Tag: FDA

How to file a complaint with OSHA if you are a Salon Employee or Booth Renter!

~ Joseph Kellner
You know that industry we are in “The so-called professional beauty industry”, were everything is swept under the rug, and deception is rampant. Well if you are a salon employee or a booth renter and you feel you are working around chemicals that make you feel sick. They may be hazardous.
A salon owner has the responsibility to have proper ventilation in the salon and the proper posting of all MSDS Sheets provided from the manufacturer of the products you use for your salon services. If you are unsure just go to your salon owner and ask for the proper information.
Nine times out of ten they don’t have it and wouldn’t give you the time of the day to produce it for you. Your health is important and to be working around a atmosphere where you may have close to 10-20 employees or booth renters then salon products may vary depending on the interests of all the employees.
Take it upon yourself to find out if the products you are using are hazardous to you or your client. It is your health and your life and you have only one to live. TAKE CHARGE, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY!
 
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 gives employees and their representatives the right to file a complaint and request an OSHA inspection of their workplace if they believe there is a serious hazard or their employer is not following OSHA standards. Further, the Act gives complainants the right to request that their names not be revealed to their employers.Complaints from employees and their representatives are taken seriously by OSHA. It is against the law for an employer to fire, demote, transfer, or discriminate in any way against a worker for filing a complaint or using other OSHA rights. OSHA will keep your information confidential. We can help.

If you think your job is unsafe and you want to ask for an inspection, contact us. It is confidential. If you have been fired, demoted, transferred or discriminated against in any way for using your rights under the law, you must file a complaint with OSHA within 30 days of the alleged discrimination.

Employees or their representatives have a right to request an inspection of a workplace if they believe there is a violation of a safety or health standard, or if there is any danger that threatens physical harm, or if an “imminent danger” exists. Employee representatives, for the purposes of filing a complaint, are defined as any of the following:

  1. An authorized representative of the employee bargaining unit, such as a certified or recognized labor organization.
  2. An attorney acting for an employee.
  3. Any other person acting in a bona fide representative capacity, including, but not limited to, members of the clergy, social workers, spouses and other family members, and government officials or nonprofit groups and organizations acting upon specific complaints and injuries from individuals who are employees.

In addition, anyone who knows about a workplace safety or health hazard may report unsafe conditions to OSHA, and OSHA will investigate the concerns reported. Employees or their representatives must provide enough information for OSHA to determine that a hazard probably exists. Workers do not have to know whether a specific OSHA standard has been violated in order to file a complaint.

The following are examples of the type of information that would be useful to OSHA when receiving a complaint. It is not necessary to have the answers to all these questions in order to file a complaint. The list is provided here as a guide to help you provide as much complete and accurate information as possible:

  • How many employees work at the site and how many are exposed to the hazard?
  • How and when are workers exposed?
  • What work is performed in the unsafe or unhealthful area?
  • What type of equipment is used? Is it in good condition?
  • What materials and/or chemicals are used?
  • Have employees been informed or trained regarding hazardous conditions?
  • What process and/or operation is involved?
  • What kinds of work are done nearby?
  • How often and for how long do employees work at the task that leads to their exposure?
  • How long (to your knowledge) has the condition existed?
  • Have any attempts been made to correct the problem?
  • On what shifts does the hazard exist?
  • Has anyone been injured or made ill as a result of this problem?
  • Have there been any “near-miss” incidents?

No Beauty License? Quite a Scare Tactic Used On The Industry Sheep!

~ Joseph Kellner

 

So much misinformation is going around the beauty industry of how Licensurship  is going to take the cosmetology profession down the drain. Well in my view it already is! I feel quite differently about the subject. In several states there are plans to not have Cosmetology Licensurship NOT  needed anymore.. Just last week the same desperate so-called beauty industry cons went ahead and spreaded their thoughts about how this would damage our industry. Check out some of the videos made by (Tabitha) on television who knocks down salons by not doing it her way each and every week. She loves to say this will take us back to the stone ages by spreading her knowledge and scare tactics on the sheep of the industry.

Why would you think a license makes you professional? You are the PROFESSIONAL not the piece of paper. The salon professional and salon owner can police their own actions from within. You don’t need a license to purchase hair color, permanent waves, relaxers etc just go on the internet. The manufacturers make them available to the consumer selling you out and sweeping away your values and commitments to them out the door.

MONEY, MONEY WAKE UP!

 But to no haste you will find out that the PBA (Professional Bullshit Organization) will do it”s utmost to guard the financial pyramid and seek protection for the Student puppy mils of beauty college education (Paul Mitchell, Aveda) from financial destruction. Do you really think in this day and age this would not be a change in our industry, and the change will be for the better. And hopefully the United States will introduce and mandate all the perfection the Europeans have in their beauty industry for us. For many decades Europe has been the plateau of example on apprenticeships, beauty schools, and hairdressing. While the U.S. has the Photoshop example of counterfeit hairdressing by the perfect example of NAHA. Such a perfect example of poor leadership for the craft.

 But also think about how the riddance if Licensurship will make the individual so much for attuned to the craft of hairdressing, hair coloring. this may instill a pride in our profession. Yes we will get salons and organizations begging and craving for a solution.  Who’s the blame we all are, just like “WE” never took a stand on the deceptive practices of Paul Mitchel, Loreal, and all the other big named bullshit speaking manufacturers. But as time has gone by, I see the independent artists are creating their own forms of entrepreneurship in our industry. It has been a long time coming, but everyone, change is good, we really don’t need a license at all. Europeans don’t need one. And there methods of training has lasted for several decades. You will see the beauty industry supply chains jumping on this deferment of licensurship and they will likely start selling to the consumer overnight. See all the so-called bootlegged, diverted product lines that are sold in Salon Centric (Which is owned by Loreal)  will be available to the consumer. Big deal! They have been doing us wrong for decades what will happen if they sell so-called professional hair color to a consumer. You can already by the hair color on the internet.

 Hair shows will be able to sell tickets to consumers (which they always do), you will be able to do hair in your kitchen, which we are all guilty of including me. Professionalism will be represented by you, the hairdresser, colorist, makeup artist. And consumers will flock to you, just like they do now. In the makeup profession there is no Licensurship, and they seem to be able to police themselves. When you join a union as a makeup artist you take a test. Consumers know what they want, the have eyes, and senses. The ultimate decision for a service will come from them, not a so-called legal document that you receive out of beauty school.

When I took the test for my  hairdressing license did that mean I was a professional? No it didn’t, the same when I graduated makeup school I was not a professional and may I say, I was reminded that upon graduation. Did the DBPR do anything for you when we had the formaldehyde problems in our industry? No, they did not. OSHA and the FDA had to do all the work! Did the PBA do anything? Hell no! And they advertise themselves as the, “legal voice of the industry”.

BULLSHIT on THEM. 

Licensurship is a huge money-making conglomerate in our industry, for the schools and the state. Educational loans are the way to make an easy living for all and if you can start a beauty school and get state approval (accreditation) then you will get the loans. That is the easy meal ticket in my industry!  And we all see the product coming out of a Paul Mitchel school and Aveda is just the same.

And did you know Aveda is owned by Estee Lauder!! Follow the trail my friends.  

So times change everyone, will you be effected personally by this decision? No you wont, will the multi-million dollar beauty schools be effected? YES. If the states that expel the license adopt a form of apprentice ship this will rid the Paul Mitchell, and Aveda puppy mills from our industry. And when apprenticeships are taken upon the salon will and must pay the apprentice and also give them health care. Once and for all maybe an individual will be treated like a human being in our industry. College graduates upon their succeeding employment they receive a wage, sick days, 1-2 weeks vacation. Does anyone in our profession? No not at all, this way might have individuals seeing the industry for what it really is. And having the cream of the crop flowing to the surface.

I say good riddance to licensurship and lets move ahead.

Best Regards

Joseph Kellner

Unsafe Cosmetics Owns The U.S.Government!

~ Joseph Kellner

It is so amazing how little authority federal and state governments have over the estimated $30-billion annual cosmetics industry – even when there is compelling evidence that ingredients are dangerous. And are being sold to consumers left and right each and everyday. Did you know that under federal law, cosmetics companies don’t have to disclose chemicals or gain approval for the 2,000 products that go on the market every year. And removing a cosmetic from sale takes a battle in federal court. The same goes for entrepreneurs in my beauty industry. They will go and purchase a private label hair care/skin/makeup line, stamp their name on the line and promise you the world. Major manufacturers do this everyday, entrepreneurs in the beauty/cosmetic industry are well taught.

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, enacted in 1938, doesn’t require FDA approval before a beauty product is sold to the public or give the agency authority to recall a harmful product. One of the biggest topics in my next film/documentary “Beautiful LieS”, involves the hair straighteners in the  beauty industry.  Billions of pounds of chemicals are produced every year to make adhesives and binders for wood products, pulp and paper products, plastics, synthetic fibers and textile finishing.  

In the United States, more than eight billion personal care items, mostly cosmetics, are sold annually for an estimated $54-$60 billion. From 2004 to 2012, cosmetics imports nearly doubled, according to FDA and industry officials. In California, where manufacturers must report chemicals in consumer products that are known or suspected of causing cancer  or reproductive effects, 700 companies reported 17,060 cosmetic products as containing one or more hazardous chemical ingredients. Unlike drugs and medical devices, cosmetics are not subject to pre-market approval or notification. A manufacturer may use any ingredient provided it doesn’t adulterate the product and it is properly labeled – except for 10 types of ingredients, including chloroform, methylene chlorine and mercury, according to FDA regulations.

Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA doesn’t have recall authority; instead it must start enforcement proceedings in federal court to prove harm. Thats how it all starts. So if you think about mega cosmetics company’s such as P&G, Loreal, Unilever these company’s have considerable financial pockets to pay attorneys. And they will argue their case in court until kingdom come. “Beauty industry professionals think cosmetics are tested for safety. They are not. It’s not like pharmaceuticals or even pesticides where some data are required. All the same, people slather cosmetics directly on their bodies, and absorb them in creams, deodorants, fragrances and shampoos, and ingest them in lipstick and gloss”.

The industry is highly resistant to regulation, and it provides zero information on the chemicals in products. In August, Johnson & Johnson announced it was voluntarily removing some chemicals, including formaldehyde, from its products. By 2015, the company promised to get rid of 1,4 dioxane, which is a probable human carcinogen, and several chemicals linked to altered hormones, including phthalates, triclosan and parabens.  The cosmetics industry has petitioned the FDA to strengthen some regulations. The industry recognizes the law needs modernizing in the global marketplace.  An overarching goal, however, is to avoid piecemeal state rules!

It’s going to be a long, hard haul before anything can happen. The current laws have created a perfect storm for these companies to continue to get away with it. And as long as there pockets get deeper they will get away with all this. And you the consumer are on the short end of the stick. It should shock consumers to hear how little regulation there is over the production and sale of cosmetic products. That the entire burden of proof is on the federal government to prove that certain products are harmful is unacceptable: we need safeguards put in place that require manufacturers to test the safety of their products before they reach the shelves, so consumers and Beauty industry professionals are not subject to poisonous chemicals. At the very least, the labeling of these products should inform consumers about the risks they take by using them. When cosmetic companies are expected to regulate themselves, professionals and consumers lose. We need standards in place to make sure that corporations—whether they are financial institutions, oil companies, commercial fishing companies, or food production plants—behave responsibly and do not threaten our lives.

 

2012 in review for The Real Hair Truth

~ Joseph Kellner

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 18,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 4 Film Festivals

Click here to see the complete report.

California Superior Court Gives Brazilian Blowout 30 Days to Reformulate or Remove Products from Marketplace

~ Joseph Kellner

Los Angeles—The California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, issued an order on November 29, 2012 requiring the manufacturers of Brazilian Blowout hair straightening solution, GIB, LLC (GIB) to stop selling its product in California within 30 days and prove that its new, reformulated product meets California Air Quality Standards. According to the attorney general’s court papers, testing by three different laboratories shows that GIB’s hair straightening product violates California air quality law and emits smog-forming pollutants at levels higher than allowed by the California Air Resources Board. Formaldehyde, a human carcinogen, is a major ingredient in Brazilian Blowout.

“The move to pull the original Brazilian Blowout formula from the market is a victory for women’s health,” said Alexandra Scranton, on behalf of the National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance. “Brazilian Blowout continues to expose salon workers to cancer-causing chemicals and it clearly violates California’s air pollution standards.”

In a previous settlement agreement with California Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office, GIB agreed to stop deceptively advertising the product as formaldehyde-free and put caution stickers on their product advising users that it releases carcinogenic formaldehyde gas. The company also agreed to participate in further testing to evaluate whether its Brazilian Blowout product violated California air quality laws and reformulate its product if it were found in violation.

Three independent laboratory tests showed that Brazilian Blowout releases high levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and in violation of its previous agreement with the State of California, GIB had refused to either reformulate Brazilian Blowout or remove it from the marketplace. Following that refusal, the California Attorney General’s Office asked the California Superior Court to remove Brazilian Blowout from the market on October 9, 2012.

According to the California Air Resources Board, VOCs are an important component in the formation of ground level ozone, a major part of California’s smog problem. The Board’s air quality standards require that Brazilian Blowout contain no more than six percent VOCs by weight. Testing by two independent labs approved by the company, and testing by the Board, found Brazilian Blowout contained between 8.1 percent and 11.49 percent of regulated VOCs by weight.

“We applaud the attorney general for vigorously pursuing an action against this manufacturer who evidently believes it can ignore the law without repercussion. A cosmetic product should never contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen and respiratory irritant. It’s reassuring that the original formula of Brazilian Blowout, due to violating air quality laws, will no longer be around to harm consumers and hair salon workers in California,” said Catherine Porter with the National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance.

Stylists who regularly perform Brazilian Blowout treatments are exposed to formaldehyde gas at levels well in excess of the state’s Proposition 65 warning threshold, according to the California AG’s lawsuit.

“As a hairstylist that has been seriously affected by Brazilian Blowout, I know firsthand just how dangerous this product is. Getting the original Brazilian Blowout formula off the shelves will be a big win for salon workers who have suffered irreparable health problems due to exposure to this product,” said California salon worker Jennifer Arce.

According to the California Attorney General’s office, the California Air Resources Board will test the reformulation of Brazilian Blowout by December 15 to ensure the product meets the VOC limit of six percent.

Brazilian Blowout has been banned in Canada and at least four other countries, including Germany, France, Ireland and Australia, but is still allowed to be sold in the U.S. The federal Safe Cosmetics Act, introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2011 by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) would ban chemicals known to cause cancer from cosmetics, as many other countries have already done.

“This dangerous product never should have been on the market to begin with,” said Janet Nudelman on behalf of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “But because of lax U.S. regulation, countless stylists and salon patrons have been exposed to harmful levels of formaldehyde.  Unfortunately, Brazilian Blowout is just one of many examples of why Congress needs to pass the Safe Cosmetics Act.”