Posted on 12/17/2013 4:40:37 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
After decades of debate, questions may finally be answered about whether anti-bacterial soaps — used daily in homes, schools and elsewhere — are safe. It's an important issue because many health officials say the products offer no benefit over washing with regular soap and water.
The Food and Drug Administration on Monday proposed a rule that would force makers of anti-bacterial hand soaps and body washes to prove with clinical studies that their productsare both safe to use and more effective than regular soap in preventing illness and the spread of infections. If manufacturers can't prove their claims, the products need to be reformulated or relabeled, the FDA said.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.chicagotribune.com ...
“Old fashioned” isn’t someone calling for a federal rule. That is “progressive”.
Let's talk about Lysol....Is it better than bleach??
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government that power.
That should be a police power of the States.
Put the fed back in the Constitutional box it came in.
/johnny
“My point is more to the philosophy of whether it ought to be a government mandate”
Actually, I wouldn’t ban antibiotics but I know parents who insist a doctor give their child antibiotics when they have a cold. I try to avoid them, but there are times when they’re needed. I always ask the doctor if he really thinks they’ll help. Oddly, sometimes they say no. So giving antibiotics is a ritual.
As to whether the government should be involved, I believe the answer is we should go back to the size and powers of the government we had in 1920. That is to say, we’d practically never hear from it.
The FAA, EPA and a host of other alphabet agencies WAY overregulate. (Companies I worked for that were totally clean metaphorically sh*t when the EPA people showed up. That’s because they were all powerful, but not all-knowledgable. Power without responsibility is not a good combination.)
They take it upon themselves to rid America of everything that works:
the US Constitution
filament lightbulbs
5 gallon flush toilets
manual thermostats
gas powered cars
zinc swabs for colds
and now anti-bacterial soaps
So much for no “bedroom police” or “kitchen police” or “living room police” or “bathroom police”.
Liberals are mentally ill.
“Period.” < /snotwhistle >
LOL
If they can decide what light bulbs we can use, then they can decide what kind of soap we use.
As established by the Founders, Congress has the enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” This provides a clear constitutional basis for restricting or banning triclosan from consumer products.
I prefer the more restricted federal government that the founders tried to give us.
You may want more of a nanny state.
/johnny
Forgot to add the dishwasher detergent that works to the list of banned substances.
Then there is analog broadcasting (which can still be heard in a time of emergency like a hurricane, not so much choppy digital signals).
As to the policy issues, in most cases, when marketing a product on a national scale, businesses prefer to deal with one federal regulator with one standard instead of fifty state regulators with different standards. Indeed, the states themselves usually prefer to let the federal government bear the expense of the research and administrative effort that is needed to regulate consumer products.
Moreover, in the wide sweep of history, the federal Commerce Clause power helped to create the vast national marketplace that is one of the great strengths of the American economy. Again, even if that power is sometimes ill-used, that does not mean that it is always ill-used. And, on the merits, I think that a good hard look at triclosan is in order.
Any outbreak would be considered a national interest rather than local. And maybe you have a cracking local government, but most are as inept as any other bureaucracy.
Antibi soaps have been an issue in hospitals for 20 years. Initial concern was that they dried the skin and actually caused staff to NOT wash hands. That’s STILL a concern and the alcohol gels are not much better. Read any label and you’ll see that they try to put “softeners” in them, but they’re mainly alcohol.
It was when a hand wash station was found to have contaminated antibi soap that the real questions began. Bacteria was growing IN the antibi soap. It was contaminated DURING hand washing and topping off of the dispenser. The single use dispensers you see in hospitals were a reaction to the phenomenon.
The other concern in household use was resistance and overuse. You get some of your immunity from bacteria by actually ingesting some bugs as you grow. Eliminating ALL bacteria in the home may not be as advantageous as once thought. There is ongoing research into whether antibi soaps are contributing to resistance.
All the anti bacterial products are killing off the susceptible bugs, leaving the ones that are hard to kill. So we are having outbreaks of things like MRSA that can't be treated.
We don’t use antibac anymore; that stated, it is not Big Gov’s job to dictate cleansing products.
Yes, I understand what you are saying. I suppose smoking and sugar intake isn’t the healthiest stuff for your body....but frankly, I do not want a government bureaucracy telling me what to use.
I feel capable, along with PRIVATE SECTOR FACTORS, in thinking for myself.
If a hospital finds a compelling reason NOT to use the stuff, then they shouldn’t have to do so. If enough hospitals do that, then suppliers will quit using their resources to create what people do not want.
From the people who said plastic cutting boards are cleaner
The commerce clause argument is an interesting one. I suppose the Constitution DOES give the Congress the power to ban soap that is sold between states.
Thing is, this “ruling” isn’t from Congress, it is from an executive branch agency.
While we are quoting the Constitution, let’s start with the very first words after the preamble:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
The first word in that paragraph says it “all”, no pun intended. Rulings by bureaucracies and judges carry the force of legislation. But the Constitution says, plainly, that ALL legislative powers belong to Congress.
We have gotten away from making certain that our laws are made by Congress, enforced by the executive branch, and protected by the judiciary. Whatever the founders envisioned, it WASN’T a bureaucracy (even one created by Congress) that can make LAW.
See post 39.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.