At a time when health consumption is increasing, antibacterial products become new to the market, and the words “antibacteria” in advertising, packaging, “inactivism” and so forth capture the eyes of the consumer and draw the heartline of the consumer to protect health. However, there is a misperception that products with anti-bacterial propaganda can be listed without physical testing. This faulty zone, which seems to be hidden in the basket, could at any time harm consumers and disrupt market order.
Antibacterial products cover a wide range of areas of life, from kitchen foods, bathing equipment to garments and children ‘ s toys. In theory, they inhibit bacterial growth and reproduction, reduce the risk of infection and protect the health of families. This guarantee is based on rigorous testing. In the formal process, a product that claims to be anti-bacterial is subject to multiple “gaps”. The first is a laboratory simulation of real environments: a simulation of kitchen oil, high temperature, damp, considering whether antibacterial cooks can withstand a “baking” test; and a simulation of human sweat fluids, skin frictions to test the sustainability of antibacterial fabrics. At the same time, several representative bacteria are selected, such as colibacteria, which endangers the health of the intestinal tract, the golden vegella, which causes skin inflammation, and the fungus that tends to breed in humid conditions, and their inhibition or extinction is tested on a case-by-case basis. Only when all aspects of the product are met will the product be allowed to be marked as antibacterial and to enter the market.
The reality is not as good as it should be, and false antibacterial propaganda sometimes occurs. Some of the bad traders are motivated to try to take a shortcut. They are only conceptualized and do not actually perform any formal testing in the form of “high-tech antibacterial material” or “super-emulsive bacteria” in product packaging. For example, some web-red “antibacterial” plastic water cups, with the label “Namic antibacterial” claiming to prevent the bacterium from growing, are just ordinary plastics, without any special antibacterial treatment, and, when used by consumers, are used as a scavenging place.
There are also businesses that play “text games” and confuse things with vague expressions. The message, which reads “effective resistance to bacteria,” appears to be anti-bacterial, avoids critical detection data and experimental support and leads consumers to believe that they have professional certification. Some children’s toys claim “to care for the health of the baby and to reduce bacterial contact”, and parents think that they have bought safe toys, that untested toys are covered with bacteria, that children are exposed frequently to play, and that there is an increase in the risks of hand-and-foot oral diseases, respiratory infections, etc.
It’s dangerous. In the case of individuals, the use of untested antibacterial products not only prevents bacterial infections, but may also cause health hazards due to exposure to poor antibacterial components, such as the volatilization of certain substandard antibacterial paints, contamination of indoor air and respiratory discomfort. From a market perspective, “bad money to expel good money”, the use of cheap, pretentious propaganda products to take over the market, squeezing the space of formal antibacterial enterprises and hindering the development of good industry, and in the long run, consumers find it difficult to find good quality antibacterial products.
In order to break this misdeed and defend their rights and interests, consumers have to practice “the golden eye of fire” when shopping. Read the product description in detail, and request to see the official test reports, and to see key information such as experimental bacterial species, antibacterial rates; do not blindly follow the windnet red products, with more reference to professional assessments, verb evaluations. The regulatory authorities should be more careful with the “supervisory sword” and should step up their efforts to check against the products, so as to combat false propaganda and increase the cost of violating the law; improve the regulatory standards and clarify the boundaries of antibacterial propaganda and the requirements for detection, so that products with antibacterial propaganda must be “validized” and re-establish a healthy, honest market for antibacterial products.
