Q-tips are fascinating in that their primary use is actively discouraged by their makers and medical professionals.
Or, as the Washington Post put it, "Q-tips are one of the only, if not the only, major consumer products whose main purpose is precisely the one the manufacturer explicitly warns against."
"In 1990, a piece published in The Washington Post joked that telling people to use the swabs on "the outer surfaces of the ear without entering the ear canal," as Q-tips packages do, was akin to asking smokers to dangle cigarettes from their lips without ever lighting them....
On the FDA's website, it does say that swabs are classified as medical devices because they're "used to apply medications to, or to take specimens from, a patient." But it also says the same for cotton balls.
Neither the FDA nor the CPSC could explain why the commission was tracking injuries associated with cotton balls, but not cotton swabs. The CPSC suggested reaching out to the FDA. The FDA suggested reaching out to the CPSC. In the end, no one had an answer.
But the discrepancy has a significant effect: It means it's much harder to quantify the number of Q-tips-related injuries that occur each year in the United States. The FDA houses complaints on its website, but doesn't add them up.
"It would be very tedious to figure out how many injuries associated with cotton swabs were reported each year," said Deborah Kotz, an FDA spokeswoman.""
Or, as the Washington Post put it, "Q-tips are one of the only, if not the only, major consumer products whose main purpose is precisely the one the manufacturer explicitly warns against."
"In 1990, a piece published in The Washington Post joked that telling people to use the swabs on "the outer surfaces of the ear without entering the ear canal," as Q-tips packages do, was akin to asking smokers to dangle cigarettes from their lips without ever lighting them....
On the FDA's website, it does say that swabs are classified as medical devices because they're "used to apply medications to, or to take specimens from, a patient." But it also says the same for cotton balls.
Neither the FDA nor the CPSC could explain why the commission was tracking injuries associated with cotton balls, but not cotton swabs. The CPSC suggested reaching out to the FDA. The FDA suggested reaching out to the CPSC. In the end, no one had an answer.
But the discrepancy has a significant effect: It means it's much harder to quantify the number of Q-tips-related injuries that occur each year in the United States. The FDA houses complaints on its website, but doesn't add them up.
"It would be very tedious to figure out how many injuries associated with cotton swabs were reported each year," said Deborah Kotz, an FDA spokeswoman.""
No comments:
Post a Comment