Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FDA Bans 19 Chemicals Used In Antibacterial Soaps (nbcnews.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the rinse-and-repeat dept.

The Food and Drug Administration has ordered "antibacterial" ingredients to be removed from consumer soaps, citing a lack of evidence that they are effective in making soap work any better and that the industry has failed to prove they're safe. The banned chemicals include triclosan, triclocarban and 17 others (PDF) typically found in hand and body soaps. Companies have until late next year to remove the ingredients from their products, the FDA said. "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 and more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections," the FDA said in a statement. NBC News reports: "In 2013 FDA gave soapmakers a year to show that adding antibacterial chemicals did anything at all to help them kill germs. It made the rule final Friday. The FDA started asking about triclosan in 1978. Environmental groups and some members of Congress have been calling for limits on the use of triclosan. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued and the FDA agreed to do something about triclosan by 2016. There's no proof that triclosan is dangerous to people, but some animal studies suggest high doses can affect the way hormones work in the body. The proposed rule only affects hand soaps and body washes. Triclosan is often used in toothpaste and it's been shown to help kill germs that cause gum disease."

15 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. overreach by ooloorie · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While anti-bacterial soaps are pointless for most people, there is no reason or justification for the FDA to regulate them since these active ingredients are otherwise safe and widely used.

    1. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're kidding right... or do you work for a soap company?

      The companies were given a year to prove that their active ingredients actually did anything... If they couldn't prove it... then this is more than just a FDA issue its a FTC and possibly DOJ for false advertising

    2. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The companies were given a year to prove that their active ingredients actually did anything...

      It's just good that the only pointless things you can waste your money on in this world are anti-bacterial soaps.

      Imagine the horror of living in a world where it was not possible to prove scientifically that things like non-GMO foods, designer handbags, religion and Cuban cigars actually did anything beneficial.

    3. Re:overreach by jrumney · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure they do something. They help the common harmless bacteria that is all around us evolve into MRSA.

    4. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, you're mis-understanding. It's like the same reason for not feeding animals anti-biotics.

      These chemicals worsen the situation.

      So while regular soap and water might get rid of 99.0% germs, bacteria, viruses, oils and other crud you might have on your hands, that 1% not killed still hangs around in small quantities, growing and competing for all the non-killed bugs. If one of these chemicals upped that to 99.9%, that means 99.9% are killed, and the 1% that isn't killed becomes resistant to that chemical, thus making it useless in the operating room.

      And that is the point. Don't use these things unless there is a medically necessary reason to (eg AID's patients)

    5. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Always? For every totalitarian government, there are dozens of ones that never became totalitarian, even more if you include local governments. And pretty much every one of them did at least something to the tragedy of the commons that involves limits people from doing what they want.

      Exaggerating a danger that is otherwise real and a serious threat doesn't help people realize the danger, it helps desensitize them to warnings, exaggerated or not.

    6. Re:overreach by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The FDA should have to prove harm, rather than the soap companies proving effectiveness.

      The burden of proof is always on the party making the claim.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    7. Re:overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not true at all.

      They are in fact dangerous.

      Triclosan has destroyed the bacteria in municipal sewage treatment plants across the country.

    8. Re: overreach by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If people toying with antibac stuff only endangered themselves, I'd be with you. Unfortunately this isn't necessarily the case. I can only HOPE that the crap doesn't work, because if it really kills "99.9% of all germs" as is often advertised, all that crap really does is to breed superbugs.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re: overreach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      We can't prove that GMO foods have any benefit. You are messing around with plant genes. Something that has taken million and billions of years of evolution to get to where they are today. Unfortunately or possibly fortunately only our future generations, a few 100,000 years down the road will be able to know if this uninformed experiment we are doing today will have an impact down the road. It might be safe for human consumption but we don't have a clue the impact they'll have on the eco system in a couple 100,000 years

    10. Re:overreach by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure they do something. They help the common harmless bacteria that is all around us evolve into MRSA.

      The antibacterials used in the soap do not include Methicillin or other antibiotics, so no, they don't help the bacteria evolve into MRSA.

      What does that is excessive use of the life-saving drugs.

      Especially: Their widespread use on farm animals that live in horrible conditions which would kill the animals by disease or render them less productive, if they weren't being pumped with so many antibiotics, that higher concentrations of precious antibiotic have been found in sewage and natural bodies of water than would exist in the blood of a human being dosed with the antibiotics.....

  2. Re:Scrambling! by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, 36 years -- what speed! Thankfully, maybe our grandchildren will be able to grow up in a world without triclosan.

  3. Re:But by Strider- · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole point is that regular soap and water are just as effective as those containing these antibacterial agents.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  4. Fine by me by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, if only I could find a liquid hand soap that doesn't contain moisturizers...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  5. Re:As an observation... by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they allow it in toothpaste, it's fucking stupid to ban it from soaps...

    Not at all. There is demonstrably no benefit to using triclosan in hand soap, so there really is no kind of cost/benefit argument you can make justifying its use. The best you might do would be to prove that it's totally harmless, in which case there's no harm to putting it in; but then there'd still be no harm to banning it either.

    In the case of toothpaste, there may be demonstrable benefit. That makes it a fundamentally different case. When we study it more we may decide that the costs outweigh the risks, but at present it's still at least possible that banning it may be a net harm.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.