Minnesota Is the First State to Ban Antibacterial Soap With Triclosan

Kajin

This Title Will Be Gone Soon
Apr 13, 2008
1,016
0
0
I'd rather they ban all non-commercial or non-medical use of antibacterial soap altogether. Regular soap works just fine for everyday residential use. Using that stuff too often encourages the development of resistant strains of pathogens which is bad for patients undergoing surgery or businesses dealing with food.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
fi6eka said:
Am I the only one who get's an End of Evangelion vibe from that pic?
I'm so f*cked up.
...and now I cannot unsee that...

OT: Well, jokes on them... I don't even use anti-bacterial soaps anymore! Or hand sanitizers!!

Wait... What do I use to wash my hands again?
 

mindfaQ

New member
Dec 6, 2013
194
0
0
"It seems to me that if there is a real concern, then delaying the ban until 2017 means willfully endangering citizens for over two full years. "
Doesn't seem to have had any proven influences so far, so they are not in a hurry. Bans like this after all need to be justified.

"But if there is no real concern, then why ban triclosan at all?"
They don't know yet, but have hints for bad effects on animals, so they are cautious - better safe than sorry so to say.

"Will you continue to use products that include triclosan,"
I normally don't use antibacterial soap.

"or do you think Minnesota has jumped the gun?"
Don't know, better safe than sorry I guess.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
Most people use antibacterial soap to prevent the spread of cold & flu germs. Too bad they are both viri.

Since their tests would have shown the chemical to have no effect on bacteria, why include it in the first place?
 

Peace Frog

New member
May 31, 2008
122
0
0
lacktheknack said:
The World Famous said:
If it doesn't make soap better, and has a chance to sterilize you, then why the sweet fuck were they putting it in soap in the first place?
Money, probably.
That doesn't make sense, and you know it.

"Here's a chemical that does nothing for our soap, and costs money to buy, so let's put it in to GET MORE MONEY!" A simple reality check would conclude that it DOES improve the soap in some way, we're just not sure how.

I really think that "Meh, greedy" responses should be prefaced with an explanation nowadays, if only to make it less agonizingly common.

OT: How about we ban antibacterial soaps as a concept, rather than a common ingredient?
Or people are more likely to buy soap because they THINK (aka they're told) it's better than because they actually noticed an improvement.
 

gussy1z

New member
Aug 8, 2008
125
0
0
For a second there I actually thought Minnesota were banning antibacterial soap until I read the fucking article.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
Meh, whatever. If it's not actually doing anything in soap then get rid of it. But I'm sure there is not a real threat to people. People love to freak out when a few lab animals get some weird results. This is probably going cause lawsuits against these antibacterial soap companies by people who used it once in a restaurant and then couldn't have kids. But, as I said, remove it since it's not doing anything. You have to wonder, what was the point of them using it. It must have conferred some sort of benefit since it's so commonly used.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,990
355
88
Country
US
McMullen said:
"Found to cause x in lab animals" is always a statement that worries me because of how irresponsibly journalists and bloggers use it. It can mean "We gave a rat a dose that is about the same size for the rat as it would be for a human in the kind of amounts we expect the human to be exposed to", which is fine. However, it can also mean "We just kept upping the dose for the rat until bad things happened", which often equates to injecting buckets of the stuff directly into the veins of a human.

Water will cause x in lab animals if you give it the same dose you would give a human, so just saying that something causes x in lab animals should be meaningless without the actual dose. In practice, it's a sure-fire way to scare people into thinking it's dangerous. It's so transparently dishonest, yet so effective at persuading people, that it's kind of up there with asking people to ban dihydrogen monoxide. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax]

If the FDA says it's not been found to be dangerous to humans, that probably means the toxic doses for the rats required so much triclosan that an equivalent dose for a human would be absurdly large.
Often you see those kinds of studies when someone is looking to try to keep something from being approved.

For example, have you seen the relatively new to the market sweetener called Truvia? The sweetener in it is derived from an herb called stevia. It has an interesting history.

It's native to South America, and the first Europeans exposed to it were told that the locals had been using for as long as they could remember.

A Japanese company commercialized it in 1971, but it saw little to no use in the US. Why? Because NutraSweet didn't want it to, had a lot of money, and had friends in the FDA.

At one point, Celestial Seasonings used it in some of their herbal teas. The FDA burned their supply, and denied their claim that it should fall under "generally recognized as safe" (the category that foodstuffs that had long seen use prior to the FDA fall under that prevent the need to do safety studies on things like carrots or thyme). The FDA then classified stevia as an "unsafe food additive" because in large enough doses it caused reduced birth rates in rats.

This gets even more messed up when the rules for "herbal dietary supplements" went into effect, and created a lengthy stretch of time in which you could sell stevia for human consumption in any amount with no warnings or restrictions of any kind as an "herbal dietary supplement", so long as you never mentioned that it had a flavor. If you mentioned that it was sweet tasting, then it suddenly morphed into an "unsafe food additive."
 

Vivi22

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,300
0
0
For the time being, however, the FDA states that triclosan is not known to be hazardous to humans.
When your organization is basically one big rubber stamp that doesn't properly research, test, or certify anything for long term use before it gets out to the public, you can state that just about anything isn't known to be hazardous to humans.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Peace Frog said:
lacktheknack said:
The World Famous said:
If it doesn't make soap better, and has a chance to sterilize you, then why the sweet fuck were they putting it in soap in the first place?
Money, probably.
That doesn't make sense, and you know it.

"Here's a chemical that does nothing for our soap, and costs money to buy, so let's put it in to GET MORE MONEY!" A simple reality check would conclude that it DOES improve the soap in some way, we're just not sure how.

I really think that "Meh, greedy" responses should be prefaced with an explanation nowadays, if only to make it less agonizingly common.

OT: How about we ban antibacterial soaps as a concept, rather than a common ingredient?
Or people are more likely to buy soap because they THINK (aka they're told) it's better than because they actually noticed an improvement.
Were YOU told "Our soap is better because it contains triclosan"?

I wasn't.

I'm pretty sure that even if a consumer looks at the label, triclosan, trichlorocarbamide and chloroxylenol all look roughly equal.
 

SexyGarfield

New member
Mar 12, 2013
103
0
0
lacktheknack said:
Peace Frog said:
lacktheknack said:
The World Famous said:
If it doesn't make soap better, and has a chance to sterilize you, then why the sweet fuck were they putting it in soap in the first place?
Money, probably.
That doesn't make sense, and you know it.

"Here's a chemical that does nothing for our soap, and costs money to buy, so let's put it in to GET MORE MONEY!" A simple reality check would conclude that it DOES improve the soap in some way, we're just not sure how.

I really think that "Meh, greedy" responses should be prefaced with an explanation nowadays, if only to make it less agonizingly common.

OT: How about we ban antibacterial soaps as a concept, rather than a common ingredient?
Or people are more likely to buy soap because they THINK (aka they're told) it's better than because they actually noticed an improvement.
Were YOU told "Our soap is better because it contains triclosan"?

I wasn't.

I'm pretty sure that even if a consumer looks at the label, triclosan, trichlorocarbamide and chloroxylenol all look roughly equal.
Seeing as it is the most widely used antibacterial agent in soap one could safely venture a guess that it would be cheaper. That would make the money argument a bit more plausible especially since as you mention nobody is comparison shopping based on the antibacterial agent being used.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
SexyGarfield said:
lacktheknack said:
Peace Frog said:
lacktheknack said:
The World Famous said:
If it doesn't make soap better, and has a chance to sterilize you, then why the sweet fuck were they putting it in soap in the first place?
Money, probably.
That doesn't make sense, and you know it.

"Here's a chemical that does nothing for our soap, and costs money to buy, so let's put it in to GET MORE MONEY!" A simple reality check would conclude that it DOES improve the soap in some way, we're just not sure how.

I really think that "Meh, greedy" responses should be prefaced with an explanation nowadays, if only to make it less agonizingly common.

OT: How about we ban antibacterial soaps as a concept, rather than a common ingredient?
Or people are more likely to buy soap because they THINK (aka they're told) it's better than because they actually noticed an improvement.
Were YOU told "Our soap is better because it contains triclosan"?

I wasn't.

I'm pretty sure that even if a consumer looks at the label, triclosan, trichlorocarbamide and chloroxylenol all look roughly equal.
Seeing as it is the most widely used antibacterial agent in soap one could safely venture a guess that it would be cheaper. That would make the money argument a bit more plausible especially since as you mention nobody is comparison shopping based on the antibacterial agent being used.
That would make sense, yes, but then we have to ask why this was in the OP:

The FDA says there is currently no evidence that triclosan provides any extra benefits in soap

If triclosan is an antibacterial, why on earth would it provide "no extra benefits" the the soap? There's something really wrong here. :S
 

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
lacktheknack said:
The World Famous said:
If it doesn't make soap better, and has a chance to sterilize you, then why the sweet fuck were they putting it in soap in the first place?
Money, probably.
That doesn't make sense, and you know it.

"Here's a chemical that does nothing for our soap, and costs money to buy, so let's put it in to GET MORE MONEY!" A simple reality check would conclude that it DOES improve the soap in some way, we're just not sure how.

I really think that "Meh, greedy" responses should be prefaced with an explanation nowadays, if only to make it less agonizingly common.

OT: How about we ban antibacterial soaps as a concept, rather than a common ingredient?
Because most people would go nuts to buy soap that can 99% of germs without thinking of the consequences.

There are practical uses for such soap so a blanket ban is stupid, just restrict to to what it once was, a product used only in hospitals and medical procedures.
 

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
lacktheknack said:
The FDA says there is currently no evidence that triclosan provides any extra benefits in soap

If triclosan is an antibacterial, why on earth would it provide "no extra benefits" the the soap? There's something really wrong here. :S
Because soap is used to mechanically scrub off the pathogens from your skin, it isn't needed to kill them as well in a domestic environment. For medical use that is completely different and needed to cover to your bases and prevent infections where they could realistically happen.

Antibacterial soap was just excess in a society that views being super clean as sanctimonious super healthy when it's not the case.
 

animeh1star1a

New member
Nov 7, 2012
49
0
0
There are a lot of reasons to eliminate Antibiotics from environments outside of a healthcare facility. For starters, Triclosan isn't very effective, there are better options. Second, it promotes antibiotic resistance among bacterial populations. Third, if it gets into your bloodstream, it could start killing your normal flora, increasing the likelihood of opportunistic infections or gastrointestinal problems. These are just the basic reasons most college students can find. There is in doubt in my mind that there are more issues. The ban is reasonable in my opinion.

This also doesn't even mention the fact that using antibacterial soaps or alcohol hand sanitizer on kids weaken their immune system later in life, encourages the genesis of super bugs (this is actually a medical term now) such as MRSA. Also, one bacterial resistance can also lead to another, meaning if they develop a resistance for Triclosan, bacterial colonies might be able to develop additional resistances when faced with a different antibiotic. Lastly, these soups do nothing against endospores, some gram negative bacteria, eukaryotic pathogenic organisms, and naked viruses. At best, it gives a false sense of cleanliness. Washing your hands will simply rinse off most of the organisms on the surface, limiting their ability to proliferate and grow. You will almost never kill all the bacteria on your hands, because in order to do so, you would need to subject your hands to harsher treatments then your cells could allow.

Also, don't think that you need to kill all the bacteria on your person... You swallow trillions of viruses and bacteria ever time you go swimming. The human body is 10% human cells, and 90% bacterial cells (there are ten times more bacteria in your body then you have cells). Without bacteria, you couldn't synthesis certain vitamins(vitamin K is an example), you would constantly have diarrhea, you wouldn't be able to digest your good well, and you would be open to infection by opportunistic organisms (yeast and some E coli. infections are examples of this).... Just wash your hands when you need to (such as before and after handling food, or going to the bathroom), take a shower every day or two, and don't freak out.
 

Waif

MM - It tastes like Candy Corn.
Mar 20, 2010
519
0
0
Did some research on Triclosan, and there is a chance that this could be an overblown alarmist reaction to this particular chemical that is used. Triclosan is used commonly as an anti-bacterial agent, and is used in several applications such as: toothpaste,deodorants, mouthwashes, and is actually used by doctors to scrub their hands before an operation among other things. It can also be found in garbage bags, toys, and assortment of bedding and clothing. If there is a ban a lot of products and people are going to be affected. Is there a reason for alarm though? It's all circumstantial for now, and is based largely on a few animal studies, of which aren't definitive evidence as a chemical that affects animals won't always affect humans the same way. The basics of what we know of Triclosan is this:

1. Triclosan is not known to be hazardous to humans.

2. FDA does not have sufficient safety evidence to recommend changing consumer use of products that contain triclosan at this time.

3.In light of questions raised by recent animal studies of triclosan, FDA is reviewing all of the available evidence on this ingredient?s safety in consumer products. FDA will communicate the findings of its review to the public in winter 2012.

4. At this time, FDA does not have evidence that triclosan added to antibacterial soaps and body washes provides extra health benefits over soap and water. Consumers concerned about using hand and body soaps with triclosan should wash with regular soap and water.

5.Animal studies have shown that triclosan alters hormone regulation. However, data showing effects in animals don?t always predict effects in humans.

6.Other studies in bacteria have raised the possibility that triclosan contributes to making bacteria resistant to antibiotics.

Source:http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm205999.htm

As you can see one of the main points is that there is no evidence that Triclosan "provides extra health benefits over soap and water". Therefore it's not that Triclosan does nothing, it simply means that it doesn't seem to do any better than soap and water. However, there is a lot of conspiracy theorists jumping on this band-wagon and are trying to make a connection to government control programs. Par for the course there is absolutely no evidence to support that, just your run of the mill speculation using unrelated facts and false equivalences. It's important to note that there is still a lot unknown about the chemical itself, and in the place of uncertainty fear-mongering flourishes. I think the Triclosan ban is jumping the gun, as we don't know for sure it's effects. It's akin to signing a ban on di-hydrogen monoxide in that it's supporting something without actually knowing for sure what it is. Some of you will get that reference ;). If anyone wants to add to this in terms of research or opinions please be my guest. Though if you are gonna make statements it would be conducive to discussion to cite credible sources. Thanks for reading.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
"Studies"? Pah. We don't move on studies.

Get a clueless B-list celebrity to flog your cause, then you'll see some movement. It's done wonders for the anti-vaccine crowd...
 

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
animeh1star1a said:
Also, don't think that you need to kill all the bacteria on your person... You swallow trillions of viruses and bacteria ever time you go swimming.
There's also the fact that you need such pathogens invading you all the time to maintain a healthy immune system and the real possibility the increase in allergies arising from growth of overly clean environments.

Comparing the immune system to a military is very apt - if you don't give an immune system something to do it tends to turn on the body.