[CWuestefeld]

There's definitely a potential for negative impact on your septic system, especially the newer aerobic type, which is much more sensitive.

But where does the FDA get the authority to regulate soap? It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all. Indeed, the whole point is that it's supposed to NOT directly affect you at all.

[aestra]

>It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all.

facepalm

Do you really think those products you are rubbing around your skin every day and sniffing up your nose don't get absorbed by your skin and lungs!!? I mean they make drugs that can be rubbed on like lotion, as well as medications that can be delivered in patch form and your telling me "well it isn't going in your body so it won't directly affect you."

We don't know yet. There are thoughts that triclosan might cause endocrine disruption. but I don't know and I don't think the science has been done yet. The FDA wants to find out. This is GOOD. The FDA should be doing more to vet the cosmetics industry which is mostly a wild west at the moment.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics explains: http://safecosmetics.org/section.php?id=75

The agency charged with oversight of cosmetics, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has no authority to require pre-market safety assessment as it does with drugs, so cosmetics are among the least-regulated products on the market. The FDA does not review – nor does it have the authority to regulate – what goes into cosmetics before they are marketed for salon use and consumer use. In fact, 89 percent of all ingredients in cosmetics have not been evaluated for safety by any publicly accountable institution.

Ironically, most consumers believe the U.S. government regulates the cosmetics industry the same way it regulates food and drugs sold in this country to make sure they're safe. The truth is, no one's minding the store when it comes to shampoo, skin moisturizers, baby products, lipstick or any other personal care product.

The FDA’s own Web site explains its limitations:

    “FDA's legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency .... Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives.”

The emerging evidence on the body burdens of chemicals in the American people, as well as the new science on how small exposures to these chemicals can add up to harm, suggest that there is no health-based rationale for the difference in regulatory powers between the different FDA divisions.

Here's a link about formaldehyde in hair straighteners:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-governme...

Josimov began to realize it was her life that was changing. Her progression of symptoms mirrored hundreds of other stylists – the burning eyes and sore throats followed by chronic runny noses. Respiratory infections settled in for months, accompanied by scabby blisters in the nose. With prolonged exposure came the asthma-like wheezing and shortness of breath.

After Arce's exposures, she started getting rashes, headaches and sore throats. Now she coughs up bloody mucous and is on two inhalers. Marino would get nauseated and dizzy, and would have to stick plastic bags in her purse in case she had to throw up in public. She was diagnosed with asthma and sinus infections.

[CWuestefeld]

facepalm

Nice attitude. Remember, you're on HN, not reddit.

Do you really think those products you are rubbing around your skin every day and sniffing up your nose don't get absorbed by your skin and lungs!!?

Aside from the fact that I don't typically snort lotion, it's true that there are plenty of things that come into contact with my body all the time. So maybe you can help me understand where to draw the line.

For example, why is hand soap of interest to the FDA, but not:

- dish detergent, since I'm actually ingesting some small remnant of their content

- laundry detergent, and especially softener, since that's rubbing against my skin for nearly 24 hours/day.

- building materials, whose outgassing I'm inhaling for much of the day

Further, in your quotation above, this part seems pretty much nonsensical: "The FDA does not review – nor does it have the authority to regulate – what goes into cosmetics before they are marketed for salon use and consumer use.". I read this to say that "you can sell any cosmetics you want - as long as you don't try to sell it".

mostly a wild west at the moment.

Is that necessarily a problem? Is there a reason that everything must be regulated? If you're worried about safety, as in your final quotation, then why not settle for warnings while letting the users determine if they've got, e.g., adequate ventilation, or if there's other circumstances that make the risk worthwhile. For example, I typically won't use antibacterial soap myself, but if I've got a cut, or doing something else for which sanitation is important, it may be worthwhile in that special case. Government regulations lead to one-size-fits-all, and that size is the lowest common denominator, with no accommodation for individual circumstances - take their position on experimental drugs for terminal patients, for example.

[aestra]

Old school soaps the FDA stays out of anyways. They only regulates synthetic detergents.

http://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/productandingredientsafety/Prod...

>Ordinary soap is solely made up of fats and an alkali. In the past, people made their own soap from animal fats and wood ashes.

>Today there are very few true soaps in the traditional sense on the market. You might recognize these soaps as products marketed with characteristics such as "pure." "True" soaps are regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not FDA, and do not require ingredient labeling.

Also, the second a product claims to be "Antibacterial" it is making a drug claim, and needs to have a drug list on the bottle.

>If a drug claim is made on a cleanser or soap, such as antibacterial, antiperspirant, or anti acne, the product is a drug, and the label must list all active ingredients, as is required for all drug products.

And the other examples you gave all have their own regulatory agencies which in theory should protect the public. The FDA is concerned with food, drugs, and cosmetics. Period. Cosmetics are certainly ingested (think lipstick, lipgloss) as well as absorbed into the body. It makes senses for the FDA to have that under their wing.

[nate_meurer]

If you were to simply argue that regulatory structures sometimes seem arbitrary and inefficient, I don't think you'd get much pushback here. In this case the reality is very simple; the FDA regulates cosmetics by law, and soap is a cosmetic. Pretty obvious.

But your argument that the FDA shouldn't be regulating products that are applied directly to the skin takes libertarian dogma to confusing heights. Do you think we should allow Tho-Radia cosmetics to still be sold for example?

And warning labels? Really? You realize that warning labels are also imposed by the FDA, right? And besides, exactly how do warning labels protect me from formaldehyde fumes (or radiation, as from Tho-Radia) caused by someone else in my vicinity who chooses to ignore them?

[CWuestefeld]

your argument that the FDA shouldn't be regulating products that are applied directly to the skin takes libertarian dogma to confusing heights

If you go back, you'll see that I never actually said that. I asked a question, I didn't argue against it.

So you're not interested in answering the line-drawing question: why soap, but not fabric softener or dish detergent?

And the problem with lowest-common-denominator solutions remains. Why must I, a terminally ill cancer patient, be subject to the same rules as a healthy person? In bureaucracy, there's no room for anyone to be different.

[nate_meurer]

Hmm... so you're just a disinterested observer asking for help in understanding the reasons for which the government classifies some things and not others as cosmetics for regulatory purposes? I'm afraid I can't help you there, and you're right, I'm not really interested.

My personal opinion is that products that are dangerous by their very nature, such as radium-containing makeup, lead paint, and formaldehyde-laden hair products, should be strictly regulated. Given that, I naturally support the existence of regulatory agencies to do the work, by force if necessary.

I don't know enough about triclosan to have a strong opinion about it. I'm a pragmatist by any measure, and I generally lean toward the conservative side in this area. But I'm not so rash that I would question the very existence of all regulations just because said agencies make a decision that I don't like.

Edit: My last sentence reads a bit harshly. I'm not calling you rash, but rather reflecting on my own thought process.

[tanzam75]

> But where does the FDA get the authority to regulate soap? It's not food or a drug - you don't put it into your body at all.

The FDA regulates cosmetics, which, like soap, are supposed to stay outside the body.

[rcthompson]

> It's not food or a drug

What do you call antibiotics, then, if not drugs?