Thirty-three hair-straightening products have been recalled over the last three years in several countries due to high levels of formaldehyde, however, the U.S. has yet to pull the toxic products, according to new research from the national nonprofit Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE).
The issue has alarmed many consumers given that formaldehyde (also called methylene glycol) can cause severe eye, nose and throat irritation and increase cancer risks.
The increased risks to salon workers alone, who offer hair-straightening treatments, merits further investigation, said Alex Scranton, director of science and research at WVE.
“Based on sound science, other countries are taking strong measures to protect the health of salon workers and their customers from formaldehyde-containing products,” said Scranton. “While U.S. government regulations continue to fall short, consumers deserve to know what’s in their products in order to make safer decisions about their hair care.”
Formaldehyde Effects
Natalija Josimov used to swear by hair-straightening treatments for her own coarse, frizzy hair. When she became a hair stylist in 2009, she said she was eager to offer the service to her clients. But just nine months after launching her career, she experienced chronic sinus and respiratory infections, painful blisters in her nose and heart palpitations—all caused by formaldehyde gas released during treatments.
“I think many stylists performing these treatments are under the mistaken impression that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would not allow these products on the market if they were dangerous,” Josimov said. “It took me doing at least 100 treatments before I realized it was making me so ill, and I still have side effects from it."
Josimov is part of a growing number of stylists and consumers concerned about toxic chemicals in hair-straightening products and the double standard that allows formaldehyde-containing products to be sold in the U.S., despite being banned by the European Union Commission.
Stories like Josimov’s led WVE to release a new fact sheet alerting stylists and customers to the international recalls of hair-straightening products.
The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), an industry-funded and operated panel that assesses the safety of cosmetic ingredients in the U.S., declared that formaldehyde was unsafe to be used in hair straightening products in March 2011.
The FDA lacks the authority to issue a mandatory recall of cosmetic products that have been found to cause health problems to consumers. In fact, the agency has yet to issue a voluntary recall of Brazilian Blowout, the first hair straightener found to contain high levels of formaldehyde. The original formula of Brazilian Blowout was ordered off the market in California by the California Attorney General in 2012 for violating California air pollution regulations.
See below which toxic hair straighteners remain on the market, which have been banned or recalled, and which are formaldehyde- free:
International Recalls of Hair StraightenersProducts that have been recalled in other countries, but which are still for sale in the U. S. This list is not exhaustive. There may also be other hair straightening products containing formaldehyde. | |||
Brand/ | Product Name | Level/Range of Formaldehyde | Countries Where Recalled |
BioNaza Cosmetics | KeraHair – Premiere Brazilian Keratin System | .7-2.5% | |
BioNaza Cosmetics | Choco Hair – Brazilian Keratin Chocolate | 1.2-1.8% | |
BioNaza Cosmetics | Diamond – Premiere Brazilian Keratin System | 0.8-1.7% | |
BioNaza Cosmetics | KeraVino Premiere Brazilian Keratin System | 0.9-1.6% | |
Brazillian Blowout | Brazillian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution Brazillian Blowout Solution | 6.4- 8.8% | |
Cadiveu | Brazillian Thermal Reconstruction | 7% | |
Cocochoco Professional | Complex Brazilian Keratin Straightening Treatment | 3% | |
Coppola/Copomon Enterprises LLC | Keratin Complex Smoothing Therapy | 2% | |
Coppola/Copomon Enterprises LLC | Keratin Complex Express Blowout | >.2-1.7% | |
Coppola/Copomon Enterprises LLC | Keratin Complex Intense RX, Smoothing Therapy | 0.5-0.8% | |
Global Keratin | Global Keratin Taming System with Juvexin Strawberry Resistant | 4.40% | |
Global Keratin | Global Keratin Taming System Strawberry | 3.00% | |
Global Keratin | Functional Keratin Hair Taming System Blond/Light Wave Colored “Chocolate” | 1.7% | |
Global Keratin | Global Keratin Taming System with Juvexin Strawberry Light Wave | .2-1.4% | |
Global Keratin | Global Keratin Hair Taming System with Juvexin Light Wave/Curly | >.2% | |
Goleshlee | Goleshlee Keratin Hair Therapy | >0.6% | |
Hair Go Straight | Keratin Treatment | 2.60% | |
I.B.S Beauty Inc. | Istraight Keratin Advanced Keratin Treatment | 2.30% | |
Inoar | Moroccan Hair Treatment | 2.84%-7% | |
KeraStraight | Treatment Original Formula | 2% | |
La Brasiliana | Zero (apple) | 0.76% | |
La Brasiliana | Veloce | 0.35% | |
La Brasiliana | Spruzzi | > .2% | |
La Brasiliana | Domani | > .2% | |
La Brasiliana | Original | > .2% | |
Lazaros general trading LLC | TCQ Plus Phase 2 – Nano Hydra Keratin | 2.30% | |
Marcia Teixeira – M & M International | Chocolate, extreme de-frizzing treatment | 2% | |
Marcia Teixeira – M & M International | Advanced Brazilian Keratin Treatment | 1.70% | |
Marcia Teixeira – M & M International | Brazilian Keratin Treatment, Marcia Teixeira | 1.60% | |
R & L Trading Corp | Soft-Liss Intelligent Brush Morango Step 2 | >0.2% | |
Rio Keratin | Brazilian Keratin Treatment Step 2 Grape Extract | 3.50% | |
Royal Keratin Professional Line by Keratin Connection | Brazilian Keratin Treatment in Mint, Chocolate, Strawberry | 1.54% | |
Tahe | Thermo Keratin No. 2 Active Treatment | >0.2% | |
Hair Straighteners High in Formaldehyde, Not Yet RecalledProducts that have been tested and found to contain formaldehyde higher than acceptable levels in other countries, but have not yet been subject to recall. | |||
Brand/ Manufacturer | Product Name | Level/Range of Formaldehyde | |
Brazillian Gloss | Keratin Smoothing Gloss | 7.30% | |
Kera Green | Keratin and Protein Hair Treatment | 1.50% | |
Keratin Express | Keratin Express Brazilian Smoothing Treatment | 1.2% | |
QOD | Max | 3.52% | |
| QOD | Gold Solution | 2% | |
| Simply Smooth / American Culture Hair | Brazilian Keratin Treatment | 0.93% | |
| Simply Smooth / American Culture Hair | Xtend Keratin Replenishing After Color Lock | 0.55% | |
Formaldehyde-Free Hair StraightenersThe following products have been tested and found not to contain measurable levels of formaldehyde. This list is not exhaustive. There may also be other hair straightening products which do not contain formaldehyde. | |||
Brand/ Manufacturer | Product Name | Level/Range of Formaldehyde | |
JKS International | JKS Smoothing Treament | 0% | |
Bio Ionic | Bio Ionic Kera Smooth Anti Frizz Treatment for Virgin Resistent Hair | 0.01% | |
Pravana Naturceuticals | Pravana Naturceuticals Keratin Fusion | 0.01%
| |
Visit EcoWatch’s HEALTH pages for more related news on this topic.
In a new study, my colleagues Anisha Patel, Francesca Weaks and I estimate that approximately 61.4 million people in the U.S. did not drink their tap water as of 2017-2018. Our research, which was released in preprint format on April 8, 2021, and has not yet been peer reviewed, found that this number has grown sharply in the past several years.
Other research has shown that about 2 million Americans don't have access to clean water. Taking that into account, our findings suggest that about 59 million people have tap water access from either their municipality or private wells or cisterns, but don't drink it. While some may have contaminated water, others may be avoiding water that's actually safe.
Water insecurity is an underrecognized but growing problem in the U.S. Tap water distrust is part of the problem. And it's critical to understand what drives it, because people who don't trust their tap water shift to more expensive and often less healthy options, like bottled water or sugary drinks.
I'm a human biologist and have studied water and health for the past decade in places as diverse as Lowland Bolivia and northern Kenya. Now I run the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University. To understand water issues, I talk to people and use large datasets to see whether a problem is unique or widespread, and stable or growing.
An Epidemic of Distrust
According to our research, there's a growing epidemic of tap water distrust and disuse in the U.S. In a 2020 study, anthropologist Sera Young and I found that tap water avoidance was declining before the Flint water crisis that began in 2014. In 2015-2016, however, it started to increase again for children.
Our new study found that in 2017-2018, the number of Americans who didn't drink tap water increased at an alarmingly high rate, particularly for Black and Hispanic adults and children. Since 2013-2014 – just before the Flint water crisis began – the prevalence of adults who do not drink their tap water has increased by 40%. Among children, not consuming tap has risen by 63%.
To calculate this change, we used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative survey that releases data in two-year cycles. Sampling weights that use demographic characteristics ensure that the people being sampled are representative of the broader U.S. population.
Racial Disparities in Tap Water Consumption
Communities of color have long experienced environmental injustice across the U.S. Black, Hispanic and Native American residents are more likely to live in environmentally disadvantaged neighborhoods, with exposure to water that violates quality standards.
Our findings reflect these experiences. We calculated that Black and Hispanic children and adults are two to three times more likely to report not drinking their tap water than members of white households. In 2017-2018, roughly 3 out of 10 Black adults and children and nearly 4 of 10 Hispanic adults and children didn't drink their tap water. Approximately 2 of 10 Asian Americans didn't drink from their tap, while only 1 of 10 white Americans didn't drink their tap water.
When children don't drink any water on a given day, research shows that they consume twice as many calories from sugary drinks as children who drink water. Higher sugary drink consumption increases risk of cavities, obesity and cardiometabolic diseases. Drinking tap water provides fluoride, which lowers the risk of cavities. Relying on water alternatives is also much more expensive than drinking tap water.
A4: Choosing to drink fluoridated tap water over sugar-sweetened beverages to quench thirst is vital to protecting… https://t.co/3tm8wuWjeZ— Oral Health Watch (@Oral Health Watch)1600795750.0
What Erodes Trust
News reports – particularly high-visibility events like advisories to boil water – lead people to distrust their tap water even after the problem is fixed. For example, a 2019 study showed that water quality violations across the U.S. between 2006 and 2015 led to increases in bottled water purchases in affected counties as a way to avoid tap water, and purchase rates remained elevated after the violation.
The Flint water crisis drew national attention to water insecurity, even though state and federal regulators were slow to respond to residents' complaints there. Soon afterward, lead contamination was found in the water supply of Newark, New Jersey; the city is currently replacing all lead service lines under a legal settlement. Elsewhere, media outlets and advocacy groups have reported finding tap water samples contaminated with industrial chemicals, lead, arsenic and other contaminants.
Many other factors can cause people to distrust their water supply, including smell, taste and appearance, as well as lower income levels. Location is also an issue: Older U.S. cities with aging infrastructure are more prone to water shutoffs and water quality problems.
It's important not to blame people for distrusting what comes out of their tap, because those fears are rooted in history. In my view, addressing water insecurity requires a two-part strategy: ensuring that everyone has access to clean water, and increasing trust so people who have safe water will use it.
Chart: The Conversation / CC BY-ND. Source: AWWA / Morning Consult. Get the data
Building Confidence
As part of his proposed infrastructure plan, President Joe Biden is asking Congress for $111 billion to improve water delivery systems, replace lead pipelines and tackle other contaminants. The plan also proposes improvements for small water systems and underserved communities.
These are critical steps to rebuild trust. Yet, in my view, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should also provide better public education about water quality testing and targeted interventions for vulnerable populations, such as children and underserved communities. Initiatives to simplify and improve water quality reports can help people understand what's in their water and what they can do if they think something is wrong with it.
Chart: The Conversation / CC BY-ND. Source: AWWA / Morning Consult. Get the data
Who delivers those messages is important. In areas like Flint, where former government officials have been indicted on charges including negligence and perjury in connection with the water crisis, the government's word alone won't rebuild trust. Instead, community members can fill this critical role.
Another priority is the 13%-15% of Americans who rely on private well water, which is not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. These households are responsible for their own water quality testing. Public funding would help them test it regularly and address any problems.
Public distrust of tap water in the U.S. reflects decades of policies that have reduced access to reliable, safe drinking water in communities of color. Fixing water lines is important, but so is giving people confidence to turn on the tap.
Asher Rosinger is an assistant professor of biobehavioral health, anthropology, and demography and director of the Water, Health, and Nutrition Laboratory at Penn State University.
Disclosure statement: Asher Rosinger receives funding from the National Science Foundation on an unrelated project. This work was supported by the Ann Atherton Hertzler Early Career Professorship funds, and the Penn State Population Research Institute (NICHD P2CHD041025). The funders had no role in the research or interpretation of results.
Reposted with permission from The Conversation.
- Life-Saving Drinking Water Disinfectants Have a 'Dark Side ... ›
- Tap Water Safety: There's Good News and Bad News - EcoWatch ›
- How Healthy Is America's Public Health Infrastructure? - EcoWatch ›
- 170 Million Americans Drink Radioactive Tap Water - EcoWatch ›
- Report: 64% of Bottled Water Is Tap Water, Costs 2000x More ... ›