Tag: FDA

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.”

You Should know FDA Authority Over Beauty/Cosmetics

~ Joseph Kellner
 
Sorry everyone I’m not selling hair care, or teaching haircuts, or color but what I can give you is information that you should know. I have been in the Beauty/Cosmetic industry for well over 25 years and take it from me, a product is here yesterday and gone tomorrow. In Cosmetology school there is a lack of education being given to the student on laws of products, what a manufacturer can say and not say ie (labeling, ingredient’s). What governmental agency’s are there for the protection of the independent stylist and also for the salon employee. Many, many individuals will set up blogs, websites telling you how to overcome customer relations, how to hair color, how to haircutting, and often these individuals will set up a class telling you how to make a ‘Facebook page”. I see this alot at the beauty shows in my industry. But I never really see the hard facts being given to the professional. Its easy to skirt the issues of the beauty industry, “Keep the dumb”, I say. Which to me is so very sad. Many of my fellow professionals are given a line of BS, and are insulted by manufacturers and so-called beauty icons and magazine and websites. Not really taking the issues that are needed for change in my industry, Product knowledge is what they will get and only enough education to buy a product the manufacturers are pushing. Below is important information you should know about the FDA, and how it will help you within your profession. Never, never take the sales persons,distributors or manufactures word as law in the beauty/cosmetic industry, investigate on your own and come to your on conclusions. And if you see a so-called beauty industry “ICON’ pushing a product, WATCHOUT, they are basically being paid to SELL that product!
What does the law say about cosmetic safety and labeling?
The two most important laws pertaining to cosmetics marketed in the United States are the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act1 (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act2 (FPLA). The Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act prohibits the marketing of adulterated or misbranded cosmetics in interstate commerce. Violations of the Act involving product composition–whether they result from ingredients, contaminants, processing, packaging, or shipping and handling–cause cosmetics to be adulterated and subject to regulatory action.
 
Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is adulterated if–
“it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under conditions of use as are customary and usual” [with an exception made for hair dyes];
“it consists in whole or in part of any filthy putrid, or decomposed substance”;
“it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health”;
“its container is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the contents injurious to health”; or except for hair dyes, “it is, or it bears or contains, a color additive4 which is unsafe within the meaning of section 721(a)” of the FD&C Act. (FD&C Act, sec. 601).
 
Improperly labeled or deceptively packaged products are considered misbranded and subject to regulatory action. Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is considered misbranded if–
“its labeling is false or misleading in any particular”;
“its label does not include all required information;
“the required information is not adequately prominent and conspicuous;
“its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading”;
“it is a color additive, other than a hair dye, that does not conform to applicable regulations issued under section 721 of the FD&C Act; and
“its packaging or labeling is in violation of an applicable regulation issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.” (FD&C Act, sec. 602)
In addition, under the authority of the FPLA, FDA requires an ingredient declaration to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. Cosmetics that fail to comply with the FPLA are considered misbranded under the FD&C Act. It is important to understand that Congress passes the laws that govern the United States. To put those laws into effect, Congress authorizes certain government agencies, including FDA, to create and enforce regulations, but only as authorized under the law. A change in FDA’s statutory authority over cosmetics would require Congress to change the law.
Does FDA approve cosmetics before they go on the market?
FDA’s legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologic, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives. However, FDA may pursue enforcement action against violative products, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.
Must cosmetic manufacturers register with FDA?
Manufacturers are not required to register their cosmetic establishments, file data on ingredients, or report cosmetic-related injuries to FDA. However, companies are encouraged to register their establishments and file Cosmetic Product Ingredient Statements with FDA’s Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program11 (VCRP).
Can FDA inspect cosmetic manufacturers?
FDA can and does inspect cosmetic manufacturing facilities10 to assure cosmetic product safety and determine whether cosmetics are adulterated or misbranded under the FD&C Act or FPLA.
What actions can FDA take against firms that market adulterated or misbranded cosmetics?
FDA may take regulatory action if it has information to support that a cosmetic is adulterated or misbranded. The agency can pursue action through the Department of Justice in the federal court system to remove adulterated and misbranded cosmetics from the market. To prevent further shipment of an adulterated or misbranded product, the agency may request a federal district court to issue a restraining order against the manufacturer or distributor of the violative cosmetic. Violative cosmetics may be subject to seizure. FDA also may initiate criminal action against a person violating the law. In addition, FDA works closely with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection8 to monitor imports. Under section 801(a) of the FD&C Act, imported cosmetics9 are subject to review by FDA at the time of entry through U.S. Customs. Products that do not comply with FDA laws and regulations are subject to refusal of admission into the United States. Violative products must be brought into compliance (if feasible), destroyed, or re-exported. FDA takes regulatory action based upon agency priorities, consistent with public health concerns and available resources.
 
Can FDA order the recall of a hazardous cosmetic from the market?
Recalls of cosmetics are voluntary actions taken by manufacturers or distributors to remove from the marketplace products that represent a hazard or gross deception, or that are somehow defective. FDA categorizes a firms action as a recall (as opposed to a market withdrawal) when it determines that the product hazard or defect represents a violation of the FD&C Act. FDA is not authorized to require recalls of cosmetics but does monitor companies that conduct a product recall and may request a product recall if the firm is not willing to remove dangerous products from the market without FDA’s written request. Recalls are addressed in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 7.40 through 7.59.
Who is responsible for substantiating the safety of cosmetics?
Cosmetic firms are responsible for substantiating the safety of their products and ingredients before marketing. Failure to adequately substantiate the safety of a cosmetic product or its ingredients prior to marketing causes the product to be misbranded unless the following warning statement appears conspicuously on the principal display panel of the product’s label:
“Warning–The safety of this product has not been determined.” (21 CFR 740.10)
In addition, regulations prohibit or restrict the use of several ingredients5 in cosmetic products and require warning statements6 on the labels of certain types of cosmetics. In general, except for color additives and those ingredients which are prohibited or restricted from use in cosmetics by regulation, a manufacturer may use any ingredient in the formulation of a cosmetic provided that the ingredient and the finished cosmetic are safe, the product is properly , and the use of the ingredients does not otherwise cause the cosmetic to be adulterated or  under the laws that FDA enforces.
 
Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Mua/Film Producer