Home | About | Donate

'Huge Victory for Health': FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Soaps


#1

'Huge Victory for Health': FDA Orders Antibacterials Removed from Soaps

Nadia Prupis, staff writer

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Friday issued a rule banning antibacterials in soap, which the agency said were no more effective than simple soap and much more harmful for the environment and consumer health.

The FDA gave companies a year to remove chemicals such as triclosan and triclocarban from their products or take them off the shelves entirely, and an additional year to get rid of ingredients like benzalkonium chloride, which are less commonly used.


NRDC: Triclosan's Ban by FDA Will Protect Consumers
#2

Now that school has started again, this article should be sent to all the schools that force parents to purchase these products for their children.


#3

Just last night we had a conversation at my house about how stupid these products are, we refuse to use them, most people have no idea what they actually do, they are helping create super-bugs, and also contributing to humans who have poorly developed immune systems. Very good news!

Such a tiny thing compared to the vast array of eco-disruptive chemicals spread throughout the environment. Let this be an inflection point, at which from this point forward, restrictions on all such eco-disruptive chemicals becomes the norm.


#5

Isn't plain soap—by definition—antibacterial?

Years ago, I would often chuckle when one soap manufacturer after another came out with ads and commercials that began to espouse the improvements to their soap products by making them "antibacterial." I wondered just how gullible and naïve ‎they perceived the average consumer. (Perhaps they adhere to the aphorism that claims, "There's a sucker born every minute.")

It simply amazes me how often certain marketing gimmicks bamboozle the average consumer, in the often absurd attempts to differentiate products and services from those of the competitors.

Hmmm... Now, where are those inglorious researchers from the likes of MIT, Harvard, Stanford, etc. when you need them? Oh, they are probably working on projects that are funded by the very corporations that hypnotize the consumers with knowingly fraudulent or deceptive advertising claims. (Or else, maybe the government has them dutifully conducting research on its behalf.)

That said, I have always believed that toothpaste manufacturers should not be permitted to include fluoride in the product; it can cause certain deleterious effects, including neurological damage. I regard fluoride as an industrial-waste by-product. I believe there are other more suitable agents that can strengthen enamel and help protect against cavity formations.


#6

Do note that this exempts alcohol-based hand sanitizers meant to be used without water. But I do agree that parents should not be required to shield their kids from developing healthy immune systems.


#8

That's why there's a warning label on fluoridated toothpaste, warning to only use a tiny amount, and not to swallow it.

Putting it in toothpaste a great way for industry to get another "revenue stream" from another industrial waste by-product. Like selling "pink slime" as food, instead of the industrial meat by-product that it is.

They will sell absolutely anything they can get away with selling. Profit-uber-alles is a very stupid organizing principle for designing an economic system...


#9

Now if they could just ban Titanium Dioxide out of all big soap products we might all live past 40.

I see why deodorant soaps work. Nothing can live in the presence of toxic heavy metals like Titanium. Anti-Dandruff stuff is suspicious also. Aluminum is used to kill anything it touches. It's real good at killing fungus and microbes, mites, scabes, etc, that may cause dandruff.

But your skin absorbs the chit. Long term not very promising for avoiding cancer. I haven't used underarm deodorant for ten years. Locals use a small native lime instead. It's 100 percent natural cuz I pick it off the tree every morning. But the Calamunsi trees seem to die easy in the droughts we just had, so don't stand downwind of me!


#10

Good post, and good ideas.

Should we switch to just baking soda? Will that be enough to prevent tooth decay? It's very hard to find here. Not sure I can convince them to ignore the 24/7 toothpaste brainwashing commercials...

I've got 35 dependents and my shampoo/toothpaste bill is a killer each month. About like a power bill. I desperately need a substitute for shampoo... It's outrageous on this island where everything is shipped in.

Maybe Coconuts? Sounds kinda destructive though...

(See my adjacent post about deodorant.)


#11

I thought it was the Drug Enforcement Agency that decided to keep cannabis on Schedule 1.


#13

This list requests "antibacterial hand soap". //chadwickes.bcps.org/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=5452359


#14

Not sure where you're at T_J, but you mentioned coconuts. Oil pulling using coconut oil, is one method to improve dental health. Wife has been doing that for a few years to deal with gingivitis. Coconut oil is a natural microbial, though it's nowhere near as bad as the antibacterial compounds that are so harmful to our environment.

I developed an inflamed gum from a botched root canal and used coconut oil to treat it successfully over a couple week period.


#15

One of the problems with the overuse of antibacterial chemicals is the damage to the immune system. These chemicals kill off good as well as bad bugs. If the good bugs no longer exist on a person, or in their system, the chance of being able to resist infection and remain healthy diminishes, and crazy diseases like C-Diff or MRSA begin to invade, and health or lives are compromised.

I've noticed in my garden patch, when I had potato beetles, there was an abundance of Daddy Long Legs on the potato vines. I haven't seen any potato beetles or orange egg masses under the leaves for the past few years. I also haven't seen as many Daddy Long Legs. Likely, if I would have used conventional pesticides for the potato beetles, it would have killed off the predators as well, and I'd be dealing with annual beetle infestation, as well as needing to waste time and money on toxic controls.

Often. simple proven methods work best, just as simple soap does for sanitation.


#16

I take an antibacterial ointment whenever I go on multi-day backpacking trips where won't be able to wash up because I can't waste water. That's the ONLY time I use them.


#17

Raw milk is another area where the FDA has it's head up it's behind. They state that raw milk can harbor dangerous organisms that can cause serious health risks to you and your family.

Unfortunately, pasteurized milk is not immune to harboring nasty bugs such as Listeria which has sickened and killed people. The Blue Bell ice cream fiasco in 2015 is one good example.

When raw milk is pasteurized, beneficial bugs as well as bad are killed off, so if disease causing organisms are present soon after pasteurization, the milk would likely become inoculated with bad bacteria. It's a process similar to making yogurt. You heat up your milk to kill off any bacteria, then add a yogurt culture to create a new dairy product. I've even made yogurt using live probiotic powder to gain the benefits of the healthy bacteria.

Under normal conditions with properly produced raw milk, the good bugs proliferate and raw milk is not dangerous to consume, except possibly by those with a weakened immune system, but even pasteurized dairy may be an issue for those people. Of course with any well managed dairy, continuous monitoring of somatic cell counts, salmonella, campylobacter and E.coli 0157:H7 is good practice.

Under certain conditions or production methods, the FDA disapproval of raw milk is valid, such as when cows are consuming unnatural feeds such as corn, especially GMO corn which is grown in association with Glyphosate. Use of antibiotics or rBGH are other inputs that would create raw milk that should not be consumed.


#18

Where do you get this nonsense from?
Titanium is not a heavy metal, it is used in aerospace applications because of its lightness. Titanium is generally considered non-toxic as is titanium dioxide.

Aluminum is used to kill anything it touches.

If that were the case we would all be dead because aluminium metal is everywhere, and so are aluminium compounds. It is the third most common element in the earth's crust. Most soils contain between 1% and 30% aluminium compounds. We all "touch" aluminium every day, yet here we are, not dead.

What do you think you gain by this hysterical nonsense? Do you just make up these bizarre claims?


#21

Alzheimers Association - Myths

During the 1960s and 1970s, aluminum emerged as a possible suspect in Alzheimer’s. This suspicion led to concern about exposure to aluminum through everyday sources such as pots and pans, beverage cans, antacids and antiperspirants. Since then, studies have failed to confirm any role for aluminum in causing Alzheimer’s. Experts today focus on other areas of research, and few believe that everyday sources of aluminum pose any threat.


#22

What about fluoride in water???Why are we putting industrial waste in our drinking water?????


#23

This article discusses nano particles, which behave differently to bulk material. This is not limited to Titanium. The bulk material is considered non-toxic. The claim that "Nothing can live in the presence of toxic heavy metals like Titanium." is hysterical nonsense

Nanotoxicology is a sub-specialty of particle toxicology. It addresses the toxicology of nanoparticles (particles <100 nm diameter) which appear to have toxicity effects that are unusual and not seen with larger particles


#24

"Many companies have already removed triclosan from their soaps, after the FDA issued a separate proposed rule in 2013 requiring manufacturers prove their antibacterial products are safe and effective."

The nerve of them requiring companies to prove that their products are any good and not harmful. What's next? Asking companies to pay taxes? Where will it end? This is Amurikkka, folks, and we won't stand for that kind of tyranny.


#25

No, baking soda won't be enough. There has to be fluoride as well. Like all medicines, the efficacy is in the concentration. That is a principle recognized during the Middle Ages, and it applies to fluoride as well. The amounts that are in added water and in toothpaste are not too high that they cause harm, but they certainly do strengthen bones and teeth.

While excess fluoride definitely is harmful, so is deficiency of fluoride. That is where the science comes in and the people who think only in black and white, good and bad, sort of miss the boat no matter which direction they go.