Does anyone else remember wondering whether soaps that kill 99.99% of germs on your hands are doing more harm than good? No? Didn’t think so. Most people are gullible when it comes to fraudulent advertising. But if you went to high school, you know that a balance of so-called germs are what protect us from hostile bacteria. It’s one of the reasons we eat yogurt – we put bacteria into our bodies to feed the intestinal flora that keep our digestive engines running smoothly.
But when it comes to hands, people seem to think they’re like spoons or cutting boards: they must be nuked of all biological life or anything they touch will kill us. Kill us!
The US’s FDA, not a government body I’m fond of, has shocked me with a ruling that stems from common sense. It took them a few years, but that’s what happens when bloated bureaucracies undergo a process that any educated person goes through in less than an hour.
In short, they’ve banned the plethora of soaps containing ingredients that purportedly create this magical 99.99% efficacy. It’s about damned time.
A clever (although I suspect unintentional given Quartz’s liberal POV) double entendre in the article’s title:
With a new ban on antibacterial soap, the US government is finally acknowledging that it’s not just ineffective, it’s also dangerous
Which way did you read it? That antibacterial soap is ineffective and dangerous? Or that the US government is ineffective and dangerous? I think you know how I read it.