The other reason people shouldn't be using harsh chemicals on their hands is because it damages the skin, and thus creates a better environment for bacterial contamination.

The CDC was saying this years ago. Here's one good article that summarises the evidence in 2001. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/7/2/70-0225_article

> Issues regarding hand hygiene practices among health-care professionals have been widely discussed and may be even more complicated than those in the general public. Unless patient care involves invasive procedures or extensive contact with blood and body fluids, current guidelines recommend plain soap for handwashing (38,39); however, infection rates in adult or neonatal intensive care units or surgery may be further reduced when antiseptic products are used (40-42).

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

The manufacturers also fall into a prisoner's dilemma and cannot avoid offering it if a number of buyers are not aware of or care about externalities. Only the government can pull them out together.

Should we allow smoking in most public places?

I'm actually glad you mentioned this because it's a very similar problem--a complete lack of market choice.

The big economic problem with smoking was the fact that smokers spend money--a LOT of money. Smokers spend so much more money than non-smokers that no business was ever willing to be non-smoking and consequently there was no choice.

This was similar with respect to anti-bacterial soaps. It was almost impossible to find one that wasn't anti-bacterial because the anti-bacterials sold so much better.

Side note: Ivory was one of the few that still produced a hand soap without an anti-bacterial. It's often very hard to find on a retail shelf.

I'm a non smoker but people do love smoking, willing to sacrifice health and $10 a pack so yeah, I would say that's okay.

It's an interesting example you used because smoking is a vice enjoyed by many lower income individuals. Would you feel that day drinking ala brunch should be banned? I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.

For smoking in public places, I believe that falls in the same category covered by the quote, "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins."

People smoking in restaurants, malls, and other public places aren't just hurting their own health, but the health of those sharing that public space with their second-hand smoke. So no. Your right to slowly kill yourself with your addiction ends when you are in a public space and are slowly killing those around you.

> I'm from NYC and I have to regularly dodge drunk young adults every Sunday. Surely there are plenty of negative side effects to those individuals and those around them.

They are a harm to those around them. That's why being drunk in public is against the law and drunk tanks get filled to the brim every Friday and Saturday night. Your right to be drunk ends the moment you endanger people in public spaces.

Again, bacterial soaps fall under the same category. You want to use a product with absolutely no proven scientific benefit to yourself, but is scientifically proven to make bacteria more dangerous to those around you? Unacceptable, and since some companies and consumers are refusing to stop endangering public health, the law must step in to prevent your behavior from infringing on the rights of those around you to pursue happiness, which includes the pursuit of good health.

Could you elaborate? What did they do?

Is it worth taking chances with multidrug resistance bacteria for this miniscule psychological benefit?

Antibacterial soaps just plain do not work. The exposure time average seconds when it needs minutes to do the job.

Triclosan has been linked with cancer. The ineffective usage makes bacteria more resistant. What is the upside? Corporate profit and marketing lies?

Representative 1: We've been following this antibacterial resistance case closely for a few years now. Every year, a greater number of my constituents have related to me the story of how they lost a loved-one due to MSRA - and staph infection, as I understand, isn't even the only thing that this, uhh, the resistance to bacteria dru--err- medications. So, as you know, we've asked you here today to better understand how we can plan to solve this looming crisis. What have you got for us?

FDA1: Well, generally speaking, we've been working with a number of the same antibiotics that have been in use for many decades now. Their effectiveness has been continuously diminishing since the first introduction of each antibiotic. The general consensus here at the FDA is, we need to encourage the development and mass production of multiple new drugs to combat the inevitable growing resistance.

REP2: And what is it that you mean by inevitable?

FDA2: If I may field this question - what my colleague is referring to here is the fact that long-term exposure to specific antibiotics necessarily results in resistance to the same.

REP3: So, you're talkin' about evolution here, right? Just so we're all on the same page.

(Indistinguishable snickering throughout the room)

FDA2: Ye-- That's one way to describe it.

REP2: So what exactly is it that you need from us to enact your plan?

FDA1: Well, that's why we came to you. You see, it's not a very lucrative business opportunity -- developing a new antibiotic. Our custo-- your constituents would have to buckle their belts a little, because we need at least $30 million more for our budget to be pumped into early research in the university system.

(The whole crowd erupts in laughter!)

REP1: Hahahaha! Tax reallocations in this political climate! Don't get me started... But we did tell you to give us your pie in the sky ideas first, so what else do you have for us today?

FDA3: The abuse of antibiotics in the livestock industry is not onl--

REP2: Oh no... We've been through this before. How else are we going to get chickens big enough to feed the world?

FDA1: Well, there's an other option too. We could stop using antibacterial soaps more than necessary in hospitals, which as you know, are the hotbeds of new infe--

REP1: Let me stop you right there. Do you even have any idea as to how much we spent on the last - washing your hands saves lives - campaign? If our const-- your patients knew that you were just washing your hands with regular soap, do yo-- no. Not even an option. We don't want to call you here again for this same issue next year.

FDA4: What if we just banned them for personal use? No one would be negatively affected, and it would appear to be a decisive action to solve the problem.

REP1: That does sound reasonable... Any objections from the committee?

REP4: No, I don't have any soap manufacturers in my state-- hahaaha

REP1: Then a voiced vote shall suffice. All those in favor

There are also significant benefits to recreational drug use, especially alcohol.

The same is not true of antibacterial soaps.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

>You can argue that the benefits of drug use are actually a mirage since it's linked to so many other problems, health and social.

You could, but you'd be ignoring the health benefits of certain patterns of consumption.

What you can't do is argue that antibacterial soap has the same social and cultural significance as Chartreuse or Cognac, nor can you claim that there exists a mode of consumption for antibacterial soap that has net positive effects (outside of a hospital).

Yes, it's a trade-off. We're on the same page. The point is rather that one of the two categories (drugs) has a positive counterweight to its negative effects while the other does not.

That's a value judgement. I would argue it does have a positive counterweight as people spend money to buy the product. That's pretty much the purpose of a market. To tease out the value people put in certain items and to direct resources into said products

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2007/04/the_powe...

It's a feature, not a bug.

I don't get it. Don't you want to prevent epidemics of incurable diseases and enjoy a beer? I mean no disrespect but I don't understand what's so shocking or surprising about these laws.

A psychological one, sure. They perceive that they're getting a health benefit (whether or not they actually are), so the money seems worth it. But the evidence is that it doesn't actually get your hands cleaner than non-antibacterial soap and that it may contribute to creating stronger bacteria.

The FDA's judgement is that the downsides outweigh the upsides. I tend to agree.

Frankly, it's apples and oranges IMO.

When you use antibacterial soap, you hurt everyone in the world equally. You hurt me as much as you hurt yourself, but you also hurt 7 billion other people. That means antibacterial soaps cause 7 billion times more damage to others than to oneself on average, while the ratio is about 1 for alcohol.

So someone acting purely in self-interest will mediate their use of alcohol fairly effectively, while a self-interested antibacterial soap user won't mediate their use at all.

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.

Perhaps Monsanto could give them some pointers ;)

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.

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. )

The main thing with alternative medicine is that it is generally as harmless as water. Unless you are forcing it as the only treatment to your children or others, you aren't harming anyone else.

Antibacterial soap isn't in these categories. People truly think they are healthier for using the stuff - this is partially advertising and false claims. In addition, these things contribute to making the world unhealthier and a more unhealthy place by helping antibiotic resistance - general use does this. It is posing a grave general danger. This danger is the same reason antibiotics are prescription and we try not to prescribe them unnecessarily. It isn't that one will have immediate grave dangers themselves, but it is bad for humans in general.

"I prefer not to go to some government agency..." I think this is really key to your sentiment, and the solution to this isn't to eshew safety regulators, but work to make them more effective and honest and vote for folks (especially congress members) that share those sorts of interests. I don't think any of us have the time or energy to be able to parse out respectable information on each product to make sure it is safe, though we think we do. If you do, look around you. Do you think all of your neighbors do? All college students? I'm very doubtful on this - antibacterial soap is an example. We hear it causes grave dangers, but we buy it anyway. Advertising and culture at work, perhaps.

It is possible that within a decade or two, penicillin will be lose its usefulness, and we'll be back to the stage of history where cuts and scrapes could become life-threatening.

^ a related problem is the flushing of non-consumed, non-recreational antibiotic drugs, incidentally

[update] just after leaving this thread, I saw an article about a new comic book that is specifically about a post-antibiotic future, so here's a possibly more entertaining rundown: http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-horrifying-comic-book-future-where-...

It's not enough grounds because the cost of enforcement is so high that it is equal to or surpasses the cost of the drugs themselves. That isn't the case with antibiotic soap--it's not an addictive productive, so it's unlikely that there will be dealers slinging triclosan on street corners.

Antibiotic abuse could wind up affecting human civilization. It could make plague-level events possible. This is a whole different league, and it's ludicrous to turn this into some kind of libertarian talking point.

They also pay extra to buy shampoo with vitamins in it despite most of them knowing it does nothing. They just want an excuse to buy the more complex version of a banal product to exert some control over their banal lives.

In this case, the FDA can exert some back-pressure because of the significant risk to developing resistant bacteria against the soap constituents, which are needed in medical settings, so they are.

Unfortunately there isn't anything to do be done about rinsing vitamins down the shower drain. Not yet anyway.

In this case, there is far more harm than good.

Sounds like the antibacterial soaps fall into this category. As I understand it, if a product makes a health or nutrition claim, then it falls under the purview of the FDA, and the FDA rule is that if you make a health claim, then it has to be proven effective.

You don't need to kill the bacteria. Just remove it.

I'm pretty sure the lipid-dissolving properties of soap kill bacteria by shredding their cell membranes. It's not effective against viruses, but neither is antibacterial soap.

I've heard this action is actually more important than the soap bit for the anti-bacterial properties. But soap helps remove things like grease and 'juice' from the meat really well and helps us be less lazy when doing so.

Education, not prohibition, is needed.

Prohibition of alcohol does create black markets and mafias, so an alternate solution is needed.

The resistant bacteria can grow to a problem of global proportion.

The substance banned takes hours to kill the bacteria (according to the article), so I would say it's marketed in a mis-leading way. I doubt many people actually buy the soap thinking a multi-hour exposure is needed.