OCD people, and their kids, are a huge problem in society and should be dealt with, but this is not 'science based' public policy at all.
Its like asking someone to prove a negatve, which is absurd in many contexts. "why did something not happen" does not have a finite, knowable answer in the vast majority of contexts.
Also these aren't the same soaps used in hospitals. Hospital soaps are much harsher and use different chemicals.
Lets hope its just one of those shitty translations of 'real science' being lost in translation when subjected to a journalist-friendly press release.
Theres 40 years of data using humans. Nobody doubts that dial sope or other similar soaps is safe in any meaningful sense. The science in this argument is being lost.
If these were legitimate tests they would have been done years ago and there would not be the various exemptions in this policy declaration.
I will insert the caveat here that I'm not a fan of everyday use of anti-bacterials. I also don't doubt that using anti-bacterials and prbably more importantly anti-biotics and various endocrine influencing chemicals and plastics with loose regard for the environment has negative impacts on society.
I think kids should eat dirt, assuming it's clean dirt, etc. They are made to handle the stuff that nature thows at them.
[0]: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm378393.ht...
...Yes?
If I want to manufacture/import and sell a car, I have to show it passes safety regulations.
If I want to open a restaurant, I have to obtain permits and show that food are stored and processed in an approved fashion.
If I want to build and sell a house, I have to prove that it won't collapse on itself, spontaneously catch fire, or electrocute its residents.
Every one of these points is, yes, enforced at gunpoint, because so many people have died in the past in gruesome, preventable accidents that we have collectively decided "Well, fuck it, we will make everyone prove what they are selling is safe, and we'll enforce it at gunpoint!"
That said, (hopefully) nobody arrests a pair of seven-year-olds for selling lemonade on the corner. You see, these gunpoints can be actually quite reasonable; they have centuries of experience.
If you're going to advocate change, don't you think it's important to understand historical and modern examples of the people you're going to kill?
I don't buy antibacterial soaps, but I'm concerned about this decision because it seems overreaching. I get the tragedy of the commons aspect, though, so am a bit unsure of that.
However, I agree with original position taken by one of the parent posters: there's a very politically dangerous position implicitly being supported in the US now, which is the default is that citizens are not competent to do anything, and that they have to show that they are, as opposed to the alternative, which is to assume that they are competent, and that the burden of proof should be to show that they aren't. What people are implicitly buying into, without meaning to seem hyperbolic, is a totalitarian state, where the default is lack of rights that you have to earn, rather than a default of rights that the state has to take away.
Sure, along time ago medicine was full of quack remedies, etc. But what do we have now? A corrupt system run by monopolies in all corners, and unaffordable by most citizens.
If people take nutritional supplements, that's their decision and their responsibility. If a supplement manufacturer adulterates their products, the problem is fraud, not the ability of the consumer to make the decision.
People do all sorts of stupid things. Preventing them from doing so is not the responsibility of the government.
I keep going back to the example of taxes, which is a good parallel. Imagine that the government, a year from now, mandates that no one can do their own taxes anymore, and that only individuals with a specific degree and license, requiring hundreds of thousands of dollars, and years of training, can do any taxes. What would people think of that? There would be an outcry, and legitimate concerns about corruption and collusion. But we are completely fine with the government telling us what to eat, and how to wash our hands, and what drugs we should be putting into our bodies, and what not.
The same government that classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance, so dangerous that no one should possess it. Absolutely no problem with government regulation of health decisions. Totally trustworthy. (btw, I've never used cannabis either, so that's not my skin in the game)
Before you ask accusory questions, why not refine your own position and brush off the smugness?
If you disagree with me again, I am going to punch you, but it's not violence because I'm not doing it if you don't do it again ;)
Antibacterial soap is unhealthy and should be banned for health reasons.
Antibacterial soap is largely ineffective, so should be banned for false advertising reasons.
Antibacterial soap should not be banned.
Which one is right? Is there any science or ethical political philosophy to justify this executive action?