Four botulism cases linked to cosmetic Botox on South Shore, Mass. public health officials say
State public health officials are investigating four recent botulism cases that are linked to cosmetic Botox injections on the South Shore.
In a clinical advisory to health care providers on Thursday, Department of Public Health officials urged providers to 'be alert' for symptoms consistent with botulism occurring after botulinum toxin injections.
State officials did not disclose where the four cases were reported on the South Shore.
'These cases highlight the risk of iatrogenic botulism, a rare but serious adverse event resulting from the administration of botulinum toxin products,' the advisory states. 'DPH is advising healthcare providers to be alert for symptoms consistent with botulism occurring after botulinum toxin injections.'
Botulinum toxin, known commonly as Botox, is widely used for cosmetic purposes to reduce wrinkles and fine lines.
Experts say while generally safe when administered by trained professionals, improper dosing, administration technique, or use of non-FDA-approved products may increase the risk of systemic botulism symptoms.
Botulism is the rare and sometimes fatal disease caused by botulinum toxin circulating in the blood and producing effects remotely from the injection site.
There may be symptom overlap between the presentation of localized adverse effects from injection of botulinum toxin, especially in the head and neck, and the early symptoms of botulism.
'Healthcare providers should be alert for symptoms consistent with botulism occurring after botulinum toxin injections,' state public health officials said in their advisory.
Initial botulism symptoms may include double or blurred vision, drooping eyelids, slurred speech, difficulty swallowing, and difficulty breathing, officials said. These symptoms may be followed by a descending, symmetric muscle weakness that progresses over hours to days.
State officials said symptoms to watch out for include:
Muscle weakness, especially in areas beyond the injection site. Note especially symmetric or bilateral weakness in distinction to localized weakness at or near the injection site, which is expected.
Dysphagia (difficulty swallowing)
Dysarthria (speech difficulties)
Ptosis (drooping eyelids)
Respiratory difficulty
Other cranial nerve palsies
Symptoms may develop hours to days post-injection.
State officials offered the following guidance for clinicians:
Maintain a high index of suspicion for botulism in patients presenting with compatible symptoms following cosmetic Botox or other botulinum toxin injections.
Obtain a detailed history of recent botulinum toxin exposure, including the name and location of the injecting provider and any available information about the brand, lot and dose.
Report suspected cases immediately to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health by calling 617-983-6800 (24/7) or to the local board of health
Coordinate prompt clinical management, including supportive care and consideration of botulinum antitoxin administration when indicated. Early treatment can improve outcomes.
Counsel patients who report using or being interested in using botulinum toxin about potential adverse effects.
Advise patients to receive injections only from licensed providers who are trained in proper administration of FDA-approved botulinum toxin products, preferably in a licensed or accredited healthcare setting.
'MDPH is actively investigating these cases to identify the source and prevent further incidents,' the advisory states. 'Clinicians are urged to report any suspected cases promptly to facilitate timely public health response.'
Anyone with additional information or questions is urged to contact the Massachusetts Department of Public Health at 617-983-6800.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Egg recall over salmonella warning spans across nine states
Almost two million eggs have been recalled in the United States over concerns of salmonella contamination. The recall, announced on Friday by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, affects products distributed in nine states and is associated with various grocery store chains. According to the FDA, California-based August Egg Company of Hilmar is recalling 1,700,000 dozen brown cage-free and brown certified organic eggs due to potential contamination. The eggs were distributed from February 3 through May 15, with sell-by dates from March 4 to June 4, within California and Nevada. Products were distributed at locations including Save Mart, FoodMaxx, Lucky, Smart & Final, Safeway, Raleys, Food 4 Less, and Ralphs. Eggs were also distributed from February 3 through May 6 with sell-by dates from March 4 to June 19 to Walmart locations in California, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Nebraska, Indiana, and Illinois. The recalled eggs will have the plant code number P-6562 or CA5330 printed on the carton or package, with Julian Dates between 32 and 126. The recalled retail eggs will be in fiber or plastic cartons, with the above codes printed on one side of the carton. Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, the frail or elderly, and others with weakened immune systems, according to the FDA. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and even bloody diarrhea. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in more severe illnesses. A statement from August Egg Company read: 'It is important to know that when our processing plant identified this concern, we immediately began diverting all eggs from the plant to an egg-breaking facility, which pasteurizes the eggs and kills any pathogens. 'August Egg Company's internal food safety team is also conducting its own stringent review to identify what measures can be established to prevent this situation from recurring. 'We are committed to addressing this matter fully and to implementing all necessary corrective actions to ensure this does not happen again.'
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.
