Cosmetic recall - (Mar/04/2012 )

Phil Geis on Wed Mar 7 14:50:16 2012 said:

I can agree with most of what you said.
But I still keep wondering/believing that there is something "different" between "farm" vs "city" people.
(maybe the fact that there are more people with allergies/lung problems in cities is not because of the hygiene hypothesis, maybe its just because there is more pollution in cities? Or different kind of pollutions? Its hard to tell, and I doubt we will ever know the real reasons, most likely its a combination of several things)

Maybe you are right that on the scale of micro-organisms there is (perhaps) no problem and that you will always get the microbes back. However, I do believe that using it too much can cause medical problems (dry skin, skin irritation, skin problems). + A small pilot test, too bad, to papers about this, also showed that people who used a lot of disinfectants (example, washing hands) had more risk in getting a "bad" infecection. Because they always killed the "good" ones, they risked being infected with the bad ones.
You can not say that we dont need those microbes (for ex) on our skin.
Another thing that comes in my mind is the problem with resistence.. We have only done research on resistance against antibiotics, but the last years some scientists are also wondering if we are making the bugs more and more resistent against for example certain other disinfectans.


ANother , more bold idea is the following: research has shown now that the bacteria in our guts depend on our dieet... ==> why not state that the flora on our body/skin also depends on our "hygiene" ? You say that people using disinfectants a lot, still have the same flora , but I could have doubts about this.
I can imagine that after a while different types of bacteria will survive better/more... I wonder how they did that study, on the long term? or?

Anyway, its a complicated topic.

gebirgsziege on Wed Mar 7 07:42:53 2012 said:

I think you are right, its not about being exposed less, but its more about what kind of bacteria you are exposed too..
It always makes me thing about the famous cowpox story... I always start thinking that in a city you will have other types of bacteria and to me it is a reason to think that maybe it is possible there is a difference in the types of bacteria you will encouter either in the city or farm.. and that there might be a difference between the two , immunologicaly speaking.

And in general: I absolutely do not like this over hygiene idea that is being favored by the media etc.. I think its time it has to stop. Look at the entire antibiotic story and the commercial ideas behing all these so called disinfectants etc..

The "which bacteria" might be signficant if one gains specifc immunity to a pathogen but, short of AIDS, I'm not aware of many that affect general immune function. The example of cowpox also addressed fairly specific immunity as did variolization - not an overall effect on immune function. TB would have been more of a city disease.

For the other subject - data (and there from in-use applications) that use of household dsiinfectants do not provoke antibiotic are pretty clear.

Phil Geis on Wed Mar 7 15:41:57 2012 said:

Its true, its maybe a very specific immune reaction/protection.

Not sure what you mean with the last sentence, you mean that the use of household desinfectants do not give antibiotic resistance ? Is so,of course not.
But what I ment was: its not been studied in depth what (for example) the reaction of bacteria is on (for example) bleachproducts , its more and more a worry that bacteria are also becoming more and more resistant to those kind of disinfectans.

A worry - maybe - but not one based on relevant data. In real life - vs contrived lab experments, bugs do not becme resistant to bleach - tho biofilm may effectively prevent sufficnet contact if the bleach levle is low..

Phil Geis on Wed Mar 7 16:01:04 2012 said:

The biofilm is another story.
(and it doesnt need to be a low level, even high levels are sometimes not a problem in the case of biofilms)

But I find it a bit too easy to just say that bugs wont become resistant in real life.
I think its time we start to rethink our "ideas" about what "clean" is.
I still disagree with the entire "clean-fashion" we are seeing now, its really not needed to wash your hands with disinfectants, its not needed to clean your house with bleach every few days, its not needed to keep your kids inside (not let them get dirty), its not needed to take antibiotics for every bacterial infection we have (not speaking about young people or weak or..), its not needed to .... We are changing the idea or meaning of clean into sterile and this is completely wrong.

Just three thoughts on this topic:
- Shouldn't a sufficiently low pH in the creams at least stop bacterial growth? (similar to low pH of our skin being bacteriostatic)
- After usage of a cream with "normal dirty" fingers, there should be enough bacteria contamination even in a previously uncontaminated cream...
- The bacterial diversity and number on our skin should also prevent growth of immigrant MOs from creams, as they outnumber the immigrants and are better adapted
(Exception of course are ill people with not-working immune-systems).
Therefore isn't it much fuss about nothing (serious)?

hobglobin on Wed Mar 7 16:19:11 2012 said:

Those are the things I also concider.
Not sure about this cream (it looks like something special "natural", but normally you wouldnt see a lot of growth in cream, or maybe just on top because there you put your "contamined fingers", but as you said: those bacteria just come from your hands. But again: its as I said before, its not about how many but about what kind of bacteria)

To hogoblin;s points:
Rule of thumb is that pH is only an assurance against contamination if 2 or less and 12 or greater. Preservatives are designed primarily to address in-use contamination. Don;t forget, some cosmetics are applied close to or the eye and a pseudomonas on a mascara bursh that scartches the cornea would establidh a nasty infection. True - some kind of compromise to host defenses would be needed to make the contamination a real risk and, to that, 25-30% of the US population is immunocompromised. This information provoked FDA to hold a recent public meeting on micro contamination of cosmetics

. Cosmetic Microbiological Safety Issues – Public Meeting. Docket FDA-2011-N-0770. Fed. Reg. 76: 67461. Bethesda MD. November, 2011.


Pito - look at the following recall. Not only the contamination but the contet of product applicatin.

1) TestaEdge Cream For Men, Homeopathic, packaged in 4-oz. jars, Paraben Free, NDC # 57520-0688-1, UPC Code 898849001001. Recall # D-1199-2012;
2) TestaEdge Cream For Women, Homeopathic, packaged in 4-oz. jars, Paraben Free, NDC # 57520-0907-1, UPC Code 898849001018. Recall # D-1200-2012;
3) Pain Relief Cream, Homeopathic, packaged in 4-oz jars, Paraben Free, NDC # 57520-0689-1, UPC Code 898849001025. Recall # D-1201-2012;
4) Libido Edge Labs Total GH Cream, Homeopathic, packaged in 4-oz. jars, Paraben free, NDC # 57520-0690-1, UPC Code 898849001278. Recall # D-1202-2012

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Apotheca Inc, Woodbine, IA, by telephone on January 17, 2011 and e-mail and certified mail letters on January 20, 2011. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

Microbial Contamination of Non-Sterile Products: presence of Enterobacter gergoviae and Pseudomonas monteilii/plecoglossicida.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

3,490 Jars

DISTRIBUTION

OH

Phil Geis on Thu Mar 8 02:20:09 2012 said:

Thanks.

I do wonder what the above sentence means: microbial contamination of non sterile products..

Seems a bit weird.
Or do they mention it like this to clarify its a product that is not sterilised according to certain standards?
I am not that familiar with cosmetics anyway.