Friday, January 28, 2000

LA TIMES

COLUMN ONE

Pointing a Finger at Discount Nail Salons
•  A chemical many of them use--flouting a widely ignored state rule--is blamed for multiple ills. But proponents dispute the claims, accusing foes of racism and economic self-interest.

By BOOTH MOORE, Times Staff Writer

     Last year U.S. women spent more than $4 billion on artificial fingernails, and business appears to be booming right into the new century.
     But underneath that glossy veneer is a chaotic scene of unanswered health questions, brutal competition and even claims of racism.
     At issue is a chemical called methyl methacrylate, or MMA. Millions of women who paid for acrylic nail services in recent years may have been exposed unknowingly to the chemical, which has been blamed for fungal infections, nail deformities and other problems.
     The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, calling MMA a "poisonous and deleterious substance" when used in nail products, obtained a preliminary injunction against one maker of MMA 26 years ago. Manufacturers quickly, and voluntarily, switched their salon clients over to ethyl methacrylate (EMA), a more expensive--and reputedly safer--bonding liquid.
     The FDA did not pursue regulatory action, which left a door open for the issue to return in the future. Now a surge in openings of discount salons, most run by Vietnamese immigrants, has brought it back with a vengeance.
     The discount salons may offer a full set of nails for $25 compared to $60 or more at their more established competitors. Some of the difference can be explained by the low overhead of the discount salons, which often operate in cheap storefronts and rely on low-wage immigrant technicians. But another reason is the admitted use of MMA, which can cost as little as $15 a gallon compared to as much as $215 for a gallon of EMA.
     "I haven't heard from anyone that our product [MMA] hurt them," said Jennifer Hajali, vice president of CA Chemists, an Anaheim manufacturer that produces both EMA and MMA for use in salons. It is economics, not health, that is driving the controversy, she says. "This [MMA] has become a hot topic in the last two years because competition from discount salons is so fierce."
     Others disagree. "We need more consumer awareness about MMA," said Nancy King, a Maryland nail technician who successfully shepherded a bill through that state's Legislature in 1999 to ban the substance in beauty salons there. So far, 30 states have imposed regulations on the use of MMA.
     In 1993 the Barbering and Cosmetology Program of the California Department of Consumer Affairs prohibited the use of MMA in nail salons, but the rule is almost totally ineffectual. There are only 15 inspectors for California's 9,348 nail and hair salons. Chemicals would have to be analyzed to prompt a formal investigation, but inspectors aren't authorized to confiscate materials. Even if a salon were found to be using MMA, the fine would be a mere $25. So MMA use here is reported to be growing dramatically.
     "I don't want to put anyone out of business for any reason, but salons using MMA are making a 700% profit margin," said Pat Stephenson, a nail technician who led the fight in Kentucky to regulate MMA. "If they are going to work in America, let's do it the American way."
     And the American way she refers to seems to exclude discount salons, which in California are mostly owned by Vietnamese immigrants.

     Chemical First Used by Nail Salons in '70s
     MMA, which is primarily used in making Plexiglas and Lucite, in dentistry and to bind a prosthesis to the bone in joint replacement surgery, was first used in the nail industry in the 1970s when acrylic nails were introduced.
     Such nails are created from a combination of powdered acrylic and a bonding chemical that is made into a paste and spread over the natural nail. Once the paste hardens, the resulting surface can be shaped and painted. A procedure called a "fill" involves literally filling in the gap between the acrylic and the cuticle as the nail grows.
     This new form of artificial nails was costly but the strength and durability--especially for women whose natural nails were brittle or prone to breaking--made them desirable.
     Soon after acrylic nails were introduced, the FDA began receiving complaints about nail irritations, discolorations and other problems. But the nail industry's subsequent voluntary withdrawal of MMA short-circuited the regulatory process and federal health studies. Currently, the question of MMA's health risk is officially unresolved, debated by companies with a stake in the outcome.
     For example, Doug Schoon, director of research and development for Vista, Calif.-based Creative Nail Design, a manufacturer of EMA, says he has found that:
     * MMA does not adhere as well to the natural nail as EMA, so a technician should "rough up" the natural nail with a drill to get an MMA-based acrylic paste to stick.
     * An acrylic nail made with MMA is stronger than EMA. Women could have their own nails ripped out because the acrylics did not break off when exposed to trauma.
     * Acrylics made with MMA are difficult to remove with acetone or normal acrylic nail solvents. (It takes 30 to 35 minutes to remove a set of EMA-based acrylics but more than two hours to remove MMA-based ones, Schoon said.) Technicians often have to pry or nip the acrylic nail off, pulling layers of the natural nail with it.
     * MMA is a "sensitizer" that can cause irritation and allergic reactions once it is in contact with the skin.
     But CA Chemists' Hajali argues that most cosmetic products are sensitizers, including nail polishes, nail polish removers and scented lotions.
     The FDA action against MMA was "based on a 1974 opinion [when MMA was made] using a different monomer than is used today and a different polymer," she said. "Back then, the products were designed for the dental industry, not the fingernail industry. They had to be much stronger. The FDA hasn't taken on any new information since then."
     The effects of technicians' exposure to MMA are not well-researched, but the Materials Data Safety Sheet, the government-required listing of workplace hazards, mentions possible eye, skin and lung irritation from prolonged exposure. Severe side effects may include abnormal liver or kidney function, nervous system damage and reproductive problems, the sheet says.
     The number of salon workers who have experienced these effects is unknown. A chemical engineer in Wilmington, Del., Nhu-Ha Le, believes that all chemicals used in nail salons, not just MMA, are hazardous to technicians. She devised a better-ventilated manicure table for Ipcair Industries after her sister, a nail technician, became ill.
     "My sister was sick all the time with respiratory infections and a runny nose. She lost her sense of smell and was always coughing," Le said. "The first time I visited her salon, I couldn't believe the fumes. I said, 'You are killing yourself!' "
     But Steve Miller, a member of the California cosmetology program's Advisory Council and owner of Gables Co., a hair care products firm in Los Angeles, asked: "Is there a health risk [with MMA]? No one has died of this. It seems to be more of an inconvenience than anything else. The most impassioned argument I heard was from a lady who had her nail torn off."
     That's what happened to Susan Stein of Foothill Ranch, who snagged a finger on her soapy hair about a year ago. She expected to find a crack in one of her acrylic nails. But as the water cleared the shampoo bubbles away, she noticed that the acrylic nail was lifting off her finger, taking the natural nail with it. And the same thing was happening on other fingers.
     At the emergency room, a doctor said that a fungus was rampant underneath her natural nails and that she might lose them permanently.
     Stein does not know what caused the infection, but she decided it might have been the MMA that her discount salon may have used.
     She is wearing acrylic nails again, but not a $26 set from what she called a "chop shop."
     "Now I pay $35 for a fill and $60 for [a] set, but it's worth it for my peace of mind," she said.

     Minimum Investment and Low Overhead
     Southern California's large community of Vietnamese immigrants discovered the nail business in the 1980s. It offers a low-overhead service that requires a minimum of investment and training, perfect for someone of limited means who wants to own a business.
     From 1984 to 1989, the number of licensed nail technicians in Los Angeles County jumped from 9,755 to 15,238, about 80% of whom were Vietnamese-born. More recent numbers are not available, but editors at Nails magazine, a 62,000-circulation monthly based in Torrance, say the industry nationally is composed of 40% Vietnamese immigrants and that the proportion in California continues to be as high as 80%.
     "The Vietnamese technicians don't have that much technical knowledge. They use whatever product is available and, since they are in the lower-end salons, they try to get the cheapest product they can to accommodate the prices they charge," said Trang Nguyen, who owns Odyssey Nails, an Orlando, Fla.-based manufacturer of EMA.
     The price competition has driven some established salons to the wall.
     "I've sat in seminars at these trade shows where women will start saying things like, 'Let's put down these Asian salons!' and it's awful," said CA Chemists' Hajali. She believes that some established white nail technicians have latched on to the MMA issue to get rid of the competition.
     A nonprofit organization comprising primarily Vietnamese beauty salon owners and distributors was recently formed in El Monte to fight back. "We have been using it [MMA] for years," said Richard Nam Bui, director of the North American Nail Council. "They are only bringing it up now because of politics and economics."
     Diane Cu, who manages a nail salon in Long Beach, believes that raising the MMA issue is a form of discrimination against Vietnamese Americans.
     "I understand that salon owners get angry when they see their customers going to Vietnamese salons," she said, but bringing up MMA as the reason amounts to "slander."
     "Members of these anti-MMA movements give the impression they are concerned about public health. If that's the case, they should work to ban nail polishes, primers, files, resins and even the monomer they are using, EMA," she said. "But they use nail polish just like we do and primer just like we do, so they can't lobby against those. They don't use MMA like we do, so they have decided that's why Asians are making so much money in the nail business."

     Hard to Detect Use of the Substance
     When Stein discovered the infection under her nails, she did not complain to state regulators about possible use of MMA. In fact, it is almost impossible to discover if MMA is being used, unless the salon owner admits it.
     "It is supposed to have a strong odor, but a number of manicuring products have an odor," said Nancy Hardaker, a spokeswoman for the state cosmetology program. She said the program has not had a single complaint in 10 years regarding MMA.
     The program's stand is that the FDA should take the lead by issuing regulations governing manufacturers and distributors of MMA.
     The FDA last year did a cosmetic ingredient review of EMA, found it safe and reinforced its recommendation that MMA not be used in nail salons. But it has not pressed further.
     "It is on our radar screen, but I can't say when we will take action. Frankly, resources are an issue," said John Bailey, director of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors.
     Supporters of MMA contend that if the reported health risks really existed, the FDA would pursue the matter more vigorously.
     Nail product manufacturers such as Creative Nail Design, OPI Products of North Hollywood and Tammy Taylor Nails of Irvine all say their greatest fear is that the salons using MMA are endangering the industry as a whole.
     "We're afraid if consumers have a bad experience, they will think that's the only kind of nail service they can get," said Vie Nelson of the Nail Manufacturers Council, a division of the American Beauty Assn. (OPI, Creative Nail Design and Tammy Taylor are all members).
     And some observers say the problems may stem from sloppy application as much as the chemicals themselves.
     "The MMA issue goes hand in hand with the industry's biggest problem, which is a lack of continuing education," said Kathy Kirkland, editor of NailPro magazine. Larger manufacturers of EMA, such as OPI and Creative Nail, say they try to avoid misuse of their products by sponsoring continuing education seminars around the country.
     "We pay for education, training, advertising, marketing--and we have a consumer hotline," said Eric Schwartz, chief operating officer for OPI. These are "all costs the underground market does not bear."

Reprinted by without permission, only because there is no direct link to this !! and I'm afraid they will move it