Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo

Cosmetic recall


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Geis

Phil Geis

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts
14
Good

Posted 04 March 2012 - 07:47 AM

Recent FDA enforcement reports include a cosmetic recall - due to Staphylococcus aureus and fungal contamination reportedly traced to pump components. Perhaps involved is the product's preservative system - an enzyme system of limited capability compared to more conventional cosmetic preservatives.

http://www.fda.gov/S...s/ucm293085.htm

#2 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 05 March 2012 - 05:37 AM

amazing.
it seems weird that you have S. aureus/fungal growth in a night cream, altough, they dont really mention growth, they are present, but dead or alive..?

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#3 gebirgsziege

gebirgsziege

    I like fungi

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 05 March 2012 - 05:40 AM

usually such things only happen when people make their own "healthy" cosmetics.....
A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. (Oscar Wilde)

#4 Phil Geis

Phil Geis

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts
14
Good

Posted 05 March 2012 - 07:08 AM

These would be viable, and staph aureus would probably indicate alot of hand operations. The product did make claims toward a "natural
formula without parabens and the preservative system was pretty wimpy. Grb is right - home-made stuff often is fouled with bug and users don;t even know it.s

#5 gebirgsziege

gebirgsziege

    I like fungi

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:01 AM

no they even claim they are using more healthy stuff.....we always make our students test their homemade cosmetics if they have any - you would not belive the CFU counts.......Posted Image
A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. (Oscar Wilde)

#6 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:19 AM

no they even claim they are using more healthy stuff.....we always make our students test their homemade cosmetics if they have any - you would not belive the CFU counts.......Posted Image


In my opinion its not about how many (the count, or even how many species) its about about which species.
(not saying that you dont need to work sterile etc)

But still, I wonder whats in that cream (or whats not), making it possible that bacteria/fungi can grow in it.
(for example, as Phil Geis allready mentioned, without parabens)

Edited by pito, 05 March 2012 - 10:20 AM.

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#7 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,525 posts
97
Excellent

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:23 AM

Perhaps the "Nourishing" has to be taken literally...Posted Image
One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.

#8 Phil Geis

Phil Geis

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts
14
Good

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:00 PM

In the US - cosmetic is "adulterated" criteira include presnce of pathogneic microbes like staph aureus if it includes an excessive level of microbes in general or if it was made, packaged, etc under filthy conditions..
It's much more common that microbiolgical contamination of cosmetics involved Gram negative bacteria - esp. pseudomonads , many of which can grow in dstilled water to 10E5 cfu / ml.
Here;s the ingredint list - as you see there's a bunch of natural stuff.- the preservative cinsists of enzym that generate small amounts of hydrogen peroxide,
Water (aqua), helianthus annuus (sunflower) seed oil*, vegetable glycerin (from vegetable oils), cetearyl olivate & sorbitan olivate (from olive oil), sesamum indicum (sesame) seed oil*, cocos nucifera (coconut) oil*, beeswax*, glucose, xanthan gum (natural thickener), chondrus crispus (carrageenan), tocopherol (natural vitamin E), organic soliga forest honey*, benzyl benzoate#, benzyl salicylate#, glucose oxidase, lactoperoxidase, origanum majorana (sweet marjoram) leaf oil*, olea europaea (olive) fruit oil*, vetiveria zizanoides (vetiver) root oil*, pogostemon cablin (patchouli) oil*, cinnamomum cassia (cassia) leaf oil, rosmarinus officinalis (rosemary) leaf oil*, ricinus communis (castor) seed oil*, prunus amygdalus dulcis (almond) oil*, hibiscus abelmoschuus (ambrette) extract*, camellia sinensis (tea) leaf extract*

#9 gebirgsziege

gebirgsziege

    I like fungi

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2012 - 01:17 AM

yes, but homemade cosmetics often include milk products or plants that are added - and the temperature is often not right or people use a mixture of oil and wax which results in a perfect "nutrishing" environment for microbes.
People also tend to forget that the preservatives used in cosmetics also help to stabilise the product.

edit: you are partly right pito, but would you like to use a cream on your skin with a CFU count of 10^13 bacteria/g fresh weight? I definitly would not.

Edited by gebirgsziege, 06 March 2012 - 01:28 AM.

A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. (Oscar Wilde)

#10 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2012 - 02:43 AM

yes, but homemade cosmetics often include milk products or plants that are added - and the temperature is often not right or people use a mixture of oil and wax which results in a perfect "nutrishing" environment for microbes.
People also tend to forget that the preservatives used in cosmetics also help to stabilise the product.

edit: you are partly right pito, but would you like to use a cream on your skin with a CFU count of 10^13 bacteria/g fresh weight? I definitly would not.


To be honest: if those bacteria are harmless.. I wouldnt care too much. I think, in general, that people are too "clean" at the moment. There is this idea that all microbes have to be killed and everything has to be very very very sterile.
I dont believe in it.

I am not saying there should be no control at all or that we should all start making our own products filled with "germs", but we need to be realistic about it too.

The only reason (often) to make products sterile or add preservatives to cosmetic creams is to prevent "bad" bacteria to grow in it, but at the same time we kill the good ones.
So (in my opinion) its not about making sterile cream, but its about making sure there are no bad ones in it.. but the good ones.. we just get rid of them "by accident".

Altough, I think this kind of reasoning is not the case anymore, people just see it as: get rid of all the bacteria, because they are all bad...

And think about the cream with bacteria in it: why not put it on your face (taking in act they are harmless bacteria) ? Think about how many bacteria there are on your face/skin anyway?
What about those "expensive" products with bacteria added to it to put on your body/in your body to be healty..
(I know there are creams out there with bacteria added to it to make your skin better! I mean, would you then put it on your face? Anyway, its not a regular cream, I cant remember exactly what is was, but it was some kind of special cream you could buy in asia)
Or what about those "mud baths", there are some using "natural mud" , There are some filled with more bacteria then you can imagine, and people are rolling in it and loving it.


I have spoken to people that used bleach and other products to clean their house and themself because they wanted to killed all "the germs", but at the same time they ate yoghurt/other food with microbes in it. And if I told them they have more "germs" in them then human cells.. they looked at me as if I was some idiot...
People need to be more realistic and only take action when needed.
Or if they take action, know why and not just clean "everything".

But, again, I am not saying there should not be any quality control on microbial growht

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#11 gebirgsziege

gebirgsziege

    I like fungi

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:31 AM

yes pito you are right, people are really getting crazy about bacteria and microbes in general. I hate these people running around with desinfectant wipes all the time to get themselves and their surrounding tidy. Recently somebody refused to shake my hand because I did not use a desinfectand wipe immediatly after lunch - INSANE.

I recently came across an article saying that controlled, regular opening of hospital windows reduces the number of infections with antibiotic resistant bacteria by (it think it was) 50 % - which is very likely true. However people are getting crazy about microbes recently - the worst I have seen so far is an anti-bacterial body lotion - no further comments on this.

However back to topic: these homemade creams contain bacteria which are (sometimes) no direct health risk, but the metabolites they produce often trigger allergic reactions. Talk to any allergologist and they will tell you that the savest way to develop allergies is to make your own cosmetics - and this is partly because of microbial metabolites.
I would never use skin care with added bacteria and would not recomend anybod to do so. The same is true for all kind of fancy food products like yoghurt - I like yoghurt, but I would never buy one because of a ultra healthy bacterial strain used - but commented on this in anthother topic recently ;)

A certain amount of quality control is neccessary - as I know people who think Ecoli is needed to make proper cheese......
A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. (Oscar Wilde)

#12 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:44 AM

I

yes pito you are right, people are really getting crazy about bacteria and microbes in general. I hate these people running around with desinfectant wipes all the time to get themselves and their surrounding tidy. Recently somebody refused to shake my hand because I did not use a desinfectand wipe immediatly after lunch - INSANE.

I recently came across an article saying that controlled, regular opening of hospital windows reduces the number of infections with antibiotic resistant bacteria by (it think it was) 50 % - which is very likely true. However people are getting crazy about microbes recently - the worst I have seen so far is an anti-bacterial body lotion - no further comments on this.

I would never use skin care with added bacteria and would not recomend anybod to do so. The same is true for all kind of fancy food products like yoghurt - I like yoghurt, but I would never buy one because of a ultra healthy bacterial strain used - but commented on this in anthother topic recently Posted Image

A certain amount of quality control is neccessary - as I know people who think Ecoli is needed to make proper cheese......


I am not going to comment on most of what you wrote, because I agree!

But this part I have to comment on:


However back to topic: these homemade creams contain bacteria which are (sometimes) no direct health risk, but the metabolites they produce often trigger allergic reactions. Talk to any allergologist and they will tell you that the savest way to develop allergies is to make your own cosmetics - and this is partly because of microbial metabolites.


I do not agree with it!

Why? Very simple: there is no agreement on what you wrote about the allergies being formed because of the contact with the bacteria!
(altough, its true, if you come in contact with certain products day after day, year after year, you can develop an allergy, however, it also has a lot to do with the fact we are too clean from birth one, as I mention down below).

And to be even more bold==> many scientist are now claiming th opposite! Its because of the lack of contact with allergens (bacteria play an important role in this) that we develop more and more allergies!

I can agree with you that and that allergologist that the generation now, people being adult now, would indeed be able to develop an allergy much faster, but why is this? Well, its because they didnt grow up with the "bacteria" ! Because they were too clean! But in general, its just not true that you would develop an allergy so fast because of those bacteria.
I dont know if you saw those papers about farmkids vs city kids and allergies?

Of course, some attention have to go to the microbial status of those products and yeah, you shoudnt wipe all kinds of "dirty" stuf on your face.


One little question: would you thus never "use" a mud bath?


And about the shaking hands thing: what an idiot ! (well its not that they are idiotic per se, they are made idioitc by the commercials and society).

+ the anti bacterial lotion??? Are you serious? Is this in the shops for sale??? Or is this some special product for burn victims perhaps that some idiot made commercial?

Edited by pito, 06 March 2012 - 03:46 AM.

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.


#13 gebirgsziege

gebirgsziege

    I like fungi

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts
25
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2012 - 03:58 AM

seen the anti bacterial lotion in a fancy beaut shop - so definitly nothing with any medical relation. I regret that I have not taken a photo of it......

I am well aware of the "hygine hypthesis" but the homemade creams have nothing to do with this. Putting (uncharacterised or characterised) bacteria on you skin using skin care that lacks any hygine testing etc does definitly not make your immune system any better to defend allergies.

I would not use a mud bath on purpose - as I think it is stupid to pay an awful lot of money for such stuff, however I will not start to panic when I "accidentially" fall into one.
A man cannot be too careful in the choice of his enemies. (Oscar Wilde)

#14 Phil Geis

Phil Geis

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 211 posts
14
Good

Posted 06 March 2012 - 04:14 AM

Pito - there clearly have been infections and even deaths associated with contaminated cosmetics. There are no data saying preservatives in those cosmetics change normal flora and I'm familiar with studies that say they don't. Granted, those at greatest risk for infection due to contaminated cosmetics are the immunocompromised - those suffering chonic illnesses such as diabetesand AIDs, pregnant women, the very old and very young, folks on immunosuppressive therapy and they represent probably 30% of the US population.
One is not "too clean" and the hygiene hypothesis is silly. We've all seen the over-interpreted reports that farm kids whom presumably have greater exposure to antigens have less asthma but there are no data and it's not reasonable that folks in any environment but a stetile one are not constantly exposed to immunologic stimulus.
Based on relevant data with commerical cosmetics, the home-made stuff clearly is a health risk and there is no regulatory control or reporting system that address or follow the consequences of that risk

Edited by Phil Geis, 06 March 2012 - 04:48 AM.


#15 pito

pito

    Veteran

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,328 posts
80
Excellent

Posted 06 March 2012 - 05:13 AM

Pito - there clearly have been infections and even deaths associated with contaminated cosmetics. There are no data saying preservatives in those cosmetics change normal flora and I'm familiar with studies that say they don't. Granted, those at greatest risk for infection due to contaminated cosmetics are the immunocompromised - those suffering chonic illnesses such as diabetesand AIDs, pregnant women, the very old and very young, folks on immunosuppressive therapy and they represent probably 30% of the US population.
One is not "too clean" and the hygiene hypothesis is silly. We've all seen the over-interpreted reports that farm kids whom presumably have greater exposure to antigens have less asthma but there are no data and it's not reasonable that folks in any environment but a stetile one are not constantly exposed to immunologic stimulus.
Based on relevant data with commerical cosmetics, the home-made stuff clearly is a health risk and there is no regulatory control or reporting system that address or follow the consequences of that risk


I agree with what you say about the infections and all the rest, however I do not agree with the idea that the hygiene hypothesis is silly.

We all know how the immune system works and its crucial that we need to come in contact with allergens/pathogens in order to build up our immunesystem.

And about "there is no data"? There is data.. Altough its hard to prove it, but there is data/prove that there are more people (%) with asthma in the group of city kids vs farm kids.
But its true that we still need to do research on this. As for example in belgium they are doing this right now, they are working on the impact of bacterial components in small particles and how this can influence our life/immunesystem.
And have your read the studies about children being "raised" in daycenters vs kids that stayed at home during their first years?
Those studies are clear too: kids that went to daycenters (or came in contact with many others) became more ill at young age, but not so much at older age + they didnt develop allergies as fast/as much as the other kids that stayed at home.

But then again, I must admit, its hard to prove these things, its a delicate/difficult subject.

And that its not possible to be "too clean" , I dont agree with it...
Its clear that we need that contact with "dirt" for our own immune system.. this is proven before with (farm)animals many times.. (with people its hard to prove) but its clear that we need those bacteria to boost our immunesystem.

About the "sterile environment" and not constantly exposed to stimulus: there was a study a few years ago that followed labanimals and they had the "normal" ones and the "sterile" ones. (sterile being more cleaner, less contact with bacteria/allergens etc) and it turned out those animals died faster or got ill faster.
Altough, at young age they suffered less!!
At young age: less infections, less likely to die, however, at older age, it turned out that the "non sterile ones" stayed healtier and got older.

Of course 100%sterile isnt possible, but being "more sterile" does reduce the amount of bacteria/subtstances and thus doesnt boost our immunesystem as much.

But again, I am not saying we should all quit with productcontrol etc. Of course, we need this and its because of our knowledge of microbiology etc that we are able to get so old.
Being clean is indeed needed and good, but be realistic about it too!
There is a difference between being clean (washing your hands after you went to the toilet, drinking clean water) and being too clean (washing your hands with disinfecting cream each time, using bleach every time you clean, etc..)

Edited by pito, 06 March 2012 - 05:21 AM.

If you don't know it, then ask it! Better to ask and look foolish to some than not ask and stay stupid.





Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.