Tag: products

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

Beware of Labeling, Repackaging of Beauty/Cosmetic Products

~ Joseph Kellner

The Real Hair Truth!

Across the gamut of media formats – from television to the Internet to print – beauty product advertising bombards consumers on a daily basis. Each ad seeks to persuade potential buyers of the product’s value, or even its necessity for the buyer’s well-being and self-image. These techniques, sometimes manipulative in nature, affect more than the consumer’s wallet. It can effect their health. In my industry if a product is not selling to the so-called professionals they will repackage the product. And sell under a new gimmick. Here is a lawsuit placed in a Florida court against Loreal. Read the print very closely. I just love to see when a customer takes a major beauty/cosmetic bully to court. Especially if it is Loreal!

Morelli Ratner Files Class Action Against L’Oreal for Defrauding Consumers

Morelli Ratner PC, together with the Alters Law Firm, filed a class action last week against L’Oreal and Lancôme for defrauding consumers. The case is Nino v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. et al, and was filed in federal court, in the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have advertised their “anti-aging” creams as having been scientifically tested, making claims and promising results to consumers that the Defendants know to be unfounded. Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration sent Lancôme a formal warning letter about the misleading advertising. The complaint alleges that L’Oreal has made millions of dollars by knowlingly and willfully misleading consumers. Plaintiff Costanza Nino, a resident of Florida, is bringing the suit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of all persons who purchased Lancôme’s “Anti-Aging” products within the applicable statutory limitations period, and a Subclass of Florida residents.

 Read more on this Loreal Lawsuit! 

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.”

Real Hair Truth – The lawsuits still keep coming to Unilever!

~ Joseph Kellner

Fourteen women — including two from North Texas and one from Houston — are suing Unilever, the maker of a product they claim caused permanent damage to their hair. “It transforms frizzy, unmanageable hair into hair that’s sleeker and easier to style,” said the commercial for the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which is no longer being sold. Tonja Millet of Midlothian said the product did the opposite of what it promised. “It melted my hair,” she said. “The hair was sticky. I couldn’t comb it. It felt like sandpaper. It was just awful.”

Millet, 45, said her naturally straight hair would sometimes turn slightly frizzy in humid weather. So in February she decided to try the straightening product, hoping it would help tame frizz during a trip to the beach over spring break. “Instead of straightening and smoothing it, it acted like a perm and kinked it,” she said. “I just sat in the bathroom and cried. I didn’t know what to do. “Millet said she called the product’s consumer hotline to complain, and was told she probably used the product incorrectly. A few days later, she went to her salon, where her stylist told her her hair had been “chemically melted.” “So that day we cut off 10 inches,” Millet said.

When she began looking online for more information about the product, she said she found some people who said it worked, but more who said it damaged their hair. She discovered a Facebook page devoted to angry consumers, and there are multiple postings on YouTube. Millet is now part of a lawsuit filed against Unilever. Dallas attorney Amy Davis represents Millet and 13 other women. “What the complaint is alleging is that by using certain images and certain wording, that Unilever made consumers believe this was a product free of harsh chemicals, when we believe it wasn’t,” Davis said. “The complaint says women experienced hair loss to the point of visible bald spots, terrible breakage, discoloration… some of them had injury or burning to the scalp.”The complaint will not reach class action status, Davis said, because not all of the women experienced the same results.

Unilever said its practice is not to comment on ongoing litigation. But a spokesperson stressed that when Suave began to receive “a greater-than-expected number of complaints about the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit,”  the cmopany discontinued the product and recalled it from retail stores. That was in May.

“We found the number and degree of consumer complaints to be unacceptable,” a company spokeswoman said. But she stressed, “Overall, consumer complaints represented a small percentage of the product shipped into the marketplace. Many consumers enjoyed the product and had very positive results.” Millet said she’s cut 12 to 13 inches off her hair since trying the Suave product in February.

“At the beginning I was like, ‘I’m just gonna hide out for the next year so nobody will see my hair,'”  she said. “I certainly wish I’d never done it. I really regret it.” “It’s about accountability,” she said of the legal action. “They didn’t take it off the market for months, even after they knew there were hundreds —   possibly thousands — of women affected the way I was… or even far worse.”

If you may have had a similiar occurence with this product please feel free to email me at and let us know. We can help lead you to the proper officials and offer you hair care advice for your hair free of charge!  joseph@josephkellner.com