• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

FDA has a few questions for makers of hand sanitizer

NAC4EV

Golden Member
WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal health officials want to know whether hand sanitizers used by millions of Americans work as well as manufacturers claim — and whether there are any health risks to their growing use.
The Food and Drug Administration is asking for new studies on how the antiseptic gels and rubs fight germs and get absorbed into the body, with a particular focus on children and pregnant women. The proposal unveiled Wednesday is part of an ongoing government effort to review decades-old chemicals that have never had a comprehensive federal review.
Agency officials stressed that the review "does not mean the FDA believes these products are ineffective or unsafe."
article-urn:publicid:ap.org:432fbc319d8943148817effbb5d3f92c-2DIJTI7sI96fe465fe38596ab3c4-476_634x422.jpg


FILE - This Wednesday, April 29, 2009, file photo, shows hand sanitizer on a shelf at a pharmacy in Plano, Texas. Federal health officials want to know whether hand sanitizers used by millions of Americans are as effective at fighting germs as manufacturers claim, and whether there are any health risks to their use. (AP Photo/Donna McWilliam, File)

Hand sanitizers have become nearly ubiquitous over the last 20 years, offered in workplaces, schools, restaurants and other public spaces to reduce the spread of germs. Since 2009, about 90 percent of sanitizers sold to the public have included either ethanol or ethyl alcohol, according to agency officials.
Under current regulations, manufacturers can make broad claims about their products' effectiveness in killing germs. Bottles of Purell hand sanitizer, for example, say: "Kills 99.99 percent of illness-causing germs."
FDA regulators suggested they may tighten such claims after reviewing the information submitted by manufacturers.
"We're not trying to alarm people," said Dr. Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's drug center. "Obviously ethanol and humans have co-existed for a long time so there's a lot that's known about it."
But the agency has concerns about the possible long-term consequences of frequent use by children and women of child-bearing age, particularly those who are pregnant or breast feeding. The agency's proposal would require manufacturers to study whether three anti-germ ingredients — ethanol, alcohol and a type of chloride — show up in blood or urine after repeated, daily use. That could mean that the chemicals may be affecting the reproductive system or the production of hormones.
Regulators are also concerned about possible links between use of antiseptic chemicals and the emergence of so-called superbug bacteria, which are resistant to antibiotics.
"We need to get this additional information so if there are situations where caution is warranted we can label that or inform the public," Woodcock said.
The American Cleaning Institute, a cleaning products trade organization, said it believes the FDA already "has a wealth of data on hand sanitizers in their possession to judge them as generally recognized as safe and effective." But the group said it would work to provide the information.
The FDA will take comments on its proposal for six months before finalizing it. Companies will have one year to submit the information requested by regulators.
The FDA review is part of a long-established bureaucratic process which was recently jumpstarted by a lawsuit against the agency.
FDA scientists were first charged with evaluating antiseptic soaps, scrubs and sprays in 1972 as part of a law designed to set guidelines for hundreds of drugs and chemicals that were already on the market but had never been formally reviewed.
The agency agreed to complete its review under a legal settlement in 2013 with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group that accused the government of delaying action on potentially dangerous chemicals.
Environmentalists are mainly concerned about an ingredient called triclosan, which was used in many antibacterial soaps. The FDA is collecting safety and effectiveness data on that chemical with the goal of issuing new rules on its use by early 2018.
___
 
i've only used this stuff a handful of times in my entire life. i tend to just wash my hands if they are dirty, not pretend like i did with this stuff.
 
I really haven't used hand sanitizers that much. I do use them on my infrequent trips to hospitals or medicals centers. They do ask that you use them.

From my label reading, hand sanitizers are more than 50% alcohol. Alcohol has been around for a long time, but its use these days is unprecedented. So while these are over-the-counter products, I think it is a good idea for the manufacturers to study its use. I don't know how many of these products are made overseas, particularly in China. And how much influence does the FDA have and want to have over foreign manufacturers.

I do avoid soaps with anti-bacterial agents like Triclosan, which is legal, but is linked in medical studies with rats to cancer. I think these product are in a different class than hand sanitizers.
 
90 percent of sanitizers sold to the public have included either ethanol or ethyl alcohol,


The world would be much better off if the journalists who wrote these articles understood what they were writing about.
 
As with any public product, proper use comes into play too. A lot of people half-ass the application, lowering it's effectiveness. They don't use enough, don't rub it all over their hands, have actual infected material on their hands, etc.
 
As with any public product, proper use comes into play too. A lot of people half-ass the application, lowering it's effectiveness. They don't use enough, don't rub it all over their hands, have actual infected material on their hands, etc.
When I get a shot, the nurse will rub the surrounding area with alcohol. So why would a hand sanitizer, which is mostly alcohol, be a problem with having a infected material on one's hands? Isn't the function of the hand santizer to kill bacteria? Also how does one know how much is sufficient?
 
Then again,
The agency's proposal would require manufacturers to study whether three anti-germ ingredients — ethanol, alcohol and a type of chloride — show up in blood or urine after repeated, daily use.
this sounds like the fault of both the FDA and journalist - and if the FDA doesn't have a wealth of data on the absorption of ethanol through the skin, I'd be very, very surprised. If I had to venture a guess, I'd think the real issue is whether or not the alcohol aids the other chemicals in the hand sanitizer in moving through the skin barrier. I think this mentions that: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2596158/

Also, the ethanol wouldn't show up - the metabolites would show up.
 
Last edited:
When I get a shot, the nurse will rub the surrounding area with alcohol. So why would a hand sanitizer, which is mostly alcohol, be a problem with having a infected material on one's hands? Isn't the function of the hand santizer to kill bacteria? Also how does one know how much is sufficient?

Over use is the problem, as in the use of prolific antibiotics the 00.01% the sanitizer does not kill soon breeds to becomes the 99.99% present on your hands.
 
Hand sanitizer has it's place, like having a portable way of washing your hands after you pee in the bush or other situation where you're out in a place that has no proper washroom. But if a faucet is available it's probably best to wash your hands for real if you need to wash them for anything.
 
Should just ban those things for general public

Don't agree. I am happy the market has them near the meats, nothing was more gross than picking up a blood soaked package then having to shop. Worth looking into their safety/effectiveness but a ban isn't the solution.
 
As a person who hates himself I project onto any unknown my hate for myself and an sure that any on known is out to get me. Some of the things I fear are germs, too small to see, radiation, invisible, GMOs, pesticides, God, and conservative brain defectives, you have to admit, though, that those germ killing soaps, for whatever terrors they may contain, are easy to get soap on your hands. I do like that because I am often just too exhausted from worry, to pick up a bar of ivory.
 
The world would be much better off if the journalists who wrote these articles understood what they were writing about.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

You mean my water has been tainted with dihydrogen monoxide? D:

---

The normal use of these things is perfectly fine, but keeping one in mom's purse and applying it about 4 times per day for the non-physician human being is a very bad idea in the long run.

There isn't anything chemically in these gels that is problematic. It is the over-application of them that is concerning. This is what tends to lead to MRSA or flesh-eating bacteria problems in individuals. Normal bacterial load on the human body is very effective at keeping the evil flesh-eating stuff in check. But once you start killing those off with 3 or more zaps per day, the flesh-eating beasties have a chance to establish themselves in a less-competitive environment and will seriously wreck your shit on even the smallest paper cut.
 
Last edited:
Don't agree. I am happy the market has them near the meats, nothing was more gross than picking up a blood soaked package then having to shop. Worth looking into their safety/effectiveness but a ban isn't the solution.

right, these are fine in specific areas and for very specific applications: mounted dispensers for non-constant, non-normal use.

These absolutely should not exist on store shelves to be put in purses or day bags for constant daily use.

The only humans that should be using them multiple times per day are physicians, as this is explicitly what they were designed for. J&J of course never was restricted by how they should market these or general efficacy outside of their designed environment, so they started packing them in cute little squirt bottles and turned the marketing hype to maximum re: the evils of the common public playground or public transportation. D:
 
i've only used this stuff a handful of times in my entire life. i tend to just wash my hands if they are dirty, not pretend like i did with this stuff.

Some day, America will be a first world nation with running water and sewage access for all citizens. Until then, I'll keep rubbing alcohol on my hands.
 
Ethanol does not exert its effects on microorganisms the same way that antibiotics do. Ethanol fundamentally messes up the lipid membrane and proteins, essentially it is an antiseptic chemical for most living cellular life (and viruses) on Earth. Developing resistance to ethanol isn't the same as developing resistance to an antibiotic, cells would have to fundamentally alter their cellular membranes and proteins to develop resistance. This would mean the barrier to resistance to ethanol is quite high, and there has not been a report of an acquired resistance to ethanol to date. Certainly there are cellular structures (like spores) that are resistant to ethanol, but this is not really an option for growing and dividing organisms.

For anyone interested in the activity, resistance, safety of various products used in hand sanitation, see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC523567/

Kampf G, Kramer A.Epidemiologic background of hand hygiene and evaluation of the most important agents for scrubs and rubs.Clin Microbiol Rev. 2004 Oct;17(4):863-93.
 
its funny the FDA worries itself about hand sanitizers when they are neither food nor drugs, but they completely ignore all nutritional supplements.
 
You can thank Orrin Hatch for that. He's championed the monster that the supplement industry has become, and allowed them to continue their shenanigans of false hope of "natural remedies."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/the-politics-of-fraudulent-dietary-supplements.html?_r=0

Oh I already know all about him.

He's the one that said you shouldnt try to fix a broken system. He neglected to mention there is no system in place for supplements.

Asshat. I'd like to kick his balls.
 
Thanks OP, will pay attention. We use this stuff in our vehicles to limit exposure to germs for my parents. Will be interesting to see how it plays out...
 
You can thank Orrin Hatch for that. He's championed the monster that the supplement industry has become, and allowed them to continue their shenanigans of false hope of "natural remedies."
What's even more disgusting is the push for making people like 'naturopaths' licensed and attempting to give them legitimacy in the practice of their pseudoscience.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...and-the-licensing-of-naturopaths-in-michigan/
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...-gives-naturopaths-a-broad-scope-of-practice/


article in OP said:
Regulators are also concerned about possible links between use of antiseptic chemicals and the emergence of so-called superbug bacteria, which are resistant to antibiotics.

This doesn't surprise me. Antiseptics, even if chemically distinct from antibiotics, can give rise to antibiotic resistance, as general resistance genes become favored by the local bacterial populations.

----------
I think this is pretty relevant with respect to those hand sanitizers:

 
Last edited:
Back
Top