[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.