January 19, 2020 0
Osmosis Colour is ONCOLOGY FRIENDLY BEAUTY!
We love Osmosis Colour and skincare so much! These lines are truly amazing and the company is making These amazing products that don’t make you compromise on your health or your values for great beauty products.
We are proud to offer an assortment of Oncology-Friendly skincare and makeup products. These non-toxic formulas are gentle enough for even the most sensitive, compromised skin to reinforce the barrier and promote repair without causing harm or irritation. We partner with several oncology organizations to contribute safe, effective skincare for those going through treatments.
Osmosis beauty has offices in Evergreen Colorado and their products are available at My Hair Trip Salon in Denver, CO.Leave a reply
January 10, 2020 0
We have been members of the Young Living family for a very long time. We love young living essential oil’s because they are the purest oils in the world! Young Living never compromises their ingredients and you’re always guaranteed a pure, organic, incredibly effective oil or blend of oils.
Do you use essential oil’s? Do you diffuse them in the air or put them on your skin or clean your home with them? There are literally thousands of uses for these incredible magic potions!
We have experienced the benefits of essential oil’s for years and years and now we want to make sure that everyone can experience those same benefits so here is what we are going to do…
if you join the Young Living family with us we are going to give you a VIP badge on your profile at our salon that will get you discounts on anything and everything you purchase with us including salon services as well as health and beauty products as well as art, clothing, apparel and jewelry from our boutique!!! Forever!
This is a win win win! Once part of the family you’re going to get our members discount at the shop forever, access to the entire catalog of young living essential oils at wholesale prices plus if you choose you now can be a distributor of young living essential oil‘s and can make some money on the side or pursue it as far as you want and make real money doing it as a career providing others with these incredible essential oils as well! It’s totally up to you however you want to do it, get essential oils into your life, make your life better, save money and earn money along the way! If you are interested or would like to learn more feel free to hit us up at the shop anytime, dm us on our social platforms, email us, or drop by to chat anytime!
Essential oils have enhanced lives for thousands of years, offering a variety of benefits from cosmetic and dietary purposes
to spiritual and religious use. Young Living has always been at the forefront of bringing this ancient tradition to modern
users, introducing millions to emotional, physical, and spiritual wellness that can be truly life-changing.
Extracted through careful steam distillation, resin tapping, and cold pressing, the purest essential oils are far more
powerful than the botanicals from which they come. Any time you hold a bottle of Young Living’s powerful essential oils,
you hold nature’s pure essence.
Inspire a positive emotional state
Love the way the fragrance from a fresh orange peel brightens your day? Each essential oil’s complex, pleasant, and unique scent triggers emotions and memories, which can help in your search for a more fulfilling and balanced life. To help you rediscover peace, balance, and joy, use these essential oils and blends for diffusion, soothing baths, massage, inhalation, or topical application.
– Joy™ essential oil blend
– Lavender essential oil
– Orange essential oil
– Peace & Calming II®™ essential oil blend
– Peppermint essential oil
– Jasmine essential oil
Enhance Your Physical Wellness
Modern lifestyles don’t always create optimal conditions for physical wellness. Poor diet, lack of exercise, and an overabundance of environmental toxins can leave the body unbalanced and diminish energy levels. From weight management to supplemental support, our essential oils and essential oil-infused products can provide the targeted solutions you need to restore balance and feel your best. Check out our Slique® weight-management system or Vitality™ line of dietary essential oils to discover the best way to infuse your life. Feel revived every day with the whole food-based nutrients, powerful antioxidants, and pure essential oils found in these products.
– NingXia Red™
– EndoFlex™ Vitality™
– Slique™ Tea
Enhance Spiritual Awareness
Incense and essential oils from plants have always played an important part in religious and spiritual ceremonies, helping participants transcend the trivial and connect with something larger than themselves. The pure constituents in these oils stimulate olfactory receptors and activate regions in the brain’s limbic system associated with memory, emotion, and state of mind. To enhance your spiritual practice, dilute and apply empowering essential oils directly to wrists, feet, and behind the ears or diffuse the oils in a quiet space. Popular essential oils and blends for spiritual focus include:
– Sacred Frankincense essential oil
– White Angelica™ essential oil
– Live Your Passion™ essential oil blend
– Inspiration™ essential oil blend
Purify Your Home
Harsh chemical formulas aren’t your only option when it comes to cleaning your home. Enjoy peace of mind when you polish countertops, wash sticky hands, and take care of laundry with the effective cleansing power of essential oils and our Thieves® line of products.
– Thieves® Household Cleaner
– Thieves® Foaming Hand Soap
– Thieves® Laundry Soap
– Lemon essential oil
– Purification® essential oil blend
Refine Your Beauty Routine
Eliminate harsh ingredients from your personal care products and let your beauty shine through. You’ll fall in love with the wide range of essential oils that help keep skin looking clear, boost moisture, and give you that youthful glow! Essential oils can even help make your locks look luscious! Using naturally derived ingredients, our advanced skin and hair care solutions make it easy to enjoy the beautiful benefits of essential oils every day.
– ART® Skin Care System
– ART® Sheerlumé™
– Lavender Hand & Body Lotion
– Frankincense essential oil
– Tea Tree (Melaleuca Alternifolia) essential oil
January 3, 2020 0
My Hair Trip Salon is changing the game and once again finding a better way with Team-based Pay!
The pay method a salon chooses is one of the most important decisions made for a business, as it has a HUGE impact on everyone’s financial well-being, culture and more.
In this blog post, we’re going to breakdown one of the powerful (yet occasionally misunderstood) salon/spa compensation systems: Team-Based Pay!
And who better to explain it to you than the person who literally invented Team-Based Pay for the beauty industry, Strategies Founder & CEO, Neil Ducoff.
Let’s dig in!
Team-Based Pay (TBP) is not just a pay method
To understand the true power of Team-Based Pay, it’s important to understand that it is much more than just a pay method. It’s a comprehensive business model based on proven systems, best business practices and applied leadership. The Team-Based Pay method creates the foundation that supports all the systems that make Team-Based Pay such an effective business model.
The Team-Based Pay Business Model is designed to create a profitable, sustainable business for the owner(s), while providing career growth opportunities for employees, and delivering consistent quality service experiences for its customers.
What is Team-Based Pay??
In its simplest form,Team-Based Pay is an Hourly Rate + Team Bonus compensation method. It is pay based on an employee’s overall performance that extends far beyond “individual revenue” to include skill level, behaviors and strengths.
What truly differentiates Team-Based Pay from any other compensation method, especially commission and piece work, are the systems, culture and leadership that drive it. For this reason, we call it the Team-Based Pay Business Model.
What Team-Based Pay is not
Just paying an hourly rate does not equate to being on Team-Based Pay. Without the Team-Based Pay systems, hourly rate pay is simply being on “not commission.”
There are four key areas that drive Team-Based Pay
Employee Growth Paths
Let’s dive into each in a little more detail…
1. The Cultural Shift to Team-Based Pay is dramatic
Where the majority of salons and spas focus on growing “columns of the appointment” (individual request rates), The Team-Based Pay Business Model is about all team members driving the company’s productivity rate — not just their own.
This is a major shift from the inefficiency of growing columns on the appointment. It is the ultimate culture shift away from column vision and I/me/mine.
The inherent challenge of commission is that its primary focus is for individuals to build their own clientele. Once a service provider has a “full book” of requests, the salon/spa is vulnerable to significant lost revenue should one or more busy service providers leave.
In stark contrast to the dangers of individual clientele building (lost revenue from turnover and walkouts), Strategies Team-Based Pay Business Model creates an impressive team-based culture. The following statements are embedded into the performance and culture of every Team-Based Pay salon/spa:
Everyone is responsible for every hour available for sale, in every column, on the company’s appointment book.
The skills of the entire company are available to each and every client.
At first glance, these two statements may not appear profound, but think what your salon/spa business would look like if every one of your employees took ownership in filling the hours that are still available on your appointment book. Think about smaller or no waiting lists because clients are excited to experience other service providers.
KEY: The Team-Based Pay Business Model objective is fewer, busier, service providers functioning at an ideal productivity rate of +/- 80%.
< SEE ALL POSTS Team-Based Pay: What It Is — Why It Works May 13, 2019 | By Neil Ducoff | 1 Comment 0 0 0 Total Shares The pay method you choose for your salon, spa, medspa or barbershop is one of the most important decisions you can make for your business, as it has a HUGE impact on everyone’s financial well-being, your culture and more. In this blog post, we’re going to breakdown one of the powerful (yet occasionally misunderstood) salon/spa compensation systems: Team-Based Pay. And who better to explain it to you than the person who literally invented Team-Based Pay for the beauty industry, Strategies Founder & CEO, Neil Ducoff. Let’s dig in! Team-Based Pay (TBP) is not just a pay method To understand the true power of Team-Based Pay, it’s important to understand that it is much more than just a pay method. It’s a comprehensive business model based on proven systems, best business practices and applied leadership. The Team-Based Pay method creates the foundation that supports all the systems that make Team-Based Pay such an effective business model. The Team-Based Pay Business Model is designed to create a profitable, sustainable business for the owner(s), while providing career growth opportunities for employees, and delivering consistent quality service experiences for its customers. What is Team-Based Pay?? In its simplest form,Team-Based Pay is an Hourly Rate + Team Bonus compensation method. It is pay based on an employee’s overall performance that extends far beyond “individual revenue” to include skill level, behaviors and strengths. What truly differentiates Team-Based Pay from any other compensation method, especially commission and piece work, are the systems, culture and leadership that drive it. For this reason, we call it the Team-Based Pay Business Model. What Team-Based Pay is not Just paying an hourly rate does not equate to being on Team-Based Pay. Without the Team-Based Pay systems, hourly rate pay is simply being on “not commission.” There are four key areas that drive Team-Based Pay Team-Based Culture Financial Disciplines Operational Systems Employee Growth Paths Let’s dive into each in a little more detail… 1. The Cultural Shift to Team-Based Pay is dramatic Where the majority of salons and spas focus on growing “columns of the appointment” (individual request rates), The Team-Based Pay Business Model is about all team members driving the company’s productivity rate — not just their own. This is a major shift from the inefficiency of growing columns on the appointment. It is the ultimate culture shift away from column vision and I/me/mine. The inherent challenge of commission is that its primary focus is for individuals to build their own clientele. Once a service provider has a “full book” of requests, the salon/spa is vulnerable to significant lost revenue should one or more busy service providers leave. In stark contrast to the dangers of individual clientele building (lost revenue from turnover and walkouts), Strategies Team-Based Pay Business Model creates an impressive team-based culture. The following statements are embedded into the performance and culture of every Team-Based Pay salon/spa: Everyone is responsible for every hour available for sale, in every column, on the company’s appointment book. The skills of the entire company are available to each and every client. At first glance, these two statements may not appear profound, but think what your salon/spa business would look like if every one of your employees took ownership in filling the hours that are still available on your appointment book. Think about smaller or no waiting lists because clients are excited to experience other service providers. KEY: The Team-Based Pay Business Model objective is fewer, busier, service providers functioning at an ideal productivity rate of +/- 80%. 2. FINANCIAL Disciplines and Control Over Payroll If you pay commission, straight or sliding scale, you are committing a fixed percentage of service to your service payroll. Increases in revenue automatically increase service payroll. Once commission rates are set, it is massively difficult to adjust for increases in operating expenses. If you increase prices to cover increased operating costs — all commission employees get an immediate raise. That’s the reality of commission pay. NOTE: Product cost deductions from service revenue before commission is nothing more than a “smoke and mirrors” tactic to lower commission a few points. In reality, implementing a product cost deduction is a form of a pay conversion. On Team-Based Pay, service payroll costs are fixed and do not increase in tandem with increases in revenue. This factor alone gives salon/spa owners and leaders significant control over payroll costs. Payroll costs will not change without leadership approval. This also allows for adjustments to increases in operating costs. KEY: Rather than the automatic payroll increases on commission, pay raises and new hires are planned and budgeted. Building and living a Cash-Flow Plan and financial oversight is are part of the Team-Based Pay Business Model. On Team-Based Pay, profit and cash reserves are planned outcomes. 3. Operational Systems It is the operational systems that drive Team-Based Pay that truly sets it apart from other pay methods. For example, at first exposure to the Team-Based Pay Business Model, many owners assume that service providers being paid an hourly rate will be unmotivated to produce at the same level as on commission. The thinking is, “I’m getting paid whether I produce or not.” For that to occur on Team-Based Pay, systems would have to be ignored and leadership not paying attention. Team-Based Pay is systems driven. Critical numbers including, productivity rate, new and existing client retention rates, prebook rates, frequency of visit and others are constantly monitored. Daily huddles, monthly company service + retail goals and scoreboards are dialed in. KEY: Team-Based Pay pays for individual and team performance — not hanging out in the back room. When monthly goals are achieved, all employees, including front desk/guest services, earn a fair share of a budgeted team bonus. Unlike the “I/me/mine” commission culture, on Team-Based Pay, the entire team pushes in the same direction. Commission is based solely on an individual brings in with his or her two hands. Because it’s not based on overall performance, essential performance behaviors, such as lateness, low productivity, low client retention, low retail sales and more, have no bearing commission earned. Simply put, commission often pays for the wrong performance and behaviors —Team-Based Pay does not. 4. Employee Growth Paths Team-Based Pay is designed to create growth opportunities for employees. To communicate these growth paths, Team-Based Pay utilizes a Strategies’ tool called a Broadband to communicated expectations by pay rate. Broadbands do not focus on how much a service provider should be bringing in to earn more pay. That’s commission thinking. Broadbands focus on and communicate the Skill Requirements, Team Behaviors and Individual Strengths and Behaviors to advance their earning potential and responsibilities. Broadbands are about maintaining transparency and trust. Broadbands show the starting and top end pay in both hourly rate and annual value. Broadband includes the specific company performance and growth targets that all team members strive to achieve. KEY: Broadbands are an essential tool used in Performance Reviews. Conversion to Team-Based Pay Facts: The conversion process to Team-Based Pay does not, in any way, cut a service provider’s pay. In fact, the new hourly rate, depending on the individual and financial reality of the company, is typically slightly better than the “hourly rate on commission” it was based on. On Team-Based Pay, service providers are not all paid the same hourly rate. It can take four to six months to prepare for a Team-Based Pay conversion. Systems must be implemented and functioning prior to conversion. Changing pay methods is a process that cannot be rushed. If all that changes is “the pay,” you didn’t convert to Team-Based Pay, the “I/me/mine” commission mentality will persist, and the financial condition of the company will not improve. The higher the trust factor and the more structured the company is at the time of the Team-Based Pay Conversion, the smoother the conversion. Each service provider’s new hourly rate on Team-Based Pay is based on the average gross pay earned over the previous six months, then divided by schedule hours per pay period. A minor increase (based on a number of factors) is added to arrive at the new Team-Based Pay hourly rate. That rate is then multiplied by that employee’s scheduled hours to arrive at a projected new paycheck. Retail commissions are not typically part of the Team-Based Pay Business Model. Retail commissions earned are included in the calculation of the employee’s new hourly rate. If the employee did well selling retail, it gave them a higher hourly rate. If the employee avoided retail sales, their new hourly rate will reflect it. Consistent retail recommendations become an expectation on Team-Based Pay. Monthly Team Bonus is budgeted into the Cash-Flow Plan based on service and retail revenue goals. When goal is achieved, Team Bonus is paid. Strategies provides a Team-Bonus Calculator to determine what full- and part-time employee share of the bonus pool. Higher Productivity Rates have a profound impact on controlling Service Payroll percentage of Total Revenues. Higher Productivity Rates mean efficient use of service time and payroll dollars. Depending on the company’s commission rates and service payroll percent at the time of conversion, it is possible to achieve a 10% or more reduction in total service payroll percent in one to six months. This reduction is based on increasing revenues and controlling payroll costs. It does not represent a reduction in actual service payroll dollars. Converting to Team-Based Pay will not trigger a walkout. It is possible that one or more employees may decide to leave. These are typically employees that were not onboard prior to the conversion. KEY: Departures typically increase the company’s productivity rate while reducing service payroll dollars and payroll percent. As revenues increase, raises can be budgeted and rewarded based on the employee’s overall performance. For example: For every $100,000 gain in revenues, there will be approximately $30,000 to $35,000 available for pay increases and possible new hires. Top producing, fully booked, service providers gain most. When fully booked, commission service providers can hit a pay ceiling. (Yes, individual price increases can help, but ceiling still exists.) KEY: On Team-Based Pay, the increased income potential of fully booked service providers is in the hours available for sale on other columns on the appointment book. CONCLUSION Today, growing an employee-based service business is more complex than ever. Suites, booth rental and the “independent” factor feed on employee-based salons. To succeed, employee-based service businesses must become everything that booth rental and suites are not, and by design, cannot be. The industry needs to recognize that commission is what drives individual clientele building, because it rewards “I/me/mine” thinking and behavior. The brand and reputation of the company is what attracts and retains clients, not the popularity of specific individuals. This in no way means paying hard working employees less. It means paying for the right overall performance and to stop paying for the wrong performance and behaviors commission automatically rewards. It’s about building a company and brand. It’s about growing a company that grows in value. It’s about creating that “team-based” culture all owners dream about. It’s about building careers. It’s about creating profit and reinvesting in your business and employees. It’s about creating income security for your and your employees. It’s about “Our client” replacing “my client” thinking. Our industry is rapidly changing. Employee-based salons and spas must be leading change — not reacting to it. What you just read is an ultra-condensed overview of Team-Based Pay. Want to learn more about Team-Based Pay? We highly encourage you to attend the Team-Based Pay Conference, the Strategies Incubator Seminar, or download our FREE Team-Based Pay White Paper. Want hands-on help implementing Team-Based Pay in your salon, spa or medspa? There’s no better way than working one-on-one with a Certified Strategies Coach as part of a Strategies Membership.Leave a reply
December 13, 2019 0
BREAST CANCER LINKED TO PERMANENT HAIR DYE AND CHEMICAL HAIR STRAIGHTENERS IN STUDY OF ALMOST 50,000 WOMEN
BY ROSIE MCCALL ON 12/3/19 AT 7:00 PM EST
Traditional salons are slow to change their ways but with more and more scientific data showing how incredibly toxic and harmful traditional beauty products are, and have been for a long time, more and more women are seeking a healthy alternative to what the traditional salon is offering. That’s where organic salons like My Hair Trip Salon Denver comes in, offering non-toxic, non-harmful beauty solutions that are healthy and also work as well or better than any traditional products and lines available today!
“Women who regularly use permanent hair dye could be increasing their risk of breast cancer up to 60 percent, according to scientists writing in the International Journal of Cancer.
A study based on the medical records of more than 45,000 women found a positive correlation between permanent hair dye and breast cancer—particularly among those who are black.
While the paper is based on patterns and trends and, as such, doesn’t confirm a direct cause, it adds to research suggesting there may be carcinogens lurking in commonly-used beauty products.
“The results do not surprise me,” Otis W. Brawley, medical oncologist and epidemiologist at the Hopkins-Kimmel Cancer Center, told Newsweek. “Many of us have worried that the chemicals in especially the permanent hair dyes and hair straighteners have the potential to cause cancer.”
Taken as a group women who regularly dyed their hair appeared to be increasing their risk of developing breast cancer by 9 percent. However, for black women, the risk of developing breast cancer was significantly higher—at 45 percent.
This increased even further, to 60 percent, among black women who heavily used hair dye, defined in this case as once (or more) every five to eight weeks. The associated risk for white women, in contrast, was 7 percent for regular use and 8 percent for heavy use.
There also appeared to be differences depending on the type of hair dye used. Dark hair dye was associated with a 51 percent increase in risk for black women and an 8 percent in risk for white women. When it came to light hair dye, there appeared to be a 46 percent increase in risk for black women and a 12 percent increase risk for white women.
Why there are racial variations is unclear, but the researchers suggest it may be linked to differences in the way it is used or differences in the way products marketed for black and white audiences are made. The study’s authors reference previous research that suggests those made for black women could have higher levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
“Black women are already at an increased risk of breast cancer, and drawing a clear line to hair products is difficult,” Stephanie Bernik, MD, Chief of Breast Surgery at Mount Sinai West in New York told Newsweek.
“Having said that, I do believe the study gives us enough evidence to call for a prospective trial designed to specifically look at this one factor to see if the increased risk of cancer persists. In the meantime, I would caution patients that there is a possible link between hair dyes and cancer, although more research is needed.”
They also found a significant correlation between breast cancer risk and chemical hair straighteners, with the researchers emphasizing this needs to be backed up by other research. (Other studies have confirmed no breast cancer risk associated with hair relaxers)
However, in this case, the risk was consistent, increasing across all races by 30 percent for women who use chemical hair straighteners every five to eight weeks or more. Though, as the study authors point out, this is likely to affect black women more as chemical straighteners are used by black women more than they are by white women.
As far as their advice for women who dye or chemically straighten their hair goes, Dale Sandler, Ph.D., chief of the NIEHS Epidemiology Branch who was involved in the research, points to the numerous other carcinogenic chemicals people are regularly exposed to.
Brawley advises women use hair dye and chemical hair straighteners very carefully but says there are other things that will have more of an impact on whether someone will develop cancer or not.
“I would also point out that the combination of obesity, consuming too many calories and lack of physical activity has a much higher relative risk for breast cancer in both black and white women,” said Brawley, a former Chief Medical and Scientific Officer of the American Cancer Society.
Michael Jones, Senior Staff Scientist in Epidemiology at The Institute of Cancer Research, said: “It is too early to make a firm recommendation on the basis of one study, and further research is needed. The whole literature needs to be evaluated by expert groups, bringing together the evidence to make recommendations” he told Newsweek. He adds there are limitations to the study.
“The Sisters Study is a good prospective cohort study—but women were recruited to the study because they had a sister with breast cancer, so the conclusions wouldn’t necessarily hold true for women in the wider population, hence the need for further confirmation.”
There were no observable differences in cancer risk between women who did not die their hair period and those who used temporary or semi-permanent dye.
The research was based on the medical records of more than 46,000 women aged 35 to 74 from the Sister Study, meaning all women involved had a close relative who had died of breast cancer. The results include information from a follow-up period of roughly 8 years, when 2,794 breast cancers were identified.
The article has been updated to include comments from Stephanie Bernik, Chief of Breast Surgery at Mount Sinai West, and Otis W. Brawley, medical oncologist and epidemiologist at the Hopkins-Kimmel Cancer Center.”
This article and more from NEWSWEEKLeave a reply
November 15, 2019 0
By Laurel Nelson, contributing writer with Salon Today
Frustrated with lack of flexibility in their schedules and a desire to make more money, many stylists leave traditional salon settings and turn to a career as an independent contractor, both as a solution to their challenges in the salon and as a stepping stone to becoming an owner.
But is the grass always greener? And is the experience in a booth rental or salon suite-setting enough to launch a career as an owner? Bebea Hanna is a stylist who has worked in both the traditional salon environment and as an independent contractor. Here, she shares her experience.
Q: WHAT MADE YOU LEAVE THE TRADITIONAL SALON ENVIRONMENT TO BE INDEPENDENT?
“After having two different salon experiences that weren’t successful for various reasons, I wanted to be in control of my own environment, creativity and inventory. I thought it would be a stepping stone to see if I wanted to own a salon on a larger scale, and to see if I liked a salon dependent on just me owning the business.
In the past, I had experienced problems like bounced checks from owners, so I thought by becoming independent, I would be able to control everything—the hours I worked, the products I carried, etc. It was a trial run of owning a mini-salon.”
Q: WHAT ARE THE PROS TO BEING AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR?
“The freedom and flexibility to have my own schedule, and creatively to go whatever direction I wanted. I also saw it as a financial gain because I wasn’t giving up the huge percentage of money that I was in the salon. But later, I started to understand why I had to give up that part of my income.
Responsibilities like stocking retail, doing laundry, handling my accounting and being my own front desk started preventing me from being creatively free. At one point, I thought about not selling retail to take something off my plate, but retail is the direct link of loyalty between the stylist and client. I realized I was deteriorating in my ability to be a stylist, which is what I do really well.”
Q: WHY DID YOU GO BACK TO A TRADITIONAL SALON?
“I started becoming really unprofessional in ways I wouldn’t have expected of myself. I would move appointments around for my own convenience because I had gaps in my day, without consideration of the client. At first, because the relationship is so personal, the client is understanding. And if I was sick, I’d have to call six different people to reschedule.
I also started being late, and had a horrible schedule. I’d work Sundays to take off Saturdays, but end up working seven days a week.
At that point I had minimum retail because I was tired of dealing with it and sales tax. And I really wanted a structured schedule so I could come to work and focus on my actual job—servicing my clients and educating them on how to take care of their home needs. I was ready to let someone more business-minded deal with scheduling and retail, and I wanted a consistent paycheck.
I was getting surges of money—$10k one month and $3k the next—but with the same monthly expenses. I would turn everything I did into a write-off, but I was really just cheating myself by not paying taxes the way I should.
Slowly, the perks stopped outweighing the advantages. In the beginning, I did everything possible to get clients in my chair. But I was getting burnt out and stopped taking client calls. Then I’d forget to return the call and finally got to the point I didn’t want to do hair at all. I wasn’t getting new clients, either, because I wasn’t pushing for referrals. I was in this frame of mind that I could do less work for more money because I was getting 100 percent of the profit. But if I had run it like a real business, and paid my taxes correctly, I wouldn’t have made any money.
Another big reason for burnout was I stopped going to classes because I was on my own to pay for education. And when I did go, I didn’t know anyone—it would be groups of stylists from salons, and then I’d be on my own. It took a toll on my skills artistically.
I also missed working next to other stylists and seeing their work. And when I did see someone else’s work, I didn’t know how they did it or what product they used. I wanted to be a part of a team where together we’re great. I didn’t want to stay in a room for years and do the same little razor cut.
When I went back to a traditional commission salon, I chose one affiliated with a professional manufacturer so I could get the support of education.”
Q: WHAT ADVICE WOULD YOU OFFER A STYLIST CONSIDERING BECOMING INDEPENDENT?
“Think about why you’re in the industry and what you need. Are you getting what you need out of it artistically? Are you keeping yourself inspired? Is the communication you have with just your clients enough? Are you ok with being isolated in a room by yourself?
The ones making money are free-flowing with it, which is easy to do for a couple years, but not forever. Is it worth the integrity of your work? Are you giving the best you can? When you do an amazing haircut in the salon and people watch it, that feels good. When nobody sees it, what are the odds you are going to just give a simple trim? Your peers know the difference between a good and great haircut, and being in the salon puts you on stage with your co-workers. Most stylists want recognition and to watch other people. It’s not a natural environment to be isolated. It’s hard—while a client’s color is processing, you can’t just get your lunch out and eat, or leave them in a little room by themselves.
I’m now more appreciative of the traditional salon environment and the fact that retail shelves are stocked with products available to support my work. I know why I’m giving the salon commission now—electricity, water, clean towels, maintenance, a fully-stocked color bar.
These tools allow me to do my job freely, and I’m no longer resentful of my phone ringing on a Sunday, so I’m more professional with my clients.
I realized owning a salon was not what I wanted. I wanted to do good hair, be inspired, teach and be taught—I couldn’t do that in a room by myself.”Leave a reply
October 4, 2019 0
Want to hold on to — or recapture — your youth? These simple steps promise maximum vitality.
Experts on aging agree — there are positive steps you can take to make your “golden years” healthier and more enjoyable. And, they might just add as much as a decade or more to your life… So read on, and act now!
Phase Out Destructive Habits
The single best thing you can do for your health and longevity is quit smoking. Smoking has been indicted for a laundry list of ills from heart disease to lung disorders, all of which can foil your longevity plans.
Drink only in moderation. Alcohol infuses every cell, damaging genes and inflaming your liver. A glass of wine a day for women and maybe two for men, but no more, may be mildly beneficial.
Get your Zzzz’s. Your body needs down time to repair cells and rest your heart. And your mind needs dreaming to stay sane.
Find a doctor who specializes in geriatrics or anti-aging. Barbara M. Morris, RPh, author of Boomers Can Really Put Old on Hold, recommends an anti-aging doctor. But according to Marc R. Blackman, MD, chief of the laboratory of clinical investigation of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (part of the National Institutes of Health), a geriatrician would be more mainstream and recommend fewer unproven treatments. “Anti-aging is like saying anti-puberty or anti-pregnancy. This is a natural process,” he says. Whatever his or her style, your new doctor may recommend yearly assessment of various biomarkers, including lipids, DHEA, estrogen, cortisol, thyroid, lung function, and micronutrient assays.
Cut saturated fat, up omega-3 fats. It’s gospel by now: eat less or no red meat; lose the cake and ice cream; consume more complex carbs, such as whole grains, fruits, and vegetables; and get plenty of fatty fish. The healthy fats in salmon, mackerel, and sardines help keep oxygen free-radical molecules from damaging your cells.
Consider moderating your total food intake. Studies in rats show that a 30% calorie restriction means longer life (no, it doesn’t just seem longer!). Blackman also cites studies in rhesus monkeys showing a gain in years from a reduction in food. Obviously, losing excess pounds means less strain on your system.
Be careful when tweaking your hormones. Morris swears by controversial human growth hormone — for her. Blackman is no fan. “There have been big studies to determine the relationship between decreases in human growth hormone and thinner bones, more body fat, and mood swings. Giving growth hormone can build muscle, but it has not been shown that the muscle is any stronger.” HGH has also been associated with water retention, carpal tunnel syndrome, high blood pressure, and blood-sugar fluctuations. “[HGH science] is not at a point where any responsible provider could recommend it,” Blackman says. And what about the other substance — a steroid called DHEA — often recommended for aging? “Dramatically less evidence than HGH!” exclaims Blackman. As for estrogen and progesterone replacement, it’s been in all the papers. The combo therapy may increase, rather than cut, the risk of cancer and heart disease. Many natural alternatives to these substances exist — your own situation should dictate your decision, but always consult your doctor.
Supplement, supplement, supplement. Most of us suffer from “overconsumption malnutrition” — too much of the wrong things, Morris says. She takes a fistful of vitamins and minerals each morning. Even the cautious American Medical Association recently endorsed taking a daily multivitamin. In addition to the effective antioxidant vitamin C, Morris says CoQ10, vitamin E, alpha lipoic acid (another antioxidant), and perhaps some of those “mental acuity” mixtures in the health-food store should be in your medicine cabinet. Again, your doctor can help you fashion routine.
Reprogram your vision of old age. A study at Yale recently showed that those with a positive view of growing older lived seven years longer than those who griped about it. Morris works with young people and “they forget things all the time and never refer to ‘having to a junior moment.'”
Kick guilt out of your life! Laura Berman Fortgang, author of Living Your Best Life, says: “Be future-minded. Guilt and regrets are part of the past. Evolving and changing is how we stay young.”
Don’t be afraid to make a big change. Fortgang says it’s never too late to move, join the Peace Corps, change careers, get married, or get a divorce. “Don’t say you’re too old,” she says. “Sometimes [earlier] decisions need to be changed.” She and Morris also say plastic surgery can be life-enhancing if you do it to look and feel better, not to change your life overnight.
Morris also half-jokingly advises that people never retire. “Retirement is a contagious, debilitating disease.” Take some time off for a vacation and smell the roses, she advises. But don’t get so intoxicated by the roses that you don’t come back and do something useful. “Those roses could turn into daisies,” she says, “as in pushing up daisies.”
This article was originally found here: https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/features/promote-the-aging-process#2Leave a reply
June 25, 2019 0
The Perfect Haircut For Your Face Shape
Looking for something different to spice up your look? How about a new haircut? Trying a new haircut can be a little stressful but once you figure out what will look good with your face shape, you will be sure to find a new look that will compliment all your best features.
Discover Your Face Shape
The biggest key to flattering your face shape is to find a hairstyle that will give your face the illusion of appearing more oval. Tho start, you need to consider what your current face shape is. The best way to determine what face shape you have is to simply look in the mirror at different angles and see if your face appears to be longer, rounder, squared, or heart-shaped. The rule of thumb? If you really can’t determine which face shape you have, chances are you have a more oval face shape and you look good in most hairstyles! Focusing on a specific haircut for your face is essential when you have very dramatic facial features.
Explore New Styles
If you are ready to dive into a new style or want to try out a new take on your old style, consider adding pops of color, a little bit of extra curl, or even explore new products to give your hair some extra shine. According to House Method, there are plenty of eco-friendly products for your hair and your home.
Choose a Haircut That Compliments Your Shape
Now for the haircuts that work best with different face shapes. To start, if you have a heart-shaped face, you want to draw attention to your eyes and cheekbones. This works best with styles that include bangs or cuts that have more volumes on the side. If you have a long face, try and stick with shorter hairstyles. Keep in mind that the longer your hair is, the longer your face will look. If you have a round face, you want to try and add length to your face and the best way to do that is to explore longer hairstyles. Try and shy away from shorter cuts, as they will make your face appear more rounded. For square faces, try exploring styles that incorporate a lot of curls and texture to play down strong jaws.
Do Whatever Makes You Happy
Keep in mind that hairstyles that work for some faces may not work best for yours and vice versa. These tips are merely guidelines to help you explore new looks if there is a specific style you are dying to try out, go for it!
This article written and contributed to our blog by Delilah FarrellLeave a reply
June 25, 2019 2
Suites and suite franchises are promising a whole lot that they can’t deliver.
Suites are twisting a lot of facts and data with one intent … to get leases signed.
Suites use the terms “Revenue,” “Profit” and “Income” to say the same thing. These terms are NOT the same thing. Suites say, “You can keep 100% of the profit,” but they never define “profit.” Profit is what’s left after all expenses are paid. For an independent suite tenant, that’s called “Net Income.” The suites never explain that profit can be negative and that a suite tenant can keep all of that negative profit.
Suites blur the term “Income.” Are they talking “Gross Revenue” or “Net Income”? A claim that “income” went up 40% to 60% is easy to make when that “Income” really means “Gross Revenue” from service and retail sales – not net personal income.
One suite franchise spotlights one hairstylist that said he wasn’t looking to be self-employed, but when his salon owner presented him with a 150-mile radius non-compete, it left him no option. REALLY? A 150-mile non-compete for a stylist is a ridiculous statement. 15-mile? Yes. 150-mile radius? No. It would never hold up in court. It’s another bashing of a very common practice at employee-based salons.
Another suite franchise spotlights a stylist that went right from cosmetology school into a suite. She says, “Last year I made just over $100,000.” My rent is about $12,000 a year.” Wow! Sounds like a no brainer. But, “I made just over $100,000” means Gross Revenue … not Net Income. Factor in all of the other costs of doing business and self-employment taxes … and that $100,000 looks more like Net Income of $30,000 to $40,000 after taxes. Without a following, or one hell of a gift for networking and social media, making a living in a suite is a tough and lonely career path.
The suite companies and franchises are doing everything they can to roll out the red carpet to secure tenants. From custom-designed suite decor, business software and apps … to months of free rent so tenants can take a “vacation” … suites are going after established salons’ employees.
For an independent service provider, signing a multi-year lease is risky when the entire business depends on one pair of hands.
For suite owners and franchises … those multi-year leases are only as good as the ability to pay by the people that sign them. Leasing to a half-booked stylist with little to no business experience is seriously risky.
A prediction on Suites
Many predict that the suites’ promises of gold and “build your own business – not someone else’s” is going to peak and then recede. The signs are already there. Suite stylists are going to see working for a salon as the best career and income security move.
Here’s our challenge to todays Salon/Spa Owners … It’s time to rethink everything about your business. The days of building a salon/spa one column at a time are over. Today, you must grow a company … and a unique brand.
Employee-based salons/spas must become everything booth rental and suites are not. Team service must replace “I/me/mine” service. Career paths must be real and deliverable … not “some day promises.” True employee benefits like paid vacations, paid holidays, company paid advanced education, team bonus plans and more, must fill the benefit void that has existed too long.
Salon/spa compensation must evolve beyond commission, sliding scales, service charges and product-cost deductions … all of which feed independent booth rental and suite thinking and behavior.
It’s time to play a very different and more sophisticated game than the traditional salon/spa model. It’s definitely time to play a better game than the suites are playing. It’s time.
At My Hair Trip, The #1 rated organic salon in Denver we too have had our share of stylists who have had their appointment books filled by us only to try to take our clients and leave to rent suites on their own because of all of these promises the suite industry has made to them. Luckily, because of our world class service and genuine care for our clients typically not many choose to leave and it is unfortunate for the stylists who do leave. We root for our stylists while they are members of our team and we continue to root for them if they leave.Show Comments (2)
April 19, 2019 0
***We assume you already know the definition of fast fashion, but for those of you who don’t, fast fashion is a term to describe the speed at which fashion designs move from design concept to fashion product available for purchase. It is usually characterized by high volume, low margin, fast-paced, cheap and disposable items ***
14 Fashion Waste and Sustainability Facts
Fact 1: The apparel and footwear industries account for a combined estimate of 8% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and fashion is the third highest-polluting industry in the world.
Fact 2: A 2016 McKinsey report revealed that three-fifths of all clothing items will end up in an incinerator or landfill within a year after being produced.
Fact 3: If we keep this up, by 2050 the fashion industry could use more than 26 percent of the “carbon budget”associated with a 2o C pathway (a long-term goal to limit global warming to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels).
Fact 4: We don’t really wear our clothes. Worldwide, clothing utilization (how often we put something on) hasdecreased by 36 percent compared to 15 years ago.
Fact 5: It’s estimated that less than 1 percent of material used to produce clothing is recycled into something more. That’s about a loss of 100 billion USD worth of materials every year.
Fact 6: By 2030, it’s expected that fashion waste will increase to a 148 million ton problem.
Fact 7: According to the Global Fashion Agenda, 26 percent of business owners surveyed believe that “low consumer willingness to pay a premium for sustainable products” was the greatest barrier for them to become more sustainable.
Fact 8: …But consumer attitudes for ethical fashion are increasingly favorable. Sixty percent of millennials say they want to shop more “sustainably.”
Fact 9: Many brands are moving to more sustainable production methods. As of May 2018, 12.5 percent of the global fashion market has pledged to make changes by 2020.
Fact 10: The clothing brand Patagonia was the first to make polyester fleece out of plastic bottles.
Fact 11: Cotton, a popular material in clothing, requires high levels of water and pesticides, which cause issues in developing countries.
Fact 12: About 2,000 different chemicals are used in textile processing — yet only 16 are approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Fact 13: According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, the fashion industry produces 20 percent of global wastewater.
Fact 14: Only 15 percent of consumers recycle their used clothing.
What You Can Do To Reduce Fashion Waste
Host a Clothing Swap: Get your neighbors, coworkers, and friends to bring over clothes they’re no longer interested in wearing and do a “swap.” This helps extends the lifecycle of the clothing (and it’s fun).
Shop Smart: When you do go shopping, start at consignment and thrift stores before buying new. Find ethical and sustainable brands to support new wardrobes.
Tailor to Your Style: Focus less on what’s trending or what’s on discount. Take the time to figure out your own personal style and find clothes you’ll love to wear again and again.
Rent, Reuse, Recycle: More and more brands are moving to clothing subscriptions so you can rent new clothes rather than purchase. This allows you to change up your style without adding to the landfill.
Quality over Quantity: Downsize your wardrobe, and be sure to donate or sell the items you no longer need! Having a minimalist closet can help you focus on buying less and choosing well-made and longer-lasting clothes.!
Working conditions, wages and child labour
29. 4% of what Australians spend on clothing goes to the wages of workers in garment factories across the globe.(Oxfam 2017)
30. Over 50% of workers within the fashion industry are not paid the minimum wage in countries like India and the Philippines. (Global Fashion Agenda 2017)
31. In Pakistan’s garment sector, 87% of women are paid less than the minimum wage. (Global Fashion Agenda 2017)
32. In Australia, some garment outworkers earn as little as $7 an hour and, in some cases, as little as $4 well which is below the minimum wage of $17.49 per hour. (Choice 2014)
42. It takes about 2,720 litres of water to produce just one cotton shirt – a number equivalent to what an average person drinks over three years. (EJF)
43. It takes about 10,000 litres of water to produce enough cotton for a pair of jeans. (WRAP 2011)
44. The volume of water consumed by the global fashion industry is 79 billion cubic meters equivalent to 32 million Olympic-size swimming pools. (Global Fashion Agenda 2017)
45. Researchers anticipate the industry’s water consumption will increase by 50% by 2030 as cotton producers are located in countries suffering water stress, such as China and India. (Global Fashion Agenda 2017)
46. It takes about 170,000 litres of water to grow a kilogram of wool. (Julian Cribb ‘The Coming Famine‘ 2010)
47. Each year 1.3 trillion gallons of water is used for fabric dyeing alone. (World Resources Institute 2017).
Clean, Green, Cute: Why sustainable fashion is the future
by MacKenna Strange, Resident Creator
It’s time to get real about where our clothes come from.
The fashion industry is the third highest-polluting industry in the world and the second largest consumer of water.
20% of global industrial water pollution comes from the treatment and dyeing of textiles. In China alone, the textile industry pumps out 2.5 billion tons of wastewater every year.
2,000 different chemicals, including formaldehyde, chlorine, lead, and mercury are used in textile processing. Of these, over 1,600 are used in dyeing processes, but only 16 are actually EPA-approved.
The photos below depict rivers and other bodies of water polluted by these harmful chemicals in China, India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Ecuador, Brazil, and Russia. This project intends to juxtapose the bright colors in fashion with the horrifying colors of pollution, which come as a direct result of the textile industry. It’s time to start seeing the environmental and social impacts of our fashion choices. Research before you shop. Think about your fashion choices. Complicity is out of style.
March 5, 2019 0
Banned in Europe, Safe in the U.S.
“Who determines whether chemicals are safe — and why do different governments come up with such different answers?
June 9, 2014 — In the United States, children can drink fruit juice beverages made with Red Dye No. 40 and eat macaroni and cheese colored with Yellow Dye No. 5 and No. 6. Yet in the U.K., these artificial colorings have been taken off the market due to health concerns, while in the rest of Europe, products that contain them must carry labels warning of the dyes’ potential adverse effect on children’s attention and behavior.
Atrazine, which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says is estimated to be the most heavily used herbicide in the U.S., was banned in Europe in 2003 due to concerns about its ubiquity as a water pollutant. Also widely used by U.S. farmers are several neonicotinoid pesticides that the European Commission says pose “high acute risks” to bees and has placed under a two-year moratorium. These pesticides — with which about 90 percent of the corn planted in the U.S. is treated — have been identified in numerous scientific studies as toxic to bees and are considered likely contributors to the alarming global decline of these essential pollinators.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration places no restrictions on the use of formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing ingredients in cosmetics or personal care products. Yet formaldehyde-releasing agents are banned from these products in Japan and Sweden while their levels — and that of formaldehyde — are limited elsewhere in Europe. In the U.S., Minnesota has banned in-state sales of children’s personal care products that contain the chemical.
Use of lead-based interior paints was banned in France, Belgium and Austria in 1909. Much of Europe followed suit before 1940. It took the U.S. until 1978 to make this move, even though health experts had, for decades, recognized the potentially acute — even deadly — and irreversible hazards of lead exposure.
These are but a few examples of chemical products allowed to be used in the U.S. in ways other countries have decided present unacceptable risks of harm to the environment or human health. How did this happen? Are American products less safe than others? Are Americans more at risk of exposure to hazardous chemicals than, say, Europeans?“The policy approach in the U.S. and Europe is dramatically different.” — Stacy Malkan
Not surprisingly, the answers are complex and the bottom line, far from clear-cut. One thing that is evident, however, is that “the policy approach in the U.S. and Europe is dramatically different,” says Stacy Malkan, co-founder of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.
An Ounce of Precaution
A key element of the European Union’s chemicals management and environmental protection policies — and one that clearly distinguishes the EU’s approach from that of the U.S. federal government — is what’s called the precautionary principle.
This principle, in the words of the European Commission, “aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative” decision-making. In other words, it says that when there is substantial, credible evidence of danger to human or environmental health, protective action should be taken despite continuing scientific uncertainty.
In contrast, the U.S. federal government’s approach to chemicals management sets a very high bar for the proof of harm that must be demonstrated before regulatory action is taken.
This is true of the U.S. Toxic Substances Control Act, the federal law that regulates chemicals used commercially in the U.S. The European law regulating chemicals in commerce, known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals), requires manufacturers to submit a full set of toxicity data to the European Chemical Agency before a chemical can be approved for use. U.S. federal law requires such information to be submitted for new chemicals, but leaves a huge gap in terms of what’s known about the environmental and health effects for chemicals already in use. Chemicals used in cosmetics or as food additives or pesticides are covered by other U.S. laws — but these laws, too, have high burdens for proof of harm and, like TSCA, do not incorporate a precautionary approach.
Same Study, Different Conclusions
What does this mean in practice? In the case of Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dye No. 5 and Yellow Dye No. 6, it means that after considering the same evidence — a 2007 double-blind study by U.K. researchers that found that eating artificially colored food appeared to increase children’s hyperactivity — European and U.S. authorities reached different conclusions. In the U.K., the study persuaded authorities to bar use of these dyes as food additives. The EU chose to require warning labels on products that contain them — greatly reducing their use, according to Lisa Lefferts, senior scientist with the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C. In the U.S., the study prompted the CSPI to petition the Food and Drug Administration for a ban on a number of food colorings. But in its review of these dyes, presented in 2011, the FDA found the study inconclusive because it looked at effects of a mixture of additives rather than individual colorings — and so these colors remain in use.
While FDA approval is required for food additives, the agency relies on studies performed by the companies seeking approval of chemicals they manufacture or want to use in making determinations about food additive safety, Natural Resources Defense Council senior scientist Maricel Maffini and NRDC senior attorney Tom Neltner note in their April 2014 report, Generally Recognized as Secret. “No other developed country that we know of has a similar system in which companies can decide the safety of chemicals put directly into food,” says Maffini. The standing law that covers these substances — the 1958 Food Additives Amendment to the 1938 Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act — “makes requiring testing [of chemicals] more cumbersome than under TSCA,” says Neltner.
The two point to a number of food additives allowed in the U.S. that other countries have deemed unsafe. Reliance on voluntary measures is a hallmark of the U.S. approach to chemical regulation.Among these are “dough conditioners,” additives to enhance flour’s strength or elasticity. The International Agency for Research on Cancer considers one such chemical, potassium bromate, a possible carcinogen. This has led the EU, Canada, China, Brazil and other countries to ban its use. Although the FDA limits the amount of these compounds that can be added to flour and has urged bakers to voluntarily discontinue their use, it has not banned them. Earlier this year, the sandwich chain Subway made headlines by announcing it would discontinue using the dough conditioner azodicarbonamide, which is approved by the FDA but whose breakdown products have raised health concerns.
Do-It-Yourself Decision Making
Reliance on voluntary measures is a hallmark of the U.S. approach to chemical regulation. In many cases, when it comes to eliminating toxic chemicals from U.S. consumer products, manufacturers’ and retailers’ own policies — often driven by consumer demand or by regulations outside the U.S. or at the state and local level — are moving faster than U.S. federal policy. On June 3, the California-based health-care company Kaiser Permanente announced that all its new furniture purchases — worth $30 million annually — would be free of chemical flame retardants. The same day, Panera Bread announced that the food served in its 1,800 bakery-cafés would be free of artificial additives by the end of 2016. Any number of large manufacturing companies and retailers — Nike, Walmart, Target, Walgreens, Apple and HP to name but a few — have policies barring chemicals from their products that U.S. federal law does not restrict.
This is also true of a number of cosmetic ingredients — for example, chemicals used in nail polish. After the EU banned a plasticizer called dibutyl phthalate from nail polish due to concerns over potential endocrine-disrupting and other adverse health effects in 2004, many global brands changed their ingredients. So while the FDA has not issued a regulation on its use, DBP is now found in fewer nail cosmetics sold in the U.S. In fact, the FDA actually bars only a specific handful of ingredients from cosmetics due to their toxicity.
Industry performs copious testing, but current law does not require that cosmetic ingredients be free of certain adverse health effects before they go on the market.
“Cosmetics regulations are more robust in the EU than here,” says Environmental Defense Fund health program director Sarah Vogel. U.S. regulators largely rely on industry information, she says. Industry performs copious testing, but current law does not require that cosmetic ingredients be free of certain adverse health effects before they go on the market. (FDA regulations, for example, do not specifically prohibit the use of carcinogens, mutagens or endocrine-disrupting chemicals.) So, even though the personal care products and cosmetics products industry has extensive voluntary ingredient safety guidelines — and obvious incentives to meet them — they are not legal requirements.
Warnings, Advisories and Voluntary Phase-outs
Also worth noting is that U.S. laws regulating chemical use in food and cosmetics were first developed to protect American consumers from being sold “adulterated,” mislabeled or otherwise dishonestly marketed products — rather than with an eye on toxicity (though the two goals often coincide). The law continues to work along those lines. For example, when certain hairstyling products were found to contain formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing agents at levels causing health problems for salon workers, the FDA issued a warning saying that the products should be labeled (either on the product container or company website) with an appropriate caveat about the products’ potential health hazards. As a result, despite ample scientific evidence about adverse respiratory health effects of formaldehyde exposure and that formaldehyde is a skin irritant and potential occupational carcinogen, these hairstyling products continue to be sold in the U.S.
The process for restricting chemical use under TSCA can also take years; in fact, only a handful of chemicals have ever been barred under TSCA.For the FDA to restrict a product or chemical ingredient from cosmetics or personal care products involves a typically long and drawn-out process. What it does more often is to issue advisories — as it has recently for the antibacterial ingredient triclosan, which is used in many soaps. In the meantime, based on growing scientific evidence of problematic health and environmental impacts — and indications that triclosan may not make hand-washing more effective — a number of manufacturers, among them Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble, decided to eliminate the ingredient from their products. This spring, Minnesota became the first state to legally restrict its use.
The process for restricting chemical use under TSCA can also take years; in fact, only a handful of chemicals have ever been barred under TSCA. Instead, the Environmental Protection Agency, which administers TSCA, often works with companies on voluntary phase-out programs — which also take years to complete — as it has with the flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs.
Meanwhile, U.S. companies manufacturing products that range from electronics to office products, sports gear, automobile parts and trendy clothing have been following the emerging science — along with international regulations, local policy and consumer demand — and developing policies and products that eliminate use of chemicals with well-documented hazards. While these voluntary efforts are resulting in products that contain fewer chemicals of concern, they do have limitations. One is transparency: Companies don’t always fully disclose such policy details. Another is that such policies don’t cover all products on the market, leaving many consumers — often those buying at lower prices — without comparable protection.
“It’s something in our psyche,” says John Warner, president of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry, of the American predilection for deferring to marketplace rather than government solutions.
Options and Solutions
Consumer demand and concern, often from mothers worried about the implications of certain chemicals for children’s health, has effectively pushed certain products — such as baby bottles made with bisphenol A — off the market. Such action is harder to effect with pesticides, but public outcry has been instrumental in moving the U.S. away from use of DDT and other such chemicals. Currently, public awareness of neonicotinoids’ adverse effects on bees has been raised dramatically by pollinator health advocacy campaigns. Actually shifting the agricultural market away from these products is a more difficult proposition. While the EU has promulgated policy using the precautionary principle and called a temporary halt to some of these pesticides’ use, the EPA is slowly continuing its review of these products — while at the same time approving new pesticides also toxic to bees.
When it comes to determining chemical safety of a consumer product, Warner sees fundamental flaws in the current approach.What such an approach does not include is any guarantee of safer alternatives. Neither TSCA nor FDA regulations include such provisions. Many recently passed U.S. state chemical regulations, including California’s Safer Consumer Products program, have been written to address this concern, with language specifying that replacements for restricted chemicals be without adverse environmental health effects. That U.S. federal policies do not require as much pre-market information about chemical used in consumer products as does the EU system, adds to the difficulty of choosing safer alternatives.
When it comes to determining chemical safety of a consumer product, Warner sees fundamental flaws in the current approach. Restriction of hazardous chemicals in the U.S., EU and elsewhere — and in most corporate policies — is based on lists of chemicals of concern. By focusing on these lists, explains Warner, we fail to consider those chemicals not listed, a process that leads to what’s often referred to as regrettable substitutions. Instead, Warner advocates testing whole finished products and scoring them for health effects. Does a product exhibit carcinogenicity? Is it a neurotoxicant? Does it produce birth defects or adverse hormonal effects? Answering these questions would yield safer products more efficiently and effectively than our current system, says Warner, and would yield data that could be used objectively.
The global marketplace is playing a big role in turning one jurisdiction’s more stringent standards into industry standards because it’s often too costly to make different versions of the same product for different markets.Screening methods that incorporate a comparable approach to rating chemicals’ toxicity by health endpoint, such as the non-governmental organization Clean Production Action’s GreenScreen, are now being used by many companies to assess individual chemicals. Warner argues that looking at whole finished products through this lens would help flag problematic chemicals not previously singled out for scrutiny, whether they are long-used existing compounds or brand new materials such as those he and other green chemists are now formulating.
So what’s the bottom line? Again, it’s complicated. When it comes to manufactured products such as computers and cosmetics, the global marketplace is playing a big role in turning one jurisdiction’s more stringent standards into industry standards because it’s often too costly to make different versions of the same product for different markets. Similarly, individual U.S. state policies restricting chemicals not regulated comparably at the federal level have motivated companies to respond with new formulations that end up being sold nationwide. At the same time, built into the U.S. chemical regulatory system is a large deference to industry. Central to current U.S. policy are cost-benefit analyses with very high bars for proof of harm rather than a proof of safety for entry onto the market. Voluntary measures have moved many unsafe chemical products off store shelves and out of use, but our requirements for proof of harm and the American historical political aversion to precaution mean we often wait far longer than other countries to act.
Shifting policy, particularly in a way such as Warner advocates, is perhaps an even slower proposition. But as Stacy Malkan points out, consumer demand for safe products isn’t going away any time soon.”Leave a reply