[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.