Contrary to ongoing media reports, the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment is safe for use.
The company is caught in a perfect storm of faulty private and government studies, absurd regulatory definitions, environmentalist hoopla, Liberal politics, and verifiable governmental incompetence. Add in the tsunami of a mainstream media eager to fearmonger and water-carry for anti-capitalist environmentalists, and Franz Kafka would’ve been proud.
Brazilian Blowout Passes All Air Sampling Tests
The controversy surrounds the allegedly dangerous levels of formaldehyde that are released during a Brazilian Blowout treatment — allegations for which there remain no scientific basis. In fact, every single correctly performed test has fully acquitted the company and its product.
The first study was conducted jointly by the Center for Research on Occupational and Environmental Toxicology (CROET), Oregon Health & Science University, and Oregon OSHA. In what appears to this reporter as a blatant attempt to manufacture results unfavorable to Brazilian Blowout, air monitoring sample tests were carried out in time periods that vastly exceeded federal OSHA short-term exposure testing protocols of 15 minutes. Instead, Oregon OSHA took samples of 26, 20, and 19 minutes.
Despite the apparent rigging of the experiment, the results still acquitted Brazilian Blowout regarding formaldehyde released during treatments.
Oregon OSHA conducted air monitoring during treatments using the Brazilian Blowout smoothing product at seven different salons where a single treatment was conducted over the course of the day. The 8-hour average exposures ranged from a low of 0.006 parts per million (ppm) to 0.33 ppm. These compare to a permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 0.75 ppm.
During its air monitoring, Oregon OSHA also found short-term exposures ranging from a high of 0.11 for one stylist to a high of 1.88 ppm for another. These compare to a short-term exposure limit (STEL) of 2.0 ppm.
Frustrated that even the rigged data was not in their favor, Oregon OSHA apparently resorted to the most barefaced examples of editorializing a scientific report than I’ve ever read in 25 years. I had to wipe my hands after reading it, each sentence slathered as it was with the drool of these hobgoblins. Example:
“The highest exposure was…44% of the PEL. However, if the same stylist had performed one more comparable 2-hour procedure…the same day, the time-weighted average would likely have been…well over the action level and 85% above the PEL”.
So we didn’t technically find anything wrong, but it could be bad if a stylist did this all day long! The report even insisted that a product manufacturer should consider that a user may use more of the material than directed, that it should consider worst case scenarios when formulating products, and that “one or two sample results below an established limit do not automatically guarantee that the product cannot result in exposures above those limits”. Yeah, and filling your car’s gas tank may not expose you to hazardous chemicals but it doesn’t guarantee that you won’t die if you ram the pump in your mouth and guzzle a tankful of 91 octane.
Oh, but we’re not done. Mere intent to blow up a hugely successful product wouldn’t suffice. They had to find something wrong. Anything. But it had to be big.
Oregon OSHA’s IED
Only trace formaldehyde was detected from the treatment itself — no more than is off-gassed by plywood, carpeting or ceiling tiles — so Oregon OSHA focused on formaldehyde inside the closed bottle. Except formaldehyde is a gas. It doesn’t exist in the bottle, except in tiny amounts when a harmless alcohol called methylene glycol mixes with water. Methylene glycol is a totally different substance from formaldehyde according to the entire scientific community. This consensus includes the State of California’s own designated experts, Dr. Yashavanth Kamth and Dr. Dewey Jackson. In deposition transcripts obtained exclusively by this reporter (available for review), both men swore under oath that methylene glycol is a totally different chemical substance than formaldehyde.
Game, set, match to Brazilian Blowout? Think again.
Scientific reality doesn’t matter to governmental entities. Oregon OSHA chose to ignore the scientific community’s definitions, and instead take advantage of the government’s definition of formaldehyde: that methylene glycol is known as “formaldehyde in water”. Now Oregon OSHA could claim that Brazilian Blowout’s product contained between 4% and 10% formaldehyde, which exceeds safety limits.
This IED blasts Brazilian Blowout off its wheels, opening the floodgates. Now word of this “sinister chemical conspiracy” could be spread far and wide through Oregon OSHA’s willing accomplice — the mainstream media.
First comes CROET’s public alert, then a press release from Oregon OSHA, then the official report and a hazard alert and on and on. Here comes ABC News. Once wasn’t enough, though. Yet again on Good Morning America. And CBS. And the L.A. Times. And NPR. And the list is endless. And not a single media report discussed the fact that the air sampling results were all below OSHA limits, or that the sampling times were apparently rigged, or that the report was a thinly-veiled hatchet job. They all focused on the “formaldehyde content” inside the bottle. The statement by one ABC news correspondent that “…but you should do your homework” is the ultimate insult. You can’t do your homework properly when the teacher gives you the wrong answers in class.
Further, if any media outlet had done its homework, then Oregon OSHA Administrator Michael Wood would not have found such an eager audience for his Media Whoring. Mr. Wood disgraces his professional position by, well, flat-out lying.
“Although it’s not clear whether the regulatory level of airborne exposure would be exceeded based on our results, it is clear that the levels are high enough to cause concern,” Michael Wood, Oregon OSHA administrator said in a statement.
Whaaaat? The airborne exposure results were clearly below OSHA standards! But never having done its research, the media just ate up his statements and it’s the public that gets fed the true poison. Stylists and customers understandably freaked out.
The company fought back, filing a lawsuit against Oregon OSHA, to enjoin it from any further defamatory comments. Read the complaint. You’ll be amazed to discover that I’m only scratching the surface of Oregon OSHA’s unethical behavior. You’ll also be chilled to discover that Brazilian Blowout had to drop the case because legal counsel determined that Oregon OSHA couldn’t be held liable for what, in this reporter’s opinion, was negligence. Why? Oregon OSHA “was acting within its charter”. That’s right, folks. Liberal government environmentalist media whores can say whatever they want about your business as long as it falls “within their charter” and the media will hand out the pitchforks and torches as the lynch mob heads up the mountain.
The story is far from over. The hoax is just gaining momentum, even though tests have demonstrated Brazilian Blowout’s product to be safe….
Next time: Federal OSHA gets involved.