III of VI
In the US we have two entities that really control policy surrounding chemical exposure: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Federal Drug Administration (FDA). Through OSHA we will look at worker interactions with specifically the chemical formaldehyde, which is found in many hair relaxing products. As a note: formaldehyde is not always an active ingredient, but other ingredients can cause formaldehyde to be released when the product is heated.11 To keep it simple, I will focus on formaldehyde however: ”U.S. law does not require the FDA to approve cosmetic products and ingredients, other than food additives, before they go on the market…”12 There are many other ingredients unregulated for human health in cosmetics leaving salon workers and consumers at risk.
Specifically OSHA is responsible for employee safety. I have talked about the disconnection between policy and hair before in my article Black Hair and Climbing. Specifically, worker protections such as rocking natural hair styles in the workplace are still not law in all states even though the Crown Act is hard at work pushing it to be so. But in this case we are looking at policy to protect the worker who is giving people blow outs and chemical straighteners. Their customers are most likely the ones who may feel they would not be protected at work with their natural hair (which is a legitimate concern).
Since I do have an article planned for worker rights and safety through the lens of climbing, I will not be going into depth with OSHA and people of color. The takeaway here is that currently there are regulations in place for salon and beauty school employees that stipulate the amount of formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasing agents one can be exposed to. “Salon owners, stylists, and other salon workers have the right [to] know what is in the products that they are buying and using and how to protect their workers and themselves from formaldehyde exposure. If salon owners decide to use products that contain or could release formaldehyde, then they must follow the requirements in OSHA’s formaldehyde and hazard communication standards.”13 The law is on the side of the worker here in modern day. Whether or not employers actually follow these guidelines, of course, is not always clear.
As far as the FDA; that is more for consumers. The relationship is different across the FDA and OSHA. OSHA is for workers and the FDA is for consumers, or people who buy material items. OSHA is able to produce studies and facts derived from more controlled environments such as a workplace. It is also possible for the FDA to take scientific evidence into consideration to ban or curtail the use of certain products. But do they usually? And have they for formaldehyde?
The FDA did not always exist. In the early 1900’s, “Dr. Harvey Wiley, a chemist at the USDA, …gathered “the Poison Squad,” a group of young men who voluntarily consumed poison so that Dr. Wiley could examine the effects. They became a pop culture sensation, inspiring poems and minstrel shows. And eventually, their work brought about the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, which led to the creation of the FDA.”14 Notice the word “minstrel shows” in there which alludes to the fact that this was a white movement at the time, so it is also safe to assume the test subjects were also white. Also notice that the subjects to be poisoned were what society at the time deemed the epitome of strength and health: white cis gender men. Which has proven to be the foundation of most experiments for drugs since. Nevertheless, the government listened and this was the beginning of the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act for people in white neighborhoods. Segregation was still very much alive at the time; and there is no way you can convince me the newly formed FDA even attempted to keep Black folks safe.
It became apparent regulation in general was needed. “This lack of regulation was not much of a concern during the early years of the country, as most people made their own goods, or purchased them from locally owned shops (who would make their own products). However, as more people moved into cities to work in factories and other urban jobs, pre-made goods were needed as city dwellers could not produce these themselves. As these types of products gained in popularity, horrific stories regarding both workplace and product safety came to light. One of the most famous reports was Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (1906) which detailed the abysmal working conditions in a Chicago meatpacking plant where rotten meat and poisoned rats were knowingly ground-up, canned, and sold to consumers.”15 or even the swill milk16 incident of the 1850’s. These were some of the reasons the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was passed attempting to regulate goods, specifically food.
But it wasn’t perfect after 1906 either (besides the fact that it was most likely for white folks seeing as how segregation was still in play until 1964). “The FDA itself exemplified the state of affairs in the marketplace by assembling a collection of products that illustrated shortcomings in the 1906 law. It included Banbar, a worthless “cure” for diabetes that the old law protected; Lash-Lure, an eyelash dye in which a number of women suffered injuries to their eyes, including one confirmed case of permanent blindness.; numerous examples of foods deceptively packaged or labeled; Radithor, a radium-containing tonic that sentenced users to a slow and painful death; and the Wilhide Exhaler, which falsely promised to cure tuberculosis and other pulmonary diseases.”17 Companies with probably no clinical testing just trying to make a buck which could end in disability or death for the consumer. Regulation was put in place and has been honed throughout the years. Does this mean the FDA would be the answer to banning all dangerous chemicals?
I will say that the FDA is not the end all be all either. Decisions have to be made by the FDA via scientific evidence. “The FDA does not conduct clinical trial…It evaluates their results for any product up for approval or emergency use authorization…”18 In the past, an overwhelming majority of the clinical trials for medicine by sponsors submitted to the FDA have been for the adult white male. This has left a huge gaping hole for minorities such as women and ethnic groups; not to mention “diversity of weight, gender identity, disability status, and more.”19 And the government had attempted to alter at least including women and ethnic minorities. “In the newest iteration of an attempt to continue to strive for diversity, the DEPICT Act (Diverse and Equitable Participation in Clinical Trials Act) was passed by Congress in December 2022. The intent of the legislation is to provide more precise guidance to drug and device trial sponsors on how to collectively work toward more inclusion of under-represented populations such as racial and ethnic minority populations, and age and gender diversity. The DEPICT Act requires the FDA to require clinical trial sponsors to submit Diversity Action Plans with their protocols for Phase III or other pivotal trials.”20 Unfortunately, under the current corrupt presidential administration, we have seen a repeal of all things diversity, equity, and inclusion and therefore this measure is probably on hold for now. If not a target for obliteration entirely.21
How does society go about forcing government entities to pay attention to dangerous goods for minority demographics then?
Well, much like the Poison Squad, it takes routine and systemic poisoning.
Continued in Part IV
Works Cited
11. Garcia, Michelle and Lovelace, Berkeley Jr.“Federal regulations paused, halting FDA’s proposed ban on formaldehyde in hair products.”https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/fda-formaldehyde-ban-limbo-trump-executive-order-rcna187961, 16 May 2025
12. Garcia, Michelle and Lovelace, Berkeley Jr.“Federal regulations paused, halting FDA’s proposed ban on formaldehyde in hair products.”https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/fda-formaldehyde-ban-limbo-trump-executive-order-rcna187961, 16 May 2025
13. USDA OSHA. “Hair Salons: Facts about Formaldehyde in Hair Products.” https://www.osha.gov/hair-salons, 15 May 2025
14. Saxena, Jaya. “We Owe Food Regulation to a 19th-Century Chemist Who Poisoned His Colleagues.”https://www.eater.com/2020/1/28/21112258/pbs-the-poison-squad-documentary-food-regulation-history-deborah-blum-interview, 10 May 2025
15. Weill Cornell Medicine Samuel J. Wood Library. “The Food and Drug Administration: the Continued History of Drug Advertising.” https://library.weill.cornell.edu/about-us/snake%C2%A0oil%C2%A0-social%C2%A0media-drug-advertising-your-health/food-and-drug-administration-continued, 10 May 2025
16. Wikipedia. “Swill milk scandal.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk_scandal, 16 May 2025
17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “Part II: 1938, Food, Drug, Cosmetic Act.”https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/changes-science-law-and-regulatory-authorities/part-ii-1938-food-drug-cosmetic-act, 15 May 2025
18. Vercellone, Chiara. “Fact check: False claim that the FDA was involved in the controversial Tuskegee study.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/25/fact-check-fda-did-not-play-role-tuskegee-syphilis-study/5570369001/, 16 May 2025
19. Kulkarni, Darshan. “The Evolution of US FDA Diversity Requirements in Clinical Research.” https://globalforum.diaglobal.org/issue/december-2023/the-evolution-of-us-fda-diversity-requirements-in-clinical-research-2/, 16 May 2025
20. Balderas, Olga I J.D. “FDA’s Path Toward Diversity in Clinical Trials: The DEPICT Act and Sponsor Responsibility.”https://www.wcgclinical.com/insights/fdas-path-toward-diversity-in-clinical-trials-the-depict-act-and-sponsor-responsibility/#:~:text=The%20intent%20of%20the%20legislation%20is%20to,minority%20populations%2C%20and%20age%20and%20gender%20diversity, 16 May 2025
21. Crowell. “After Trump Executive Orders, FDA Removes Diversity Guidance From Website.”https://www.crowell.com/en/insights/client-alerts/after-trump-executive-orders-fda-removes-diversity-guidance-from-website, 20 May 2025
Rock Rose Blog, LLC 