-
Jergens Ultra Healing…Recall….why?
So, I saw this recall…and noticed it was related to a bug infestation. So, I stopped long enough to see…what preservative system they were using. I had assumed (incorrectly) that they were trying to placate the enviro nuts and using some craziness like leucidal. A quick scan of the INCI…It appears to be a rather sound program….containing both F releasers and parabens.
So how did the train go off the tracks here? I always assumed, that even if they practiced poor sanitation during production, a robust preservative system would counteract this? I guess the bad guy in this case is: Pluralibacter gergoviae.
I realize the media specializes in fake news and sensationalism, so maybe it is too early to comment, but I would like to hear those in industry chime in, and speculate what happened? INCI below:
Water, Glycerin, Cetearyl Alcohol, Petrolatum, Stearic Acid, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Aluminum Starch Octenylsuccinate, Dimethicone, Laureth-3, Ceteareth-20, Dmdm Hydantoin, Allantoin, Methylparaben, Arginine, Sodium Hydroxide, Propylparaben, Carbomer, Fragrance, Panthenol, Pentylene Glycol, Lecithin, Alcohol, Ascorbyl Palmitate, TocopherolIs there an ingredient conflict…something that might cancel out the preservatives?
-
5 Replies
-
Graillotion - that assumption is incorrect. There is no preservative system that can’t be compromised. The weak, PC systems like leucidal are much more vulnerable - and those using them are usually less capable of detecting contamination and in some cases more likely to compromise in quality.
Jergen’s uses good systems a=but apparently failed in manufacturing hygiene. It is a surprise as I know that these guys are pretty sound. But it takes only one compromise, and the kevel of testing they invest may have found contamination that others would have missed.gergoviae - formerly Enterobacter has been a tough one for creams and lotions.
-
PhilGeis said:Graillotion - that assumption is incorrect. There is no preservative system that can’t be compromised. The weak, PC systems like leucidal are much more vulnerable - and those using them are usually less capable of detecting contamination and in some cases more likely to compromise in quality.
Jergen’s uses good systems a=but apparently failed in manufacturing hygiene. It is a surprise as I know that these guys are pretty sound. But it takes only one compromise, and the kevel of testing they invest may have found contamination that others would have missed.gergoviae - formerly Enterobacter has been a tough one for creams and lotions.
What percentage of phenoxyethanol combined with an antifungal can kill this bacteria?
Also does EDTA boost the preservative effectiveness against gergoviae the way it does for Pseudomonas aeruginosa?
-
The Jergen’s preservative system would be effective against the bug- as would 0.5% phenoxy. The issue is apparently failed manufacturing hygiene against which no preservative system would hold up. That failure might be as obscure as the use of a contaminated raw material or swab detection of the bug on a product contact surface (with no detect in product) or actual product contamination.
Also consider that a company like Jergens would function at a more demanding spec and testing protocol than many here would apply and would reject and recall based on any isolation without looking for a retest excuse to blow off the finding.
-
They may also have used a contract manufacturer where they don’t have as much control over manufacture hygiene as they would at one of their own facilities.
-
PhilGeis said:The Jergen’s preservative system would be effective against the bug- as would 0.5% phenoxy. The issue is apparently failed manufacturing hygiene against which no preservative system would hold up. That failure might be as obscure as the use of a contaminated raw material or swab detection of the bug on a product contact surface (with no detect in product) or actual product contamination.
Also consider that a company like Jergens would function at a more demanding spec and testing protocol than many here would apply and would reject and recall based on any isolation without looking for a retest excuse to blow off the finding.
Thanks
Log in to reply.