FirstAlerts
Recalls & Safety Alerts

Henkel Recalls Schwarzkopf Professional Hair Mousse Over Explosion Risk

Henkel Corporation is recalling 25 lots of Schwarzkopf Professional mousse due to a packaging flaw that could cause cans to leak under pressure.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 17, 2026, 9:20 p.m. ETWritten Aug 18, 2026, 6:57 a.m. ET
Developing · checked 58 min ago

This recall is open. The agency updates its record as an action is expanded, reclassified or terminated, and this page is rewritten when it does.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 18, 2026, 8:13 a.m. ET — checked 58 min ago.

In a developing situation, is recalling Schwarzkopf Professional Osis Grip Extra Strong Mousse in 6.76-fluid-ounce (200-milliliter) pressurized aluminum cans, as reported by Medical Daily via the FDA. The date of the recall has not been established. A potential packaging issue could cause the product to leak from the package under pressure, creating a risk of explosion. Medical Daily reported that the recall covers 25 lots distributed nationwide through 21 distributors in Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. It was also sold to hair professionals and consumers at retail. The total number of individual cans has not been published. The recall applies to lot codes 2901X4577N, 2901X4578N, 290265P91O, 290665Q30O, 290855N31O, 290866R38P, 290994281N, 291046L06P, 291174W17N, 291435H76O, 291435H77O, 291455N33O, 291515A59O, 291515A99O, 291515B01O, 291555N33O, 291615B01O, 291616B68P, 291716B69P, 291825E960, 291925E96O, 292015B73O, 2928Y538BO, 2928Y539BO, and 293066U32P. According to reporting by Medical Daily, one customer reported bruising on the hand, and the FDA notice stated no other injuries were identified. The stated remedy is to .

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 118 Aug 2026, 10:57current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.