This sounds fair to me.
After years of mounting concerns that the antibacterial chemicals that go into everyday items like soap and toothpaste are doing more harm than good, the Food and Drug Administration said on Monday that it was requiring soap manufacturers to demonstrate that the substances were safe or to take them out of the products altogether.
I never heard anyone getting sick from antibacterial soap.
The proposal was applauded by public health experts, who for years have urged the agency to regulate antimicrobial chemicals, warning that they risk scrambling hormones in children and promoting drug-resistant infections, among other things. Producers argue that the substances have long been proved to be safe.
Why are they testing on animals?
Studies in animals have shown that the chemicals, triclosan in liquid soaps and triclocarban in bar soaps, can disrupt the normal development of the reproductive system and metabolism, and health experts warn that their effects could be the same in humans. The chemicals were originally used by surgeons to wash their hands before operations, and their use exploded in recent years as manufacturers added them to a variety of products, including mouthwash, laundry detergent, fabrics and baby pacifiers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found the chemicals in the urine of three-quarters of Americans.
They will still be available for purchase?
The proposed rule does not require producers of the soaps to take them off the market immediately. The F.D.A. has given companies a year to produce data showing that the chemicals are both safe and effective. If they cannot prove, the chemicals will need to be removed from the products, the agency said. The rule is open for public comment for 180 days. It does not apply to hand sanitizers, which will be considered separately.
30 years ago?
Federal regulators started to look more closely at the chemicals in the 1970s, with the F.D.A. first creating regulations to control them in 1978. But very little has been done since, public health advocates complain, partly because of agency slowness, but also because of industry lobbying.
Its everywhere?
“These chemicals interfere with the regulation of the human body,” he said, citing studies in animals. The chemicals accumulate in ground water and soil, and one study of human breast milk found the chemicals in the milk of 97 percent of the women tested, he said. “The fascinating thing is the public has not taken note of this issue.”
This is the only good news about this whole mess.
“In some instances, these products have been found to be critical in the reduction of infection and disease,” the groups said. They said they intended to file comments to the F.D.A. “reaffirming” that the use of antibacterial wash products does not contribute to antibiotic resistance.
The full version of this article appears in print on December 17, 2013, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: F.D.A. Questions Safety of Antibacterial Soaps.
Written By SABRINA TAVERNISE
Published: December 16, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/health/fda-to-require-proof-that-antibacterial-soaps-are-safe.html?hp&_r=0
This will change many products we use and love if these findings are tested and true.
I personally think a year is too long to keep selling a product that could be bad for anyone.
Do you use products with triclosan as an ingredient? I know I do.
Please like and share :)
Laurie M.
