:My point was that if antibacterial soap is any better at all, it's probably going to be more a specific case like foodborne illness than the general case like handwashing to prevent communicable diseases.


I see you're saying something different than I took you to be saying. Perhaps, if it works at all, it would work better for foodborne illnesses. We really need data.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby davidstarlingm » Thu Dec 19, 2013 9:19 pm UTC

EMTP wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Flu, viral pneumonia.


No. Very, very rarely lethal in immunocompetent persons. Try Ebola.

Infectious diseases are numerous and their clinical courses are varied. Any statement about bacterial illness vs viral illness is a broad generalization with many exceptions.

I was more speaking in terms of the marketing aspect. Antibacterial soap is often (I assume) marketed toward immunoincompetent classes, and it's widely believed to be more effective against communicative diseases.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10335
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby addams » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:49 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:There's an argument to be made that you can't expect everyone to be knowledgable about everything. Instead they argue we should have everyone being an expert on several things, while everyone else relys on the experts to guide us.


Oh sure, but basic knowledge on sanitation and disease avoidance strikes me as something that should be fairly highly prioritized. The lifespan differences between modern sanitation and prior, less sanitized practices are pretty significant. Some basic knowledge should be known by as many people as practical so it can be used.

Now, this bar is harder than it seemed to me at first. Proving that x substance kills bacteria is...pretty easy. That's been done. They kill the shit out of bacteria. The issue here is that they must demonstrate illness prevention. Soap and water may not kill bacteria, but they get rid of it. Those can be functionally equivalent in many cases....but probably not quite all cases. It may be that soap and water is sufficiently effective that a proper handwashing is basically 100% effective....but the antibacterial soap may help in cases where people do not wash their hands long enough or what not. I wonder if this will suffice under this ruling.

ummm. Yes. You are correct.
Some one else on the thread said it very well.

Public Service Annoucments about cleanliness would be a good idea.
It seems The Common People don't all know. Many do.

What is Common, anyway? Staph Aureus Is common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staphylococcus_aureus

What do people think they are washing away?
See? Language!

I think I am washing it away.
Many other people think they are Killing it.

What kills instantly? What kills what Instantly?
Do you have any idea how creeped out I am by Anti-Bacterial Gels?

That shit is sticky! Some people are very clean. Almost Obsessive Compulsive.
(Fuck; Call a Spade a Spade) Obsessive Compulsively Clean People are, kind of, cool.

May we discuss The People? The common everyday run of the mill people.
If people are told the soap is Anti-Microbial. They think touching it will make them Clean.

It is sweet. It is selfish. It is socially responsible. It is charming. It is a Ritual. Nothing more; Nothing less.
It might be pretty good soap. Some soaps are superior. What are you looking for in a soap?

Glutaraldehyde is a pretty good surface disinfectant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutaraldehyde

That stuff can be and is inside some house hold cleaners.
Great Stuff! If you wash your door handles once a week with that stuff,
Well?? Any warm soapy water will remove human film. We leave a film on everything we touch.

Very clean hands do not leave a film. Very clean hands pick up from the environment.
It is not Complicated. I often wear Lotion on my hands. Lotion is sticky. I leave it everywhere I touch.

Everywhere I touch I leave some, I take some.
If my hands are clean and dry; I don't leave much, I don't take much.

If my hands are sticky; I leave more and I take more.
Think about it! Now; Add dirty.

People are dirty! People! What do they touch?
We get into all kinds of Shit. Literally and figuratively!

A little made up story- Kind of a What If.
1.What if men and women, adults! Had learned as children to blow their noses by holding one nostril and blowing the contents on to the ground.
People do. I must believe my own eyes and ears. I asked, "Why?" I was told about parents and some weird stuff. Some people think it is normal in 2013.

I know that in 1500 Europe that was done, sometimes. I had read about it.
In 2013? I think we need public service announcements. I think we need a Nanny State.

Can experts agree The People might want to take Kleenex, TP, Kerchief, something! with them as they move through The World?
There can be funny Public Service Announcements. -(But! NO! We are listening to the War!)-

What do you do? When? When you were in such a hurry to go play with the Prettiest Girl if there ever was one, You forgot your kerchief.
What do experts recommend. Me? Use your right glove. Then turn it inside out and put it in your pocket where you kerchief forgot to be.

Do all Common People understand the difference between Lacrimal over production when exposed to sudden cold and mucus production as a responds to infection?
When we go outside, moving from a warm environment into a cold enciroment, Our lacrimal ducts Fire Up and Reve. Why? To protect us.

The tears run out our nose. We cry. Most of that nose running for healthy people in the cold, are tears.
That kind of runny nose has nearly the same constituants of tears. It is ok to wipe tears onto your gloves.
It is better to have a kerchief.

People do not know these things. Experence teaches some.
Some learn from Family and Friends. Are they learning it correctly?

2. TB has returned. It was nearly gone. It is back.
TB has not reached Epidemic proportions. Good.

Yet. People coughing and spitting is a bit problematic.
For a healthy adult, fighting off a little TB is not a big problem.

Children and adults run some risk of direct contact.
Little children fall and catch themselves with their hands.

If a child falls into spit from an adult with full blown TB,
And; That child's hands are then covered with Anti-Microbial Gel...

Think about it! Wash it away!
The Handy Wipe is a Gift from The Gods!
Get some; Use Them!

Children can be taught how to use a Handy wipe.
Work from cleanest section toward dirtiest section.

It seem how to be clean is not written into the Human DNA.
We must learn it. It comes easier to some people than to others.

Anti-Microbial Gels give a false sense of Security.
That sort of thing may have a use.

I have no idea what that use would be other than a Calming Ritual.
Calming Rituals only work for believers. Don't tell. People will Freak Out.

I think it would be a good idea to have Public Service Announcements.
That would be telling people and that might not be a good idea.

People might be willing to replace that gel with WetWipes.
People need to be told in funny, non-threatneing ways.
That is what Marketing Majors are for.

Invest in Wet Wipes. The life it saves could be your own.
I am not good at Slogans.

3. Shall we discuss MRSA?
Has the World Health Organization declared it an epidemic, yet?

How catchy is it? Who is at risk?
Will an Anti-Micrbial Gel save you?

A Public Service Announcement about that stuff could create a nation of Agoraphobics.
A nation of people afraid to leave their own homes or have outsiders in.

MRSA is a catchy one. My advice? Do not touch yourself when out in Public.
Do not run your hands over your chin while reading, while out in Public.
Do not scratch yourself. Itches can be lessened by rubbing your clothes over the itchy spot.

Do not touch a friends exposed skin if your hands are not clean.
Do you want your friends face to be eaten by a flesh eating bacteria?

Keep your hands clean. Not for yourself; You are picking up film and I expect you to wash it away at the first opportunity.
If you are clean, you make the world cleaner as you move through it. There comes a point when all that is happening is you are getting dirty.

I think attacking the makers of soap is a waste of resources.
Public Service Announcements about cleanliness are a good idea.

Hey! We could learn some Science!
In this dish is Hep B.
It looks like this in its end stages.
This Bug is Not your friend.
This Bug lives and is healthy for 48 hours on a clean kitchen counter.

This little guy makes a great pet. it is an easy keeper.
You can ignore it and it will be waiting for you.

Any other pet would die of loneness and neglect.
Not Hep B. What effect does Soap have on Hep B?

Soap and water make it disappear, like Magic!
Wash again! You are not clean until it bubbles!

A good soap bubbles.
Spoiler:
Hey! I may be the Forums foremost expert on HandWashing.
What do you think?

I have loads of experience and I have taken both undergrad and post grad classes in hand washing.
Silly. right? Almost as weird as underwater basket weaving.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: FDA forcing antibacterial soap makers to prove claims/sa

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Dec 20, 2013 4:56 pm UTC

davidstarlingm wrote:
EMTP wrote:
davidstarlingm wrote:Flu, viral pneumonia.


No. Very, very rarely lethal in immunocompetent persons. Try Ebola.

Infectious diseases are numerous and their clinical courses are varied. Any statement about bacterial illness vs viral illness is a broad generalization with many exceptions.

I was more speaking in terms of the marketing aspect. Antibacterial soap is often (I assume) marketed toward immunoincompetent classes, and it's widely believed to be more effective against communicative diseases.
Do you mean marketed towards those with compromised immune systems? Because I don't think this is true; I think it's marketed to everyone, everywhere, now GMO Free!

I.e., it's often a marketing ploy to trap those who don't know any better.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests