Is it stupid for Minnesota legislators to try to ban stupidity?

[Keith and stuff]

Minnesota Just Became the First State to Ban Anti-Bacterial Soap
Ashley Feinberg
Tuesday 1:40pm
http://gizmodo.com/minnesota-just-became-the-first-state-to-ban-anti-bacte-1579074417

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--7ArX7kTE--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/17w13pdlaupgujpg.jpg


If you've ever washed your hands with anti-bacterial soap, there's a good chance you were rubbing yourself down with a chemical called triclosan—a chemical that's been proven to be harmful in humans in recent years. Now, Minnesota has become the first state to officially ban it. And yours could be next.

The Minnesota ban, which doesn't actually go into effect until January 1, 2017, applies to pretty much any retail consumer hygiene products that includes triclosan as an active ingredient—including about 75 percent of anti-bacterial soaps.

The FDA claims there's no evidence that triclosan soap is any more effective at washing away germs than non-antibacterial soap and water. What's more, according to recent studies, triclosan can "disrupt hormones critical for reproduction and development, at least in lab animals, and contribute to the development of resistant bacteria." So not only is this chemical not doing you any real good, it could actually be harming you, too.

Minnesota may be the first to pass an overarching ban, but there's a good chance other states will follow suit; triclosan is even getting some heavier regulations nation-wide. Just this past December, the FDA ruled that anti-bacterial soap manufactures would have to prove that their soaps are not only safe, but also more effective than plain soap or water. Which sounds like something they probably should have been doing all along.

[Anti Federalist]

Not a day in AmeriKa if you're not banning something.

[chudrockz]

Wow that is going to put a serious hurt on Bath & Body Works in the mall.

[Occam's Banana]

Not a day in AmeriKa if you're not banning something.

Just lie down in it and feel the waves of freedom washing over you, gently lapping at you with their soothing whitecaps of liberty.

Then look up at all the pretty lights ...

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c7/67/e7/c767e7341a75d14adda92fea571914ac.jpg

[DamianTV]

Stupidiots.

[specsaregood]

Just this past December, the FDA ruled that anti-bacterial soap manufactures would have to prove that their soaps are not only safe, but also more effective than plain soap or water. Which sounds like something they probably should have been doing all along.

Uhm, no it certainly does not sound like that. Now you are supposed to prove to the govt that your product is more effective than other products already on the market? And if you can't? You can't sell it?

[jbauer]

Whats wrong with banning a chemical that is found to be harmful to humans?

How many you screaming freedom in this thread think Monsanto and all their products should be banned?

[jbauer]

Uhm, no it certainly does not sound like that. Now you are supposed to prove to the govt that your product is more effective than other products already on the market? And if you can't? You can't sell it?

Thats not the reason the FDA is looking into anti-bacterial soap. What they are going after is that there should be truth in advertising. Anti-bacterial soap has been sold on the idea that its "cleaner" than traditional soap. The government is asking them to show even a shred of evidence that their claim is true. I guess I don't have a problem with that.

[eduardo89]

Whats wrong with banning a chemical that is found to be harmful to humans?

It should be up to the consumer to choose whether they want to purchase the product.


How many you screaming freedom in this thread think Monsanto and all their products should be banned?
That would be horrible.

[Keith and stuff]

Whats wrong with banning a chemical that is found to be harmful to humans?

How many you screaming freedom in this thread think Monsanto and all their products should be banned?

Aren't many if not most chemicals harmful to humans? If every harmful chemical was banned, would we even be able to drink water or breath air?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs

[Occam's Banana]

Thats not the reason the FDA is looking into anti-bacterial soap. What they are going after is that there should be truth in advertising. Anti-bacterial soap has been sold on the idea that its "cleaner" than traditional soap. The government is asking them to show even a shred of evidence that their claim is true. I guess I don't have a problem with that.

The government doesn't have any business asking them any such thing.
(Allegedly) deceived consumers and their lawyers do.

[specsaregood]

Thats not the reason the FDA is looking into anti-bacterial soap. What they are going after is that there should be truth in advertising. Anti-bacterial soap has been sold on the idea that its "cleaner" than traditional soap. The government is asking them to show even a shred of evidence that their claim is true. I guess I don't have a problem with that.

I have a problem with that. I don't think it should be the FDA's role to monitor advertising or claims. Its the same b.s. that keeps walnut distributers from listing the health benefits of walnuts on their packages; but lets fritolay claim their frito chips are "heart healthy".
ref: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1906-walnuts-are-drugs-says-fda

[jbauer]

The government doesn't have any business asking them any such thing.
(Allegedly) deceived consumers and their lawyers do.

I disagree. The reason the FDA even exists (other than we need more letter agencies :rolleyes:) is because during the civil war producers were using formaldehyde as a preservative of meat and it was killing people. Formaldehyde is probably one of the better ways to preserve meat so would you be in favor of using it again because of its effectiveness?

[jbauer]

I have a problem with that. I don't think it should be the FDA's role to monitor advertising or claims. Its the same b.s. that keeps walnut distributers from listing the health benefits of walnuts on their packages; but lets fritolay claim their frito chips are "heart healthy".
ref: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/1906-walnuts-are-drugs-says-fda

I don't think fritos should be able to say heart healthy unless they can somehow show that it is healthy for your heart. But I think there should be some sort of watchdog for the consumer in regards to claims made by companies. It doesn't have to be the FDA, it doesn't have to be a government agency at all. If the FDA didn't exist there would be a public version of it.

[jbauer]

Aren't many if not most chemicals harmful to humans? If every harmful chemical was banned, would we even be able to drink water or breath air?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs

No, almost everything you touch all around you is a chemical. The air you breath is a chemical although some of its component parts wouldn't be. The water you dink is H20 which is a chemical. So no, there are plenty of chemicals that aren't harmful to humans.

[eduardo89]

The water you dink is H20 which is a chemical. So no, there are plenty of chemicals that aren't harmful to humans.

Water is toxic.

[jbauer]

Water is toxic.

But necessary for life

[eduardo89]

But necessary for life

Toxic nonetheless. Same as oxygen.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think fritos should be able to say heart healthy unless they can somehow show that it is healthy for your heart. But I think there should be some sort of watchdog for the consumer in regards to claims made by companies. It doesn't have to be the FDA, it doesn't have to be a government agency at all. If the FDA didn't exist there would be a public version of it.

There are lots of them. Government should butt out. People just got lazy; now, they just leave it all to the government. If the government approves it, it must be good, right? Wrong. Think about aspartame, for example. It's all about who has the most money to buy off government. Come on, you know that. We have corporatism in this country now; not capitalism. If you support government doing this, aren't you part of the problem causing the growth in government?

I'm much more concerned about how unhealthy it is to my and my loved ones' well-being for government lying out of their asses when they took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

[jbauer]

Toxic nonetheless. Same as oxygen.

Going back, at concentration it is toxic. Whatever the substance in the soap is, it sounds like its toxic at the soaps concentration.

[jbauer]

Toxic nonetheless. Same as oxygen.

Going back, at concentration it is toxic. Whatever the substance in the soap is, it sounds like its toxic at the soaps concentration.

[Occam's Banana]

The government doesn't have any business asking them any such thing.
(Allegedly) deceived consumers and their lawyers do.


I disagree. [...]

:confused: ...


[T]here should be some sort of watchdog for the consumer in regards to claims made by companies. It doesn't have to be the FDA, it doesn't have to be a government agency at all. If the FDA didn't exist there would be a public version of it.

I know this was a reply to specs, but how does there not having to be an FDA or "a government agency at all" - but just "some sort of watchdog for the consumer with regards to claims made by companies" - conflict with or contradict anything I said in my post? And if it doesn't conflict with or contradict what I said (and if you genuinely believe what you said here), then what is there to disagree with?


[...] The reason the FDA even exists (other than we need more letter agencies :rolleyes:) is because during the civil war producers were using formaldehyde as a preservative of meat and it was killing people. Formaldehyde is probably one of the better ways to preserve meat so would you be in favor of using it again because of its effectiveness?

Seriously? Would I be "in favor" of using formaldehyde as a meat preservative? THAT is your rebuttal?? :rolleyes:

So if I said there should be no "War on Drugs" and that the DEA should not exist, would you ask me if I would be "in favor" of people dying from heroin overdoses? (Thereby suggesting that I am "in favor" of it - and/or that the only way to adequately deal with it is to accede to the existence of the "War on Drugs" & the DEA.)

Or if I said there should be no "War on Terror" and that the DHS should not exist, would you ask me if I would be "in favor" of terrorism? (Thereby suggesting that I am "in favor" of terrorism - and/or that the only way to adequately deal with it is to accede to the existence of the "War on Terror" & the DHS.)

Or [insert a similar question patterned on any of the thousands of possible combinations involving some problem and a government policy/agency whose ostensible purpose is to deal with the problem]? (Thereby suggesting that someone opposed to the existence of the government policy/agency is somehow "in favor" of the problem - and/or that the only way to adequately deal with the problem is to accede to the existence of the government policy/agency.)

If you want people to step in your rhetorical booby-traps, you really should cover them up better ...