FDA: Antibacterial soap ingredients unsafe and not effective

[Editor’s Note]

For more information about the dangers of Triclosan please read this:

Handwash Chemical Linked To Cancer

Image result for antibacterial soap FDA
Source: RTAmerica
September 2, 2016

There is insufficient evidence to prove that antibacterial soaps are superior to plain soap and water for killing germs and preventing illness, according to the US Food and Drug Administration. Additionally, antibacterial ingredients could be unsafe.

Regular hand- and body-washing methods trump the health benefits of antibacterial soaps and body washes, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said Friday after years of studying the issue. Furthermore, antibacterial soaps contain the chemicals triclosan and triclocarban, which are not proven to be safe for sustained use, the FDA said.

The FDA is now barring the marketing of over-the-counter antiseptic wash products containing certain active ingredients based on a lack of scientific evidence proving their effectiveness and safety.

“Companies will no longer be able to market antibacterial washes with these ingredients because manufacturers did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both safe for long-term daily use and more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections,” the FDA said in a statement.

The FDA’s rule applies to products that contain 19 active ingredients in antibacterial soaps. Manufacturers will have a year to remove those ingredients from their products. Three other chemicals — benzalkonium chloride, benzethonium chloride, and chloroxylenol — are currently undergoing more analysis for their safety and effectiveness.

The rule does not apply to hand sanitizers or hand wipes, though manufacturers were told by the FDA in June that they must prove active ingredients in over-the-counter consumer antiseptic rubs are safe and effective.

Triclosan, used in 93 percent of products listed as “antibacterial” or “antimicrobial,” breaks the cell walls of bacteria over the course of several hours, far longer than normal soap-and-water washing can kill bacteria. The chemical has been linked to hormonal disruption during testing on animals, the FDA said, yet there is no ultimate proof that it is harmful to humans. Studies have also indicated that triclosan use increases bacteria resistance to antibiotics.

“There’s no data demonstrating that these drugs provide additional protection from diseases and infections. Using these products might give people a false sense of security,”said Theresa M. Michele, of the FDA’s Division of Nonprescription Drug Products.

“If you use these products because you think they protect you more than soap and water, that’s not correct. If you use them because of how they feel, there are many other products that have similar formulations but won’t expose your family to unnecessary chemicals. And some manufacturers have begun to revise these products to remove these ingredients.”

Read More At: RTAmerica.com

FDA’s Latest Nutrition Label ‘Make Over’ Warns Consumers About Toxic Calorie Counts While Ignoring Noxious Genetically Modified Food & Toxic Chemical Additive

Source: NaturalNews.com
S.D. Wells
June 10, 2016

When will the government of the United States of America ever actually help Americans get healthy, and duly inform consumers about all food ingredients by utilizing honest food labels instead of using trickery and deception? Every year, the FDA and the USDA approve more and more food toxins, while covering up the health detriment they cause, all while leading people down a dark corridor of poor health.

Does it really matter if you “count calories” if all those calories are empty ones, devoid of all nutrition? Will it be helpful to limit or eliminate your “fat” intake, if you only limit or eliminate all the good fats – the kind your body needs to function properly? Did your MD bother to educate you about the difference between good fats and molecularly-altered “bad” fats? Labels were first focused on how much fat you eat, but since the FDA doesn’t educate anyone on bad fat versus good fat, it never mattered.

What if you get excited about some new labels on food because you’re supposed to watch your cholesterol, only to find out that you need cholesterol and your medical doctor and the labels steered you completely wrong? And then there’s sugar – the sugar that comes from genetically modified corn, highly concentrated (HFCS) which contains bug-killer and weed-killer that leads directly to cancer and diabetes. What difference does it really make if you “moderate” your poison intake? It’s still poison. Will you brag to your friends that you’re regulating and “reducing” your own poison intake because some new food labels are helping you?

The Associated Press recently published this new food label update: BigStory.AP.org

More ‘Big Food’ propaganda disguised as food label modifications

The FDA is actually announcing that serving sizes will be “less misleading.” How about not misleading at all? What if someone told you they would be less abusive to you – would you be excited about that? The size of the “calories” number will be much bigger and bolder. Now we are to “count calories” more easily, as if it matters whether you eat the whole can of toxic chili or half, or whether you eat six donuts or four, or you chomp down half the sack of hydrogenated-GM-oil-soaked chips or the whole bag.

Labels will give a new “percent daily value” for sugars, letting you know how much sugar is recommended for your “daily intake.” This is supposed to influence food manufacturers to put in less sugar at the factory. Does that mean they will simply insert more of those deadly chemical sweeteners in order to compensate for America’s sweet tooth, like aspartame, sucralose, sorbitol, saccharine and acesulfame potassium?

Basically each whole package of food will be a serving, so obese people feel less obese, and diabetics may feel less diabetic. No more guilt for eating that party-size bag of chips. That’s just one serving! Wait, you ate a whole box of cookies and drank a half-gallon of conventional milk? No problem. That was just a single serving.

The FDA is saying that, by law, serving sizes should be based on actual consumption habits and not ideal consumption, and since more than a third of Americans are obese, and half of the rest are overweight, that “Big Gulp” at 7/11 will become one serving. Are two double cheeseburgers and some super-sized fries just one helping? What’s next, a two-liter bottle of diet soda becoming one serving? Hey, look, no calories!

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

American Nurses Association Comment to the FDA: GMOs Aren’t Natural

GMO protest

Source: NaturalSociety.com
Christina Sarich
April 14, 2016

Thousands of comments have been filed with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since November 12, 2015 for its ‘open comment’ period on the ‘natural’ foods label. Helping to fill up the comments was The American Nurses Association, weighing in on how products containing genetically modified ingredients should not be allowed in any product labeled ‘natural.’

Executive director Debbie D. Hatmaker wrote in the organization’s comments:

“Furthermore, ANA requests that the FDA require clear, appropriate food labeling including the country-of-origin and any genetic modification of any of the food’s ingredients.

The public has a right to know the contents of their food and food products and the manner in which they were processed or modified.”

What is also interesting is the lack of comments by big players in the food industry. The North American Meat Institute and the Grocery Manufacturers Association joined to request more time to prepare comments and compile information.

Due to public requests, the comment period has been extended to May 10, 2016. You can make your comments, here. PLEASE DO!

You can also comment by mail:

For submissions by mail, use the following address.
Be sure to include docket number FDA-2014-N-1207 on each page of your written comments.
Division of Dockets Management
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Room 1061
Rockville, MD 20852

There have already been numerous lawsuits against companies for using the phrase ‘all natural’ on food products containing GMOs. Kashi had to pay $4 million in a false advertising lawsuit put forth in Florida. The lawsuit claimed that Kellogg’s, the parent company for Kashi, advertised an “all natural” (GM-free) product that was, in reality, full of genetically modified ingredients.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com


Christina Sarich is a humanitarian and freelance writer helping you to Wake up Your Sleepy Little Head, and See the Big Picture. Her blog is Yoga for the New World. Her latest book is Pharma Sutra: Healing the Body And Mind Through the Art of Yoga.

The FDA just banned fluorine-based chemicals in food packaging because of their toxicity … but won’t ban fluoride in public water supplies

Fluorine chemicals
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jennifer Lea Reynolds
February 26, 2016

In response to a petition filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Environmental Working Group (EWG), and other environmental groups, the FDA has announced that it will ban a variety of toxic food packaging chemicals and cancer-causing food flavoring chemicals – chemicals they had previously approved.(1)

Specifically, the food packaging chemicals they’re banning are all perfluorinated compounds (PFCs), which belong to a class of coating chemicals associated with causing cancers, neurological problems, hormone imbalances and other serious health problems. Items typically coated with PFCs include take-out food containers, non-stick cookware and pizza boxes.(1)

The organizations final ruling on the matter is stated as follows:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the food additive regulations to no longer provide for the use of three specific perfluoroalkyl ethyl containing food-contact substances (FCSs) as oil and water repellants for paper and paperboard for use in contact with aqueous and fatty foods because new data are available as to the toxicity of substances structurally similar to these compounds that demonstrate there is no longer a reasonable certainty of no harm from the food-contact use of these FCSs.

So, why isn’t the FDA banning fluoride in public water supplies?

While this is certainly good news, their move still begs the question: if fluorine-based chemicals, “… no longer [show] a reasonable certainty of no harm …” then why isn’t the FDA interested in banning fluoride in public water supplies?

Seriously, just because many people have it in their heads that fluoride builds healthy teeth (cavity prevention), and that it’s not harmful (because the medical professionals say so, because ads say so, etc.), that doesn’t make it true.

Health-conscious people like Natural News readers know this, but the point is that the FDA, which has regulatory oversight regarding tap water quality standards, isn’t on board with the concept that fluoride is unhealthy. In fact, they downright embrace fluoride in the water system; their website states that, “… fluoride is voluntarily added to some drinking water systems as a public health measure to help reduce the incidence of cavities among the population.”(3)

Most fluoride in tap water isn’t naturally-occurring; even some dentists say it’s not safe

The sad reality is that fluoride in water – contrary to what many people think – doesn’t necessarily come from naturally-occurring elements within the earth. Oh no, much of the fluoride that’s added to the public water system comes from industrial waste systems’ dangerous byproducts which haven’t even been tested to gauge safety levels. Needless to say, they certainly don’t do a thing for oral health, let alone other health aspects.(4)

Just ask Dr. Hardy Limeback. He’s a dentist and former head of preventative dentistry at the University of Toronto who used to be in favor of water fluoridation. Today, however, he sings a different tune, one that hones in on the harms of such a method. “The chemical used in over 90 percent of cities in North America are fluorosilicates,” he says. “[Fluorosilicates] are contaminated with cancer-causing arsenic and radioactive particles,” Dr. Limeback explains, “and have never been tested for safety in humans.”(4)

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

Health Officials Demand Black Box Warnings on Opioid Painkillers

pills painkiller white 735x350
Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
Christina Sarich

Public health directors across the United States are pressuring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to put a “black box” warning, the agency’s strongest warning, on prescription painkillers and sedatives. [1]

The demand, which comes in the form of a petition, comes as cities and states grapple with a growing epidemic of painkiller abuse.

The officials write in the petition submitted Monday:

“Only a few labels and medication guides contain specific information on the dangers of concurrent use of these two classes of medications; none contain black box warnings.”

The health directors want the warning to read:


The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently reported that opioid overdose deaths rose to nearly 19,000 in the United States in 2014, the most recent year on record. The prescription painkillers have also played a role in a wave of heroin overdoses in recent years, which is cheaper and easier to access than opioid drugs.

Photograph: National Institute on Drug Abuse

A study published last week in the American Journal of Public Health shows that overdose deaths have been soaring among Americans who use benzodiazepines, or “benzos,” a class of sedatives that includes Valium and Xanax. Researchers found that the death rate from overdoses of the drugs increased more than 4-fold since 1996. Benzo overdoses accounted for nearly 1/3 of the 23,000 deaths attributed to prescription drug overdoses in the U.S. in 2013.

Health officials noted in the petition that benzodiazepine-opioid combinations are especially deadly, and they are frequently prescribed together. For example, it is common for doctors to prescribe an opioid to a patient with acute pain, along with a benzodiazepine to treat muscle spasms. Often, an opioid is prescribed to treat pain alongside a benzodiazepine to treat a patient’s anxiety disorder.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

Need a Link Between Federal Reps and Big Pharma Companies? Here it is.

As Big Pharma Delays Guidelines For Prescribing Painkillers


Source: NaturalSociety.com
Julie Fidler
January 28, 2016

In an effort to cut prescription painkiller addiction and overdose deaths, the CDC created prescribing guidelines. But it looks like Big Pharma is delaying those guidelines, likely to protect drug sales.

Under the proposed guidelines, doctors would prescribe patients non-opioid painkillers first for chronic pain, and only prescribe opioids, like OxyContin, if the non-opioid drugs don’t work. The agency also wants physicians to prescribe the smallest amount of the drugs possible, typically 3 days or less for acute pain. Doctors would only continue prescribing the drugs if patients show significant improvement. [1]

Those guidelines were set to go into effect this month, but last month, the agency abandoned its January release date amid harsh criticism from drug-makers, industry-funded organizations, and public health officials.

A federal panel – the Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (IPRCC) – has been one of the guidelines’ most vocal opponents. The panel, consisting of federal scientists, outside academics, and patient representatives, has a lot to lose from the release of the directive.

Nearly 1/3 of members on the committee have financial ties to dangerous prescription painkiller makers. [2]

Earlier this month, U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials and other agencies convened a meeting of pain experts, where at least 5 of the 18 committee members who attended had Big Pharma connections.

One of those Big Pharma shills is a pain specialist from Duke University who has received thousands of dollars from drug manufacturers, such as Purdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin, and Teva Pharmaceuticals, which sells generic painkillers.

The Duke University professor, Dr. Richard Payne, who implied that the experts who helped to draft the CDC guidelines had undisclosed “conflicts of interests in terms of biases, intellectual conflicts,” has financial links to numerous drug companies. Between 2013 and 2014, Payne received $8,660 in speaking fees, meals, travel accommodations, and other payments from pain drug-makers, according to federal records.

More than half of that amount came from Purdue Pharma, which raked in $2.5 billion in OxyContin sales in 2014.

Additionally, Payne holds a chair at the Center for Practical Bioethics, a Kansas City nonprofit with longstanding ties to Purdue, Teva, Endo Pharmaceuticals, and other drug-makers. The Center for Practical Bioethics claims that drug and device manufacturers have contributed approximately 4-5% of its funding in the last 4 years, but the center does not publish specific donation amounts.

Payne is just one example of panel members who have a clear conflict of interest. Another member connected to the drug-industry, a patient advocate, holds a nonprofit position created by a $1.5 million donation from Purdue Pharma.

At least 3 other panelists who attended the meeting work for nonprofits that receive funding from Big Pharma, including The U.S. Pain Foundation, the American Chronic Pain Association, and the Chronic Pain Research Alliance, all of which receive funding from Purdue Pharma. [3]

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com