A bill to overhaul training standards for cosmetologists was lying dormant until it suddenly gained momentum this month, passing out of a House committee. Now opponents are scrambling to rally against the bill, saying it waters down the license. But supporters argue that this bill is needed to help the state’s salon industry thrive. “So if I don’t want the bleach to touch this part of the hair I’m gonna use the foil to block it.” Katie Groezinger is meticulous, as she lays one narrow strip of foil after another onto her client’s hair. She’s standing next to her salon chair at The Spa School in Worthington. Groezinger, a cosmetology student, then grabs a small brush and begins to add another layer of color to a different strip of hair. “We’re making her regrowth a little darker,” said Groezinger. She’s doing what’s known as a balayage. It’s a new, trendy technique that darkens a person’s hair starting at the roots and gradually works its way down, transitioning to a different color, in this case a lighter blonde. “Brightening it back up for spring.”
Groezinger is 300 hours away from earning an advanced cosmetology license, a license that would be eliminated if a bill that’s sitting in the Ohio House were to pass. “I will put our 1,500 and 1,800 hour education up against anybody in the United States, we teach complete cosmetology,” said Sue Carter Moore, president emeritus of the Salon Schools Group, which provides training for cosmetologists. “And to reduce that for self-serving salon owners and national chains who wish to have fast graduates is absolutely wrong,” she said. The proposed change to cosmetology standards in Ohio is comprehensive. Along with reducing instruction hours and getting rid of the advanced cosmetology license, it eliminates the natural hairstyling license and other advanced licenses dealing with nail and skin care. Because the bill deals with so much, there are several voices sounding off for and against the measure. But perhaps the most heated debate is between two groups; Carter Moore and her association of private cosmetology schools versus salons. Elizabeth Murch represents the Ohio Salon Association, which firmly supports the bill. She says these changes are crucial to keep up with a growing need for cosmetologists. “The main crisis isn’t moving to 1,000 hours the main crisis is that schools are closing; the Dayton area has been hit significantly with school closures which then provides difficulty for any salon to find qualified individuals to work,” Murch said.
She says this is the standard that’s already in place for anyone getting a cosmetology license from a public vocational and career tech schools. Murch argues that 1,000 hours is an adequate amount of time to teach students about safety and sanitation measures, which she says are the only thing the state should be regulating. “The standard cannot be unfair and we should be legislating safety and sanitary practices entering this profession. We cannot legislate a good haircut,” said Murch. “I’m personally offended,” Carter Moore replied. Carter Moore with the Salon Schools Group says that’s dramatically underselling the value of cosmetology education. “This business is constantly evolving with different products new techniques and new chemicals that we’re working with,” Carter Moore added. As Murch points out, EMTs, police officers, nurses, and tattoo artists are all required to participate in significantly less instruction.
She adds that people can get extra education on the salon floor as employees rather than students at expensive private school that can take a long time to pay off. “Most of that 500 hours is made up on the clinic floor where the students are providing services not being paid but they are providing services and the school is making money,” said Murch. Carter Moore says students get real first-hand experience at a school rather than being relegated to assistants in salons. She adds that the advanced licenses give students the confidence to go straight to starting their own business without signing contracts with salons. So, as Carter Moore puts it, this bill can help salons reduce competition. “When you have people go into a salon loft as an independent contractor it certainly does dry up the pool of available employees for the chain salons and I’m going ‘gee’ maybe that’s what’s behind this legislation,” Carter Moore said.
Murch says there’s nothing stopping the cosmetology schools from still teaching a 1,500-hour course. Carter Moore says they can do that but students will still only walk away with a state license that says they completed 1,000 hours of instruction. Back at The Spa School, Groezinger doesn’t regret the 1500 hours of instruction she’s received, saying it’s a craft that needs to be honed. “I don’t think 1,000 hours is enough for anyone to be professional at what they’re doing I don’t think a doctor would be like ‘hey you got 1,000 hours of anatomy you can go cut someone open.”
The bill also allows the state to recognize a cosmetology license from any state that requires 1,000 instruction hours or more. But, as Carter Moore points out, if lawmakers approve the changes then an Ohio license won’t qualify in other states with higher standards, including every state that borders Ohio. The bill has passed a House committee and now awaits a vote in the full House chamber before moving to the Senate.
A new class action lawsuit alleges that Monat Global Corp. promotes its hair-care products as being able to help growth, but consumers say they actually lost hair and experienced irritation after using the products.
Lead plaintiffs, Trisha Whitmire and Emily Yanes de Flores, allege in their class action lawsuit that they and others purchased Monat hair care products because they were promised aid in hair growth and health; however, say the plaintiffs, the chemicals in the products actually lead to increased hair loss. They say the misrepresentations are part of a scam by Monat to get consumers to purchase even more expensive products from them. Both plaintiffs allege that they experienced significant hair loss after investing substantial sums in Monat products. They say they brought their concerns to the company, but were told they were going through a “detox” process and would see healthier hair if they continued to use the Monat products. They say the company also pointed the finger at suppliers when they continued to complain.
“Shamefully, hair loss claims are met with unsubstantiated claims of a ‘detox’ period that will cause increased hair loss before the purported benefits of Monat hair care products accrue or worse yet, suggestions to spend more money on still more expensive Monat haircare products,” the Monat class action lawsuit states. Frustratingly, allege the plaintiffs, the hair loss does not stop, even after consumers stop using the Monat products. According to the Monat class action lawsuit, Monat advertises its products as “naturally-based” and “safe.” The plaintiffs say they were drawn in by claims that the hair care products were “suitable for all skin and hair types.”
Further, allege the plaintiffs, Monat claims that their products stop hair loss and aid in regrowth. The website, according to the complaint, touts chemicals used in Monat products as clinically proven to provide a “significant decrease in hair loss effect and increase in hair regrowth.”
“In fact, MONAT Hair Care Products use numerous harsh chemicals and known human allergens. As a result of the defective nature of the MONAT Hair Care Products, they were and are unfit for their intended use and purpose,” the Monat class action lawsuit claims. According to the class action lawsuit, many other consumers experienced the same problems and misleading responses from the hair care company; however, Monat, a multilevel marketing scheme, has scrubbed customer complaints from the internet. The Monat class action alleges that the wealthy family running the business has even sued a woman who set up a Facebook page for those who suffered hair loss after using Monat.The plaintiffs seek to represent Monat hair care users who purchased the products since Jan. 1, 2014. The plaintiffs are seeking damages as well as a court order stopping Monat from allegedly misrepresenting their product to the public.
The consumers are represented by Brian W. Warwick and Janet R. Varnell of Varnell & Warwick PA, Charles J. LaDuca and William H. Anderson of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan PA, and Joel R. Rhine and Dara Damery of Rhine Law Firm PC.
The Monat Haircare Products Class Action Lawsuit is Trisha Whitmire, et al. v. Monat Global Corp., Case No. 1:18-cv-20636, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
I am hearing more and more about how people in the salon are having there wigs and pieces glued on now with very strong industrial adhesives. Such as gorilla. I would never have thought professionals in the beauty would use such a product. But they are. This can be a health risk for women and also can lead to severe skin disfiguration. Now the cost of beauty should not be that high. And the wants and needs of a individual should not be so reckless. Special effect makeup uses alot of industrial glues, but the safe thing about it they apply a scalp mask first. This way it is in no contact with the human skin. These glues are very very strong and also flammable. Imagine smoking with this applied to your scalp and you catch on fire, even smelling the fumes could be a serious hazard to some people.
Here is a interesting mishap I found on ModelMayhem.com check it out ladies.
“My neighbor (seriously, it isn’t me) has accidentally got Gorilla Glue on her hair and scalp. She is now trying to get it out. She called the manufacturer and their customer service told her to put baby oil on it and then wash it without rubbing it. Personally, I would go with what the manufacturer says but she is afraid to put water on it because the last time she had a Gorilla Glue mishap (really, how many Gorilla Glue accidents can you have in one summer?), when she glued a tile in the wrong location, customer service told her that water would make it set forever. She has put coconut oil on it as she didn’t have any baby oil. She has waist length hair and doesn’t want to cut it. She asked me what to do and I said I would ask around.”
Don’t use it everyone it’s not worth it!
Keratin Hair Products
What are they? Keratin is the protein from which hair is made. Many shampoos and conditioners claim to include keratin and promote the protein’s restorative qualities. The products’ labels say they can repair damage caused by over-processing. Why should you think twice? Most hair products that advertise the benefits of keratin don’t actually contain it or even specifically target the protein. To make matters worse, there is no evidence that keratin additives benefit hair health or growth. As a result, ClassAction.com has filed a false advertising lawsuit against Matrix and L’Oreal, claiming their products do not contain keratin and therefore are unable to provide the benefits they advertise. If you have purchased keratin hair products made by these companies, contact us today to find out if you are owed money.
Hair-Smoothing Products with Formaldehyde
What are they? Hair-smoothing products are meant to control frizz and curls for an extended period of time; they often contain formaldehyde. The application process is usually done in a professional salon and requires heat from a flat-iron or blow dryer. Why should you think twice? When formaldehyde and related ingredients such as methylene glycol are heated, formaldehyde gas is released into the air, which can be hazardous to your health. The FDA and The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have issued warnings about Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution and Brasil Cacau Cadiveu, citing safety and labeling violations. Exposure to formaldehyde can cause health problems such as headaches, dizziness, nausea, chest pain, respiratory-tract problems, eye irritation, rash, and more. The labeling violation letters allege that the product labels do not warn people of these potential harmful effects. The FDA recommends avoiding products that contain formaldehyde, formalin, or methylene glycol, and to report any adverse reactions.
“Natural” Products that Contain Synthetic Ingredients
What are they? Due to increasing consumer demand, many brands are starting to create more “natural” products and trying to stay away from using synthetic and artificial ingredients. Why should you think twice? In recent years, certain brands have come under fire for labeling products as “natural” when in fact they contain synthetic and chemical ingredients. In 2016, Unilever settled a class action suit levied against its TRESemmé Naturals product line for $3.25 million and discontinued the line. Another class action suit was filed in February 2017 against Procter & Gamble’s Herbal Essences Wild Naturals line for misleading labels and false advertising. If you purchased a Babyganics, keratin, or other hair product and think you fell victim to false advertising, contact us for a free legal consultation. You could be eligible for a class action lawsuit.
WEN® by Chaz Dean
What is it? Founded by celebrity hair stylist Chaz Dean, WEN® is a line of sulfate-free hair care products. The WEN Cleansing Conditioner promises to clean, nourish, moisturize, detangle, and strengthen hair, all in one product and without the use of harsh sulfates. WEN’s website says it has sold over 40 million products since 2008. Why should you think twice? In 2015, more than 200 women joined a class action lawsuit claiming that use of the WEN Cleansing Conditioner led to extreme hair loss, hair breakage, scalp irritation, and rash. The lawsuit also alleged that WEN misled customers with deceptive marketing, and that the company blocked or removed negative comments and reviews from its website and social media pages. WEN settled that lawsuit for more than $26 million. The FDA is currently investigating the cleansing conditioner and warns consumers to stop using the product if they experience any adverse reactions.
What is it? Babyganics is a Westbury, New York-based company that claims to sell baby-safe, organic household and childcare products (shampoos, lotions, wipes, detergents, etc.). It has grown rapidly over the past 15 years, generating $30 million in revenue in 2013 and securing a sale by SC Johnson in 2016. Why should you think twice? Many parents allege that Babyganics products are not as organic or kid-friendly as they appear. As a result, multiples lawsuits have been filed against Babyganics in recent years. A class action suit filed by ClassAction.com alleges that Babyganics misled consumers through labeling that claimed certain bath products were “tear-free,” gentle, non-allergenic, and safe for infants—when in fact they contain substances that are eye irritants. Another class action lawsuit filed in September 2016 alleges that products labeled as “organic” or “mineral-free” actually contain ingredients that are neither. One mother also claimed that Babyganics baby wipes caused her five-week-old baby to break out with a bumpy rash on his face. PrMost serious of all, Theresa Jones alleges that Babyganics’ tear-free shampoo burned her son Hunter’s eyes, potentially causing serious and permanent damage.
- Free From~ This statement has become the mantra for large commercial brands, with the smaller brands following suit as a way to convey that their product is somehow safer than their competitors.
- Danger of Claim: It can reinforce the idea that if something is “free from” a certain ingredient, that the missing ingredient is somehow “dangerous.” And what was once part of the formula has since been removed, when it may have never been in the product in the first place. This is marketing to the consumer that has been led to believe natural is better and everything else will kill them. Example: Parabens, sulfates, etc. get a bad rap, when there is actually scientific data that shows these are perfectly safe for personal care use in the recommended dosages within the cosmetic formula. Or if it is a leave on or rinse off product will also determine ratios. Any chemical in its full strength has the potential for causing harm, yet these are not offered to the end user, ever.
- Chemical Free~ Another claim that bears no reality in truth or common sense. Nothing formulated can be without chemicals as all things are chemical…natural or synthetic, makes no difference, it is just the manner in which they are derived or created. Again, shamelessly used for SCARE tactic marketing.
- Danger of Claim: This connotes the idea, all things chemical are hazardous to our health…..think of water, essential oils, olive oil, etc…..these appear to be benign now don’t they? However, from the point of view of the overstated 60% absorption claim, these are all potential penetration enhancers. This claim also overlooks the fact of what the product is packaged in. There is no getting around the chemical processes that goes into creating the packaging, such as a jar or tube, technically.
- Hypoallergenic or Noncomedogenic~ These terms are not even recognized by the FDA and there actually isn’t any proven data in clinical trials, and has yet to be tested by the US Food and Drug Administration as to the validity of such terms.
- Danger of Claim: Any ingredient could cause a problem for any individual and this connotes that it won’t cause a problem….sorry, but trial and error only, unfortunately. Up to 10% of the population can and will have a reaction to something the majority of the population won’t have. This includes a developed allergy after using an ingredient for years. Our bodies are ever changing. Those with acne may have a similar reaction. What won’t cause acne on one individual may be horribly occlusive to another.
- Dermatologist / Clinically Tested~ This is a claim that can be made based on a single doctor trying it out on themselves or a patient. Based on this perception it is theorized by the end user, it must be a proven product. A clinical study performed by the manufacturer on a small number of people will not constitute nationally, what can occur if millions use the product.
- Danger of Claim: Gives the perception that it must be safe and work because a doctor or a clinical study said so, but is not necessarily the reality. Safety and efficacy data will change as high volume of users join the pool, and this is PURE marketing!
- Anti-aging Formula~ This ties into penetration enhancers being utilized within a skin cream and are designed to assist beneficial ingredients in penetrating into the otherwise impermeable surface layers of the skin to restore soft, supple skin with more elasticity.
- Danger of Claim: EWG and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics have underscored this message as a penetration enhancer being the carrier of chemicals to the blood stream. When in reality, penetration enhancers for the purpose of cosmetics are only skin deep and are not geared toward penetration through the dermis layer into the blood brain barrier as would be the desired effect with a topical drug. Permanent change does not occur with any cosmetic, and only maintains the skin as long as the product is being used.
- Non Toxic / Harmful Chemicals~ What does this even mean? Who and what entity is deciding what is toxic or not? This is yet to be determined and will continue to be debatable since EWG and CFSC think anything, other than naturally derived, is toxic to our bodies. The majority of scientific research does not support the validity of this marketing claim. Plus, too much of anything natural or synthetic can cause issues for some.
- Danger of Claim: This statement plays into the fears of the consumer and reinforces the CFSC’s campaign rhetoric against beauty industry leaders and their products. Such as lead being added to lipstick which is categorically FALSE and is considered a contaminant, which is found also in drinking water and the foods we eat that are grown in the ground.
- 100% Pure / Natural / Organic~ This connotes that only natural chemicals are safe for the body and that synthetic chemicals are the bane of our existence and will give us cancer or worse. There is no human scientific data to support this claim. And animal studies do not extrapolate to humans despite how hard watchdog groups try to convince us.
- Danger of Claim: Beauty products labeled as natural are less tested and scrutinized than are synthetic products and pharmaceuticals. In fact, most compounds as they exist in their natural state cannot be formulated into skin care products. They first must be chemically altered before they can be incorporated into cosmetics, thereby negating the claim of being pure and natural.
- FDA Approved ~ This marketing claim gives the unwitting consumer the idea the product is endorsed by the FDA, and the product must have been tested by the FDA to show proof of the companies claim of safety and / or efficacy.
- Danger of Claim: This is outright FALSE and is actually in violation of FDA regulation. FDA does not approve any finished product for the end user in the cosmetic and beauty industry. Only prescription and OTC drugs and medical devices are FDA approved for their intended purpose.
- Does Not Contain Fillers~ This marketing claim is designed to intimate that their product is formulated with nothing but pure and essential ingredients only, and that no fillers are used to create a less than desirable product, supposedly.
- Danger of Claim: This insinuates that somehow a filler ingredient is cheap and makes another product substandard. Unfortunately, this bears no weight in actual truth. Those that claim their ingredients are the ultimate and then claim fillers as bad, are also ingredients that are used as filler. Mica for instance is not only an essential ingredient to the formulation of the majority of mineral makeup, but it is also a FILLER ingredient. By definition a filler ingredient is used for finish of product, bulking agent, or any ingredient utilized for the desired effect for smooth application. There is no actual separation of the two. Water can be considered a filler ingredient, since it is not typically essential but makes up the bulk of many skin care products.
- Non Irritating~ This gives the end user of a product the assurance that their otherwise sensitive skin, will not have any problem with the product. This expands on item 3.
- Danger of Claim: The problem with this claim is everyone’s skin is different. There are ingredients that have a long standing history of safety and efficacy, yet there will be the small percentile that will have irritation when using it. Mineral makeup for instance works well for the majority of women, Bismuth Oxychloride excluded, but for a small number, no matter how much they hope, they will always have an irritant reaction and can never wear minerals, no matter its’ popularity. We disclose this fact, by using only ingredients with known lower irritant risk factors, but still, only the end user will determine what is right for their skin or how they’ll react through testing it on themselves. It may not be a single ingredient, but when used in combination with another or its presumed ratio, is where the problem lies. So by not purchasing something because one may see a certain ingredient of concern, they may be missing out on what otherwise could be fantastic for their skin. Always TEST…TEST…TEST the product for absolute certainty.
In America, the perennial quest for beauty is an expensive one.
Every year, women spend billions of dollars in exchange for beautiful hair, lovely lashes, and smooth and silky skin. Still, many of our culture’s most common beauty procedures were virtually nonexistent a century ago. The truth is, many of our expectations of feminine beauty were shaped in large part by modern advertisers. We’ve tracked the history behind some of the most common “flaws” that besiege the modern woman and the surprising stories behind their “cures.”
1. “Your natural hair color isn’t pretty enough.”
“Does she or doesn’t she?” asked the Clairol’s ad that launched a million home hair dye jobs. Indeed, the aggressive Clairol Marketing would trigger an explosion in sales. In the process, the percentage of women dyeing their hair would skyrocket from 7 percent to more than 40 percent in the ’70s.
The ads showed everyday women reaping the benefits of more lustrous hair, a luxury that had long been exclusive to glamorous supermodels with professional dye jobs. The ads proclaimed, “If I have only one life, let me live it as a blonde.” Indeed, Clairol peddled the perfect yellow shade of the dye as a way to transform your life:
Clairol hair dye offered self reinvention, in 20 minutes flat, particularly for women who didn’t want to reveal their true age or grey roots.
Shirley Polykoff, the advertising writer behind Clairol’s goldmine campaign, described her plan as such: “For big success, we’d have to expand the market to gather in all those ladies who had become stoically resigned to [their gray hair]. This could only be accomplished by reawakening whatever dissatisfaction’s they may have had when they first spotted it.” Clairol did that with ads like, “How long has it been since your husband asked you out to dinner?” Nowadays, about 90 million women in the U.S. color their hair.