On the shelf, various products with anti-bacterial markings, ranging from clothing and utensils to toys and skin protections, appear to be an anti-bacterial shield, attracting consumers to pay for the health of their families. But there’s an error in it: products with antibacterial markers must have reliable antibacterial effects. This has led many people to fall into the “suspension trap” when they choose to buy, but it is a serious problem.
The antibacterial marker is the product’s special “identity card” and, under the relevant criteria, an enterprise can be identified only if it has been tested that the product is capable of inhibiting and destroying a particular bacteria. Ideally, it would be like a silent defender who would reduce the probability of bacteria surviving and reproducing on the surface of objects, such as antibacterium panels, which would reduce cross-contaminated foods and guard table safety; antibacterial textiles, which inhibit skin harmful bacteria, and “negative” for the most allergic population. In reality, there is often a “disconnect” gap between marking and effectiveness.
Some bad traders use information asymmetrical “spread fish”. For the benefit of each other, normal products are labelled without formal testing, or the results are tampered with or exaggerated and packaged in seemingly non-antibacterial terms. Like plastic water cups that claim to be “nano-antibacterial”, nanonap is a material scale and has nothing to do with antibacterial core technology; there are also “natural plant antibacterial” fabrics that do not mention the actual antibacterial capacity, effective concentration of plant components and mislead consumers into thinking that they are natural. These false marking products, which are “defunct” in the event of a bacterial attack, cannot provide physical protection.
Even with honest indications, antibacterial effects are constrained by a number of factors. For example, antibacterial paints have just been painted on the wall in time of use, and antibacterial ion activity is high and prevents bacteria from being removed from the surface of the wall; as daily wear and light aging, the active ingredient degrades, the antibacterial effect is significantly reduced after several years, and the signability does not “real time update” notification. Environmental conditions are even more critical, and anti-bacterial plastic dishes in dry and dry kitchens are resistant, with frequent exposure to high concentrations of organic stains at the wet and hot southern moist season, bacteria sewing and scratching, breaking anti-bacterial lines and causing a rising risk of food-borne diseases.
At a deeper level, standards differences and regulatory challenges breed “breeding land” for error. The antibacterial standard for different industries is “separated”, with the textile industry focusing on dermal swarm inhibition, with a focus on golden fungus and coli; and the plastics industry focusing on antibacterial durability of its own antibacterial material, with different types and methods of detection of bacteria. This makes it difficult for consumers to discern the advantages and disadvantages of cross-cutting product labelling. Regulatoryly, the market is large, products are up-to-date, spot checks are difficult to cover, and some of the violations of the “failed fish” flow to the terminal, confusing and confusing.
To get out of the error zone, there is a need for “internal and external repair”. Consumers must not simply “see the list” when shopping; they must study product instructions and compare the details of the different brands, such as experimental bacterial species, inflammation rates, test cycles; and take note of the oral evaluation, taking into account the opinion of professional evaluation bodies and verifying resistance from multiple dimensions. Regulatory authorities should consolidate standards, harmonize core antibacterial norms and pull up industry scales; strengthen routine and specialized spot-checks, use large data and Internet-based technologies to track antibacterial performance after product sale, impose heavy penalties for forgery and increase the cost of non-compliance. Industry associations promote self-regulation, regularly publicize quality products, expose poor enterprises and lead to good competition. Only then can the antibacterial marker return to its true nature as a true symbol of healthy, trustworthy quality, rather than a “false halo” that confuses the general population.
