Kaiser Health News

FDA’s Plan to Ban Hair Relaxer Chemical Called Too Little, Too Late

Published

3 months ago

February 8, 2024

Ronnie Cohen
Thu, 08 Feb 2024 10:00:00 +0000

In April, a dozen years after a federal agency classified formaldehyde a human carcinogen, the Food and Drug Administration is tentatively scheduled to unveil a proposal to consider banning the chemical in hair-straightening products.

The move comes at a time of rising alarm among researchers over the health effects of hair straighteners, products widely used by and heavily marketed to Black women. But advocates and scientists say the proposed regulation would do far too little, in addition to being far too late.

“The fact that formaldehyde is still allowed in hair care products is mind-blowing to me,” said Linda Birnbaum, a former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program. “I don't know what we're waiting for.”

Asked why it's taking so long to get the issue on the FDA's agenda, Namandjé Bumpus, the regulatory agency's chief scientist, told KFF Health News: “I think primarily the science has progressed.”

“Also,” she added, “the agency is always balancing multiple priorities. It is a priority for us now.”

The FDA's glacial response to concerns about formaldehyde and other hazardous chemicals in hair straighteners partly reflects the agency's limited powers when it comes to cosmetics and personal-care products, according to Lynn Goldman, a former assistant administrator for toxic substances at the Environmental Protection Agency. Under the law, she said, the FDA must consider all chemical ingredients “innocent until proven guilty.”

Critics say it also points to broader problems. “It's a clear example of failure in public health protection,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, which first petitioned the agency to ban formaldehyde in hair straighteners in 2011 and sued over the issue in 2016. “The public is still waiting for this response.”

Mounting evidence linking hair straighteners to hormone-driven cancers prompted Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Shontel Brown (D-Ohio) last year to urge the regulatory agency to investigate straighteners and relaxers.

The FDA responded by proposing to do what many scientists say the agency should have done years ago — initiate a plan to eventually outlaw chemical straighteners that contain or emit formaldehyde.

Such a ban would be a crucial public health step but doesn't go nearly far enough, scientists who study the issue said. The elevated risk of breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers that epidemiological studies have recently associated with hair straighteners is likely due to ingredients other than formaldehyde, they said.

Formaldehyde has been linked to an increased risk of upper respiratory tract cancer and myeloid leukemia, Bumpus said in a video announcement of the proposed ban on X, formerly known as Twitter. But Kimberly Bertrand, an associate professor at the Boston University Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, and other scientists said they were unaware of any studies linking formaldehyde to the hormone-driven, or reproductive, cancers that prompted recent calls for the FDA to act.

“It's hard for me to imagine that removing formaldehyde will have an impact on the incidence of these reproductive cancers,” said Bertrand, an epidemiologist and lead author on a study published in December, the second linking hair relaxers to an increased risk of uterine cancer.

Hair products targeted to African Americans contain a host of hazardous chemicals, said Tamarra James-Todd, an associate professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health who has studied the issue for 20 years.

Studies have shown that straightener ingredients include phthalates, parabens, and other endocrine-disrupting compounds that mimic the body's hormones and have been linked to cancers as well as early puberty, fibroids, diabetes, and gestational high blood pressure, which is a key contributor to Black women's outsize risk of maternal mortality, James-Todd said.

“We have to do a better job regulating ingredients that people are exposed to, particularly some of our most vulnerable in this country,” she said. “I mean, children are being exposed to these.”

The first study linking hair relaxers to uterine cancer, published in 2022, found that frequent use of chemical straighteners more than doubled a woman's risk. It followed studies showing women who frequently used hair relaxers doubled their ovarian cancer risk and had a 31% higher risk of breast cancer.

Bumpus praised the studies as “scientifically sound” and said she would leave to epidemiologists and others questions about whether straightener ingredients besides formaldehyde might be contributing to an elevated risk of hormone-driven cancers.

She could not offer a timeline for a formaldehyde ban, except to say the agency was scheduled to initiate proceedings in April. The schedule could change, she said, and she did not know how long the process of finalizing a rule would take.

Brazilian Blowouts and similar hair-smoothing treatments sometimes use formaldehyde as a glue to hold the hair straight for months. Stylists usually seal the product into the hair with a flat iron. Heat converts liquid formaldehyde into a gas that creates fumes that can sicken salon workers and patrons.

In addition to cosmetics, formaldehyde is found in embalming fluid, medicines, fabric softeners, dishwashing liquid, paints, plywood, and particleboard. It irritates the throat, nose, eyes, and skin.

If there are opponents to a ban on formaldehyde in hair straighteners, they have not raised their voices. Even the Personal Care Products Council, which represents hair straightener manufacturers, supports a formaldehyde ban, spokesperson Stefanie Harrington said in an email. More than 10 years ago, she noted, a panel of industry-paid experts deemed hair products with formaldehyde unsafe when heated.

California and Maryland will ban formaldehyde from all personal-care products starting next year. And manufacturers already have curtailed their use of formaldehyde in hair care products. Reports to the California Department of Public Health's Safe Cosmetics Program show a tenfold drop in products containing formaldehyde from 2009 to 2022.

John Bailey, a former director of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, said the federal agency often waits for the industry to voluntarily remove hazardous ingredients.

Cheryl Morrow co-founded The Relaxer Advocates late last year to lobby on behalf of California Curl, a business she inherited from her father, a barber who started the company, and other Black hair care companies and salons. “Ban it,” she said of formaldehyde, “but please don't mix it up culturally with what Black people are doing.”

She insisted the relaxers African Americans use contain no formaldehyde or other carcinogens and are safe.

A 2018 study found that hair products used primarily by Black women and children contained a host of hazardous ingredients. Investigators tested 18 products, from hot-oil treatments to anti-frizz polishes, conditioners, and relaxers. In each of the products they found at least four and as many as 30 endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Racist beauty standards have long compelled girls and women with kinky hair to straighten it. Between 84% and 95% of Black women in the U.S. have reported using relaxers, studies show.

Black women's often frequent and lifelong application of chemical relaxers to their hair and scalp might explain why hormone-related cancers kill more Black women than white women per capita, Bertrand and other epidemiologists say. Relaxers can be so habit-forming that users call them “creamy crack.”

As a public health educator, Astrid Williams, director of programs and initiatives at the California Black Health Network, has known the health risks associated with hair relaxers for years. Nonetheless, she used them from age 13 until two years ago, when she was 45.

“I felt I had to show up in a certain way,” she said.

A formaldehyde ban won't make creamy crack safe, she said. “It's not even a band-aid. The solution is to address all chemicals that pose risk.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

——————————
By: Ronnie Cohen
Title: FDA's Plan to Ban Hair Relaxer Chemical Called Too Little, Too Late
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/hair-relaxers-straighteners-formaldehyde-carcinogen-fda/
Published Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2024 10:00:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/cities-know-the-way-police-respond-to-mental-crisis-calls-needs-to-change-but-how/

Post Views: 122

Related Topics:Featured Health Kaiser Health News News

Up Next

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’: To End School Shootings, Activists Consider a New Culprit: Parents

Don't Miss

Cities Know the Way Police Respond to Mental Crisis Calls Needs to Change. But How?

Kaiser Health News

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’: Abortion Access Changing Again in Florida and Arizona

Published

3 hours ago

May 2, 2024

Staff Editor

Thu, 02 May 2024 19:30:00 +0000

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News' weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

The national abortion landscape was shaken again this week as Florida's six-week abortion ban took effect. That leaves North Carolina and Virginia as the lone Southern states where abortion remains widely available. Clinics in those states already were overflowing with patients from across the region.

Meanwhile, in a wide-ranging interview with Time magazine, former President Donald Trump took credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, but he steadfastly refused to say what he might do on the abortion issue if he is returned to office.

This week's panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week's episode:

Florida's new, six-week abortion ban is a big deal for the entire South, as the state had been an abortion haven for patients as other states cut access to the procedure. Some clinics in North Carolina and southern Virginia are considering expansions to their waiting and recovery rooms to accommodate patients who now must travel there for care. This also means, though, that those traveling patients could make waits even longer for local patients, including many who rely on the clinics for non-abortion services.
Passage of a bill to repeal Arizona's near-total abortion ban nonetheless leaves the state's patients and providers with plenty of uncertainty — including whether the ban will temporarily take effect anyway. Plus, voters in Arizona, as well as those in Florida, will have an opportunity in November to weigh in on whether the procedure should be available in their state.
The FDA's decision that laboratory-developed tests must be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as medical devices comes as the tests have become more prevalent — and as concerns have grown amid high-profile examples of problems occurring because they evaded federal review. (See: Theranos.) There's a reasonable chance the FDA will be sued over whether it has the authority to make these changes without congressional action.
Also, the Biden administration has quietly decided to shelve a potential ban on menthol cigarettes. The issue raised tensions over its links between health and criminal justice, and it ultimately appears to have run into electoral-year headwinds that prompted the administration to put it aside rather than risk alienating Black voters.
In drug news, the Federal Trade Commission is challenging what it sees as “junk” patents that make it tougher for generics to come to market, and another court ruling delivers bad news for the pharmaceutical industry's fight against Medicare drug negotiations.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: ProPublica's “A Doctor at Cigna Said Her Bosses Pressured Her To Review Patients' Cases Too Quickly. Cigna Threatened To Fire Her,” by Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum, and David Armstrong, ProPublica.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Associated Press' “Dozens of Deaths Reveal Risks of Injecting Sedatives Into People Restrained by Police,” by Ryan J. Foley, Carla K. Johnson, and Shelby Lum.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Atlantic's “America's Infectious-Disease Barometer Is Off,” by Katherine J. Wu.

Rachana Pradhan: The Wall Street Journal's “Millions of American Kids Are Caregivers Now: ‘The Hardest Part Is That I'm Only 17,” by Clare Ansberry.

Also mentioned on this week's podcast:

Time's “How Far Trump Would Go,” by Eric Cortellessa.
NPR's “Why Is a 6-Week Abortion Ban Nearly a Total Ban? It's About How We Date a Pregnancy,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin.
NPR's “'Sicko's' Peeno Sees Few Gains in Health Insurance,” by Julie Rovner.
CNN's “Walmart Will Close All of Its Health Care Clinics,” by Nathaniel Meyersohn.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News' “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

——————————
Title: KFF Health News' ‘What the Health?': Abortion Access Changing Again in Florida and Arizona
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/podcast/what-the-health-345-abortion-access-florida-arizona-may-2-2024/
Published Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 19:30:00 +0000

Post Views: 7

Kaiser Health News

DIY Gel Manicures May Harm Your Health

Published

8 hours ago

May 2, 2024

Staff Editor

Tarena Lofton
Thu, 02 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

A fresh set from the comfort of your own home? DIY gel nails have been all the rage on social media, but the practice could cause you to develop a life-changing allergy. In a TikTok video, creator @alina.gene describes developing an acrylate allergy from doing gel nails at home. Now, when exposed to acrylates, the creator feels severe pain.

The creator warns viewers not to self-apply nail polish that requires a UV light to cure. In later videos, @alina.gene explains that at-home use differs from in-salon use because salon professionals have access to higher-quality chemicals that are less likely to cause reactions and that they also have proper training on how to safely apply the products.

“I know I sound real dramatic because an allergy to gel nails or even an allergy to acrylates isn't going to kill you, but the thing is, in the wrong situation it could prevent you from getting lifesaving medical care,” said @alina.gene in another video. Common medical products contain acrylates, and developing this allergy can cause major issues in obtaining future medical care.

We asked an allergist to walk us through this viral video.

If you enjoyed this story from the KFF Health News social team, follow us on Instagram @KFFHealthNews.

✍️: KFF Health News Audience Engagement Team

——————————
By: Tarena Lofton
Title: DIY Gel Manicures May Harm Your Health
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/diy-gel-manicures-health-risks/
Published Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-is-wrong-about-a-ban-on-nih-research-about-mass-shootings/

Post Views: 14

Kaiser Health News

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is Wrong About a Ban on NIH Research About Mass Shootings

Published

10 hours ago

May 2, 2024

Staff Editor

Louis Jacobson, PolitiFact
Thu, 02 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

“Congress prohibits the NIH from researching the cause of mass shootings.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in an April 21 post on X

The National Institutes of Health is the federal government's main agency for supporting medical research. Is it barred from researching mass shootings? That's what presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said recently.

Kennedy, whose statements about conspiracy theories earned him PolitiFact's 2023 “Lie of the Year,” is running as an independent third-party candidate against President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic candidate, and the presumptive Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump.

On April 21 on X, Kennedy flagged his recent interview with conservative commentator Glenn Beck, which touched on gun policy. Kennedy summarized his gun policy views in the post, writing, “The National Institutes of Health refuses to investigate the mystery; in fact, Congress prohibits the NIH from researching the cause of mass shootings. Under my administration, that rule ends — and our kids' safety becomes a top priority.”

But this information is outdated.

In 1996, Congress passed the “Dickey Amendment,” an appropriations bill provision that federal officials widely interpreted as barring federally funded research related to gun violence (though some observers say this was a misinterpretation). Congress in 2018 clarified that the provision didn't bar federally funded gun-related research, and funding for such efforts has been flowing since 2020.

Kennedy's campaign did not provide evidence to support his statement.

What Was the Dickey Amendment?

After criticizing some federally funded research papers on firearms in the mid-1990s, pro-gun advocates, including the National Rifle Association, lobbied to halt federal government funding for gun violence research.

In 1996, Congress approved appropriations bill language saying that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The language was named for one of its backers, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark).

But the Dickey Amendment, as written, did not ban all gun-related research outright.

“Any honest research that was not rigged to produce results that helped promote gun control could be funded by CDC,” said Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist. But CDC officials, experts said, interpreted the Dickey Amendment as banning all gun-related research funding.

This perception meant the amendment “had a chilling effect on funding for gun research,” said Allen Rostron, a University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who has written about the amendment. Federal agencies “did not want to take a chance on funding research that might be seen as violating the restriction” and so “essentially were not funding research on gun violence.”

Also, the Dickey Amendment targeted only the CDC, not all other federal agencies. Congress expanded the restriction to cover NIH-funded research in 2011.

Although the Dickey Amendment didn't bar gun-related research, federal decision-makers acted as though it did by not pursuing such research.

Moving Past the Dickey Amendment

Over time, critics of the gun industry made an issue of the Dickey Amendment and gathered congressional support to clarify the amendment.

In 2018, lawmakers approved language that said the amendment wasn't a blanket ban on federally funded gun violence research. By 2020, federal research grants on firearms began to be issued again, starting with $25 million to be split between the CDC and NIH.

By now, the CDC and NIH are funding a “large portfolio” of firearm violence-related research, said Daniel Webster, a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Also, the Justice Department's National Institute of Justice has funded the largest study of mass shootings to date, Webster said, and is seeking applications for studies of mass shootings.

Our Ruling

Kennedy said, “Congress prohibits the NIH from researching the cause of mass shootings.”

Although the Dickey Amendment, a provision of appropriations law supported by the gun industry, didn't prohibit all federally supported, gun-related research from 1996 to 2018, decision-makers acted as though it did.

However, in 2018, Congress clarified the provision's language. And since 2020, CDC, NIH, and other federal agencies have funded millions of dollars in gun-related research, including studies on mass shootings.

We rate Kennedy's statement False.

Our Sources

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. post on X, April 21, 2024

National Institutes of Health, “NIH Awards Additional Research and Training Grants to Support Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention Science,” Sept. 20, 2023

National Institute of Justice, “Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories,” Feb. 3, 2022

National Institute of Justice, “NIJ FY24 Research and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings,” Feb. 5, 2024

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Funded Research,” accessed April 22, 2024

American Psychological Association, “A Thaw in the Freeze on Federal Funding for Gun Violence and Injury Prevention Research,” April 1, 2021

Allen Rostron, “The Dickey Amendment on Federal Funding for Research on Gun Violence: A Legal Dissection” (American Journal of Public Health), July 2018

Email interview with Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist, April 22, 2024

Email interview with Daniel W. Webster, professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, April 22, 2024

Email interview with Jaclyn Schildkraut, executive director of the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium at the Rockefeller Institute of Government, April 22, 2024

Email interview with Mike Lawlor, University of New Haven criminologist, April 22, 2024

Email interview with Allen Rostron, University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor, April 22, 2024

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

——————————
By: Louis Jacobson, PolitiFact
Title: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Is Wrong About a Ban on NIH Research About Mass Shootings
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/fact-check-rfk-jr-wrong-nih-research-mass-shootings-gun-control-dickey-amendment/
Published Date: Thu, 02 May 2024 09:00:00 +0000

Did you miss our previous article…
https://www.biloxinewsevents.com/breaking-a-promise-california-deficit-could-halt-raises-for-disability-workers/

Post Views: 14