Contrary to recent media reports, the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment is safe for use.
Oregon OSHA and Federal OSHA had already attacked Brazilian Blowout’s product, steering the media to focus on faulty aspects of their respective studies, and burying the truth — that the product does not release formaldehyde in amounts that exceed state or federal short-term or long-term exposure limits.
Enter Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D – 3 – OR). Ontheissues.org labels him a “hard-core Liberal”, and you know what that means when it comes to anything involving chemicals or the environment. Rep. Blumenauer sponsored nonsensical bills like HR 3311 that taxes drivers based on miles driven; a ludicrous bill to jump-start the funding of streetcars; a bill to establish under-the-radar death panels; a bill providing environmental education grants for outdoor experiences (huh?); and even one quashing free speech by attempting to ban a website promoting the perfectly safe Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump.
So Rep. Blumenauer reads about OSHA’s nonsense in the media and, because he’s a politician, doesn’t do his research, either. Nor does he bother contacting the company to get their side of the story. Instead, he grandstands by penning a letter to the Food and Drug Administration asking that they recall the product — a product already proven to meet OSHA standards!
I asked Rep. Blumenauer’s press secretary, Derek Schlickeisen, about this approach to policy. His assertion was that politicians “can’t have a chemist on staff”, and thus rely on OSHA’s scientists to bring incidents like this to light. When I mentioned that the company-funded study by Health Science Associates showed formaldehyde levels below OSHA standards, he inferred that the study held little weight because it was company funded.
Yet why is it that OSHA’s results are given any more credibility, especially when OSHA caused a panic based entirely on a faulty sample? Are we to believe that OSHA scientists are somehow free of ideological bias? Kermit McCarthy, one of the authors of the Oregon OSHA study, “likes” hard-core Liberal Sen. Ron Wyden according to his Facebook page. Why isn’t his bias questioned? If anything, a government worker is likely more biased than a private company to insert bias, because his very job depends on his work generating a result that permits the government to do something. Otherwise, the agency’s existence, and the employee’s, have no purpose.
The FDA: Where Nonsense Meets Politics
Now the drama turns to the FDA, which should operate as an independent agency, but doesn’t. It’s a political entity, and when a politician writes them a letter, they have to do something. So they take several months to decide what to do. In the interim, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review Panel effectively came down on the side of the company, saying:
“We urge FDA to work expeditiously with OSHA and appropriate state and local organizations to objectively determine if salon hair smoothing products emit levels of formaldehyde gas that are unsafe for consumers or salon workers under their intended conditions of use and taking into consideration salon ventilation practices [emphasis mine]”.
Meanwhile, the FDA never conducted its own sampling, which its Investigations Operations Manual permits. Instead, they relied on the faulty studies and mistakes of previous governmental agencies that I’ve outlined, just like Rep. Blumenauer did. This is ironic, considering the FDA’s own manual reads:
“4.1.3 – Responsibility. Collect every sample as if you will be required to testify in court about everything you did concerning each and every event surrounding the sample collection. Mistakes or deficiencies, however trivial they may seem, can fatally damage the government’s case. Be objective, accurate, and thorough.”
At the very least, the FDA could also have conducted “investigational research” per its charter. To my knowledge, they did not. If they had, maybe they would’ve discovered the real story that the media had ignored.
Nevertheless, the FDA had all of the following to examine:
• Oregon OSHA report showing the product is safe.
• Federal OSHA report showing the product is safe.
• Health Sciences Associates report showing the product is safe.
• It’s own guide to chemicals that shows methylene glycol and formaldehyde are different substances.
• A Liberal environmentalist politician’s letter asking them to ban the product.
• Heavily biased media reports.
And what does the FDA do?
They issue a warning letter.
(headdesk)
And yet another round of media hysteria follows….in which the company is granted one sentence in each report, “denying the allegations”.
MSNBC
Huffington Post
ABC News
Fox News
Headline News
CNN
ABC local news
Company Fights Back; Media is Silent
In truth, Brazilian Blowout agreed to cooperate with the FDA to demonstrate that the product was neither adulterated nor misleading, and although they disagreed with the FDA over whether or not their product was considered “formaldehyde free”, they removed that language from their product.
Still, not a single media outlet has asked the company about their side of the story.
In fact, the company’s response letter to the FDA laid out a coherent and comprehensive rebuttal to the agency (attached). In short, the company presented all the evidence presented in this series along with two other major points. First, they insist the product is not “adulterated” because it doesn’t “contain a deleterious substance that may render it injurious to users under the contradiction of use prescribed in its labeling”. In other words, if people (and OSHA) use the product as directed, no injurious substance gets released. Second, in relying on OSHA’s data, the FDA relied on a third party’s inferior method of sampling formaldehyde, a method that itself actually produces formaldehyde!
Now we turn to the media coverage of this forceful response.
(crickets)
The Perfect Storm
I’ve repeatedly stated that I conducted this investigation as a real journalist should have. The truth is available for those who seek it — and it is available cheaply, easily, and rapidly. That the mainstream media has repeatedly presented the government’s untenable position regarding this product, and ignored the other side of the story, goes beyond the excuse that “fear sells”. Rather, they have pro-actively partnered in a Liberal environmentalist vendetta against a successful hair product company.
This sordid affair is demonstrative not only of the media’s own Leftist bias, but the problem of government. Don’t tell me there isn’t bias inside a government agency, especially in this Administration and especially in Oregon. What does it say when a politician doesn’t even have to conduct his own due diligence, and instead just points to a government agency, and use their findings as gospel even if proven to be flawed, and then leverage that to engage yet another government entity to try and kill a business?
It says that government is over-reaching and harming private businesses –in this case, hair product companies, salons, and stylists. Why isn’t Rep. Blumenauer being held to account for attacking a company without doing his due diligence? Where is OSHA’s accountability? Where is that agency’s checks and balances?
I’ve at least injected enough doubt into this mess to demonstrate that the government is no longer working for us. It’s working against us.
Next time: I’ll present a definitive study that acquits the company’s position and present yet another flawed study — this one by a private entity. The contrast will shock you.
6 users commented in " The Brazilian Blowout Hoax Part 4: Politicians and The FDA Attack a Safe Product "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThe Brazilian Blowout ha ALWAYS been proven to be safely within ALL tests for formaldehyde…
To the wise, truthful scientific facts will be enough, to the ignorant, no amount of facts or reason will make any difference as they wouldn’t understand a word you were saying anyway. Fear is for the ignorant, knowledge is for the wise.
I am sending this to everyone……having researched formaldehyde for dozens of hours myself.I chose science without a vested interest in the outcome.I hate to say ‘I told you so’ instead I will share an opinion based on years of dealing with people (and I love people) …The Brazilian Blowout is a classic example,’people attack things they don’t understand” AND they really attack popular things they don’t understand…The Brazilian Blowout is the best breakthrough ever for those with overly curly frizzy hair and it is very popular! It is also SAFE, twice as safe according to OSHA’s facts. Their rumors are despicable.
It would have been a shame if a few super ignorant people and their gang of hysterical rumor mongers and irresponsible press had got away with destroying such a helpful service….. They didn’t and it’s more popular than ever.
Every doctor I or any of my clients asked about it, approved them to get a BB.
A local OSHA representative and I went over the Material Safety Data Sheet(MSDS) and we went over EVERY ingredient and when we finished he said ”Why is this controversial ?”
I showed him the Oregon Report and he shook his head sadly and said “This report says it’s twice as safe as required? …Well, that’s Oregon and we are California.” .My assistants and the salon owner were witnesses to this.
If you desire, I have saved a lot of my extensive research by far more credible scientists than can be found at OSHA.OSHA Oregon doesn’t recognize the difference between a liquid and a gas evidently. Their common confusion is covered here: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-admin/oehs/envmgmnt/Formalin.cfm Formalin and Methylene Glycol are liquids that are made by combining formaldehyde GAS,( which is ALWAYS a gas by the way) and water. Once combined they CEASE to be even related to formaldehyde. Methylene Glycol is more related to alcohol than formaldehyde.
The ONLY concern should have been ‘how much formaldehyde is released during the drying and flat ironing. All tests by OSHA showed the levels of actual formaldehyde to range between.006 to .335. The stringent safety margin set by OSHA is .75. So OSHA acknowledges the BB is TWICE as safe as required.
Here is an example of how hysterical rumor mongers government sociopaths operate.” Be careful with that water are you crazy!!’ Why? …you might ask and the scare monger would respond “You DO know that one of the most explosive gasses on earth is Hydrogen/? You also know that it takes oxygen to make a big explosion?……Well, water is TWO parts Hydrogen and ONE part Oxygen…huh H2O(hands on hips) ..Well that’s sounds like a bomb to me…If it’s got feathers and quacks it’s a duck!…that bottle of water is a bomb!”
It’s about that stupid and the OSHA bullies count on the fact that almost no one will check the facts.
Michael D Shaw is one example of a competent scientist http://www.gasdetection.com/news2/health_news_digest237.html
Scaring people for fun and profit http://healthnewsdigest.com/news/contributing%20columnist0/Scaring_People_For_Fun_And_Profit.shtml
Finally, it is OSHA that is liable for illnesses caused by their fear mongering false reports …from Harvard http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/the-nocebo-effect.html
As an industrial hygienist, I’ve performed air monitoring during the application of both the “original” Brazilian Blowout, and their “contains no formaldehyde” revised version. **Both** products yielded levels of formaldehyde at which OSHA would require mandatory training on the hazards of the compound.
It’s important to recognize that OSHA exposure limits are not “safe/not safe” levels- they’re just legal limits to which employers have to control exposures. Unfortunately, most of the Permissible Exposure Limits date from 1969, as the chemical lobby has made it virtually impossible to lower them, regardlesss of the current state of knowoedge regarding toxicity. The EU and other consensus bodies have much lower limits for occupational exposures than we do. Finally, there’s no such thing as “twice as safe as OSHA….”- that’s a completley ridiculous concept, which to me indicates a lack of knowledge with regard to chemical exposures.
I personally try to limit my exposure to known carcinogens to as little as possible- and recommend that others do the same.
saf-t,
There is a HUGE difference to stylists, consumers, and most importantly, the media between requirements for training, for notification to employees, and hazard levels.
It was grossly unfair and in my view, utterly biased, for Oregon OSHA and OSHA to issue the alerts they did to the media, while intentionally burying other important facts. These facts include that Oregon OSHA’s air sampling results fell below both the PEL and the STEL, yet they never issued that statement publicly. Nor did OSHA cop to the fact that one of their samples was collected incorrectly, resulting in higher STEL readings than should have been reported.
That being said, I would very much like to see a comprehensive report from you regarding your own air sampling study. The more information available to the public, the better. You may send all the materials to me at:
tvwritersroom@gmail.com
Thanks.
Crickets from “Saf-T”. Why am I not surprised?
To Saf-t, Since you referred to my comment about “twice as safe” I would like to respond to your attempt at discrediting my simplification for those that are not “industrial hygienists’. I am not impressed by credentials as you could have received any degree with a D average which means you are more confused on the subject than you know.
I realize that to you…water is never “safe” and that is true…don’t try to breath it. Perhaps OSHA should demand warnings on all faucets.That is how ridiculous OSHA is becoming.
So I will stand corrected the BB formaldehyde exposure of .331(maximum)is more than 100% “below the permissible level” of .75.
At least I am “knowledgeable” enough to tell the difference between a liquid and a gas. To call methylene glycol ..formaldehyde is fear mongering either from confusion, criminal intent or someone trying to save their exorbitant salaries and pensions.It is a lie nonetheless. Methylene glycol is more related to alcohol than formaldehyde..
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-admin/oehs/envmgmnt/Formalin.cfm
Oh, and by the way Saf-t. The scale of the English language would put SAFE at one end and Harmful at the other. SO if 100 were harmful then as you moved toward safe you would get to .75 OSHA’s permissible level and then way farther down you get to .331…follow?
So according to any honest person that IS…SAFER isn’t it? Only a propagandist would say otherwise..
Leave A Reply