Contamination

[PhilGeis]

fyi

https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2025/Woolite-Delicates-Detergent-Recalled-by-Reckitt-Due-to-Risk-of-Exposure-to-Bacteria-Sold-Exclusively-on-Amazon-com

Woolite contamination.  Some may household cleaner contamination from a few years back - https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/a42805515/fabuloso-cleaner-recall-full-list/

[StringJunky]

Did they forget to put the preservative in?

[PhilGeis]

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Did they forget to put the preservative in?

Ingredients list benzo and methyl  isothiazolinones.  Maybe left out but more likely  contaminated water system

[LuckyR]

Huh? Bacteria can live in Woolite? Also this bacteria is commonly found in soil. So are they going to recall soil (so immunocompromised folks can avoid it)? 

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, LuckyR said:

Huh? Bacteria can live in Woolite? Also this bacteria is commonly found in soil. So are they going to recall soil (so immunocompromised folks can avoid it)? 

The recalled products can contain Pseudomonas species bacteria, including Pseudomonas oleovorans, an environmental organism found widely in soil and water. People with weakened immune systems or external medical devices who are exposed to the bacteria face a risk of serious infection...

Immunocompromised folk tend not to roll around in the dirt while they have a break in their skin.  The danger is presumably them putting on an article of clothing that recently came from the washer and retained live bacteria.  Very low probability but, as with many such threats, a weakened immune system can experience as lethal something most of us wouldn't be affected by.  Corporations have an interest in avoiding the reputational harm (and punitive damages awarded by courts) that comes from customers suffering death or serious illness from their products.  Many recalls are like this, where a recall is conducted in order to forestall a low probability harm.  

[CharonY]

There is also a broader issue that you do not want to have uncontrolled bacterial growth in your products. If it is not safeguarded against "safe" bacteria, they may also be vulnerable to harmful ones. And generally speaking, it is better to prevent issue rather than letting it run its course until someone is harmed. That is, unless the penalty is cheaper than safeguarding, which then would be a regulatory issue.

[LuckyR]

23 hours ago, TheVat said:

The recalled products can contain Pseudomonas species bacteria, including Pseudomonas oleovorans, an environmental organism found widely in soil and water. People with weakened immune systems or external medical devices who are exposed to the bacteria face a risk of serious infection...

Immunocompromised folk tend not to roll around in the dirt while they have a break in their skin.  The danger is presumably them putting on an article of clothing that recently came from the washer and retained live bacteria.  Very low probability but, as with many such threats, a weakened immune system can experience as lethal something most of us wouldn't be affected by.  Corporations have an interest in avoiding the reputational harm (and punitive damages awarded by courts) that comes from customers suffering death or serious illness from their products.  Many recalls are like this, where a recall is conducted in order to forestall a low probability harm.  

Yeah, I get it. It's mostly a legal and PR issue, I just mentioned it because this is a Science Forum. 

[PhilGeis]

Different pseudomonad and aerosol exposure

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/aromatherapy-spray-killed-two-people-multistate-outbreak-also-killed-p-rcna62100

[LuckyR]

5 hours ago, PhilGeis said:

Different pseudomonad and aerosol exposure

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/aromatherapy-spray-killed-two-people-multistate-outbreak-also-killed-p-rcna62100

Sure but that bacterium is a Tier 1 agent ie it's method of exposure and lethality make it a known potential bioterrorism agent. Apples and oranges.

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, LuckyR said:

Sure but that bacterium is a Tier 1 agent ie it's method of exposure and lethality make it a known potential bioterrorism agent. Apples and oranges.

It is also a soil bacterium.

[PhilGeis]

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

It is also a soil bacterium.

 

Sure - as noted, the bug is in soil as well.  The ;point was the dynamic of the microbe's pathogenicity and the level of immunocompromise of the person(s) exposed.

another example -  different bug, diff route of exposure and diff vulnerability of the exposed   https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-abstract/158/3/655/2190564

consider that ~20% and prob more of the population is in some state of immunocompromise https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0168160596009968

Woolite prob is not an unique phenomenon - just one that involved a bug/bug type of some degree of risk due to it's +/- neutral pH.   Other more mainstream concentrated liquid laundry detergents pH ~9 suffer contamination by alkalophilic xerophilic bacteria.   The latter does not appear in the  literature as such.  Here's an example from the soap industry https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.12401

Edited Wednesday at 11:08 AM by PhilGeis

[LuckyR]

5 hours ago, PhilGeis said:

 

Sure - as noted, the bug is in soil as well.  The ;point was the dynamic of the microbe's pathogenicity and the level of immunocompromise of the person(s) exposed.

another example -  different bug, diff route of exposure and diff vulnerability of the exposed   https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-abstract/158/3/655/2190564

consider that ~20% and prob more of the population is in some state of immunocompromise https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0168160596009968

Woolite prob is not an unique phenomenon - just one that involved a bug/bug type of some degree of risk due to it's +/- neutral pH.   Other more mainstream concentrated liquid laundry detergents pH ~9 suffer contamination by alkalophilic xerophilic bacteria.   The latter does not appear in the  literature as such.  Here's an example from the soap industry https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.12401

Exactly, in addition to the reality that aromatherapy is designed to be inhaled and Woolite is poured into the washing machine (minimal to no exposure). 

[CharonY]

9 hours ago, PhilGeis said:

 

Sure - as noted, the bug is in soil as well.  The ;point was the dynamic of the microbe's pathogenicity and the level of immunocompromise of the person(s) exposed.

another example -  different bug, diff route of exposure and diff vulnerability of the exposed   https://academic.oup.com/jid/article-abstract/158/3/655/2190564

consider that ~20% and prob more of the population is in some state of immunocompromise https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0168160596009968

Woolite prob is not an unique phenomenon - just one that involved a bug/bug type of some degree of risk due to it's +/- neutral pH.   Other more mainstream concentrated liquid laundry detergents pH ~9 suffer contamination by alkalophilic xerophilic bacteria.   The latter does not appear in the  literature as such.  Here's an example from the soap industry https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ics.12401

Yes exactly, that was in response to an earlier comment mentioning that Pseudomonas was a soil bacterium and making a quip regarding soil recall. As you know, microbial contamination of non-food is a challenge (which is why there are preservatives in those products to begin with). If you can have Pseudomonas, there is no reason to believe that you are safe from Bukholderia or other harmful bacteria.

Most known issues happen in mostly controlled (e.g., hospital) settings, but it is not well known how much contaminated products could contribute to household outbreaks.

3 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Exactly, in addition to the reality that aromatherapy is designed to be inhaled and Woolite is poured into the washing machine (minimal to no exposure). 

If sufficiently contaminated, they can survive in your clothes, and create biofilms in your washer and water lines.

[PhilGeis]

Woolite is used for hand washing of "delicate" garments.

cutaneous infection from detergent  - but it is pseudomallei again https://www.academia.edu/download/41703997/360.pdf

 

 

[LuckyR]

On 3/26/2025 at 1:37 PM, CharonY said:

If sufficiently contaminated, they can survive in your clothes, and create biofilms in your washer and water lines.

Yes, imagine a soil bacterium contacting one's clothing or washing machine. Sounds dangerous and obviously should be avoided at all costs. 

[exchemist]

5 hours ago, LuckyR said:

Yes, imagine a soil bacterium contacting one's clothing or washing machine. Sounds dangerous and obviously should be avoided at all costs. 

Don’t be a jerk. The issue has been explained to you. The precaution of recalling the product is perfectly sensible as there is a risk, to immunocompromised users of the product, if to no one else. 

Edited Friday at 07:10 AM by exchemist

[TheVat]

delete

Edited Friday at 03:21 PM by TheVat
fish in a barrel

[LuckyR]

7 hours ago, exchemist said:

Don’t be a jerk. The issue has been explained to you. The precaution of recalling the product is perfectly sensible as there is a risk, to immunocompromised users of the product, if to no one else. 

Don't overreact, I already acknowledged that the recall is predictable and reasonable. 

[exchemist]

31 minutes ago, LuckyR said:

Don't overreact, I already acknowledged that the recall is predictable and reasonable. 

Then your previous post means what?

[LuckyR]

On 3/28/2025 at 8:17 AM, exchemist said:

Then your previous post means what?

It points out that it is reasonable and predictable for large corporations with legal liability (commonly unrelated to scientific logic) and subject to the marketplace (governed by social trends, also completely unrelated to scientific fact) to protect their corporation's financial position from such economic threats, regardless of the actual real health threat to their customers. 

Perhaps too fine a point for many, but not unusual in the Real World. 

Edited 20 hours ago by LuckyR

[exchemist]

15 hours ago, LuckyR said:

It points out that it is reasonable and predictable for large corporations with legal liability (commonly unrelated to scientific logic) and subject to the marketplace (governed by social trends, also completely unrelated to scientific fact) to protect their corporation's financial position from such economic threats, regardless of the actual real health threat to their customers. 

Perhaps too fine a point for many, but not unusual in the Real World. 

But there is a real, scientifically based health threat to at least some of their customers. That was explained in the thread. Legal liability, in this case at least,  is not disconnected from scientific reality.