Getting Toxic Chemicals out of Black Women’s Hair Salons 将有毒化学物清出黑人女性发廊

薇姬·甘 黄美芸 陈秀

When Teni Adewumi surveyed African American salon workers in Inglewood， California， she kept seeing the same health concerns over and over. Asthma. Dermatitis. Hair loss. Uterine fibroids. Miscarriage. Veteran stylists told her they experienced symptoms when they applied relaxers and other chemical hair straighteners， and they now preferred working with natural styles. But many didn’t know that the products they used could be making them sick.

Adewumi， a graduate student at the University of California， Los Angeles， Fielding School of Public Health， works to close that knowledge gap as the environmental-justice program coordinator at the California nonprofit Black Women for Wellness. In salons across Inglewood and South Los Angeles， she helps train stylists in safe products and practices. But her work is also part of a nationwide effort to make beauty salons safer for the people—mostly women—who work in them.

That starts with research. Epidemiological studies dating back to the 1980s have found that hair stylists are at risk for a range of chronic occupational-health conditions， including skin and respiratory diseases and adverse reproductive outcomes. Certain toxic chemicals found in hair glues and straighteners， such as formaldehyde， styrene， and trichloroethylene， have been linked to cancer， liver damage， and dermatitis.

“When we held focus groups with salon workers， we found these stories of lack of education on chemical exposures and chemical-related health problems，” Adewumi says. “Even though they had all gone to beauty school， there was just really no training around what these products could do to your body and to your reproductive system.”

That’s partly because there’s precious little research on the long-term health effects of salon products. Alexandra Scranton， the director of science and research at the environmental organization Women’s Voices for the Earth， explains： “The weakness in the data is being able to connect [health impacts] to specific chemicals， because those connections are almost never studied.” And so far， research has failed to account for the combination of toxic chemicals found in hair salons.

In the absence of comprehensive longitudinal data， assessing the health risks of specific products is “an art as much as a science，” Scranton says. Her organization singles out chemicals of concern by drawing on watch lists created by governmental authorities—California and Washington state have them， along with the European Union—and recommends safer alternatives where available.

The case of Brazilian Blowout offers a window into federal regulation of the beauty industry. This professional hair-smoothing product contains formaldehyde， a known carcinogen， which is released into the air when hair treated with the solution is heated with a blow dryer and flat iron.

In 2011， the Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued a hazard alert about formaldehyde exposure from Brazilian Blowout， and the FDA issued a warning letter to the company， citing the product’s health risks and misleading “Formaldehyde Free” label. But the agency had no power to recall the product， even though it had been linked to “adverse events” including eye， respiratory， and nervous-system disorders. It was only after the state of California sued the makers of Brazilian Blowout that they modified its formula， reducing but not eliminating the formaldehyde content. Without mandatory-recall authority， the federal government could do little more than send strongly worded letters.

The FDA regulates cosmetics in the U.S.， but it doesn’t approve products before they hit the shelves. It also doesn’t require manufacturers to list the ingredients of professional salon products. That means that， on the label， the word “fragrance” may stand in for hundreds of unreported chemicals. “The burden is on us as consumers or us as researchers to test these products，” Adewumi says. That’s the reverse of the regulatory protocol in Europe， where cosmetic products must undergo scientific safety assessment before they can be sold. In the U.S.， companies can ask for forgiveness rather than permission， letting potentially hazardous products slip through the cracks.

The risks are particularly severe for salon workers， who have more exposure to these chemicals than consumers do. These women are “a tough lot，” says Scranton. “They really love their jobs， they really want to continue to work their jobs， so they tend not to complain as much， even though their health is definitely suffering.” And even when salon workers do report their health problems， public-health agencies are often unwilling or unable to help. They rely on federal “permissible-exposure limits” to determine whether a workplace is hazardous. But those limits are mostly based on studies of healthy adult men working in heavy industry—and even OSHA admits that they’re “outdated and inadequate for ensuring protection of worker health.”

These regulatory gaps are inseparable from historic gender and racial inequities in clinical research. Before the 1990s， women and minorities were consistently underrepresented in clinical studies， due in part to the assumption that research on male subjects could be extrapolated to these groups.

To protect salon workers across the board， federal cosmetic regulations will need to change. Scranton and Adewumi want to see legislation that requires manufacturers to list ingredients on all beauty-product labels; bans ingredients linked to cancer， birth defects， and developmental harm; empowers the FDA to recall unsafe products; and enforces stricter salon safety standards. With the powerful chemical lobby standing in the way， advocates have their work cut out for them.

But while they grind away at national policy， environmental and women’s health organizations are making significant progress at the state and local level. California， Boston， and King County， Washington， have certification programs for safe and healthy salons. New York state， in the wake of a widely-shared Times expose， enacted emergency regulations to improve workplace conditions for nail-salon employees. Adewumi is currently working with the city of Inglewood to create a pilot healthy-hair-salon recognition program.

And she’s still in salons， talking to workers about their health. On the whole， she says， stylists have been receptive and eager to learn more about greener products and practices. “We’re definitely very aware about economics，” she says. “This is what they do for a living， they are pillars in the black community， they are really strong women in terms of starting their own businesses. We just want to talk to them， to know how they’re doing … addressing [health] issues in a holistic sense， and then bringing up the conversation around product use.”

It’s a conversation Scranton encourages women to have with their own stylists. Women’s Voices for the Earth offers a number of informational materials about toxic salon exposures and products to avoid， which can kickstart the discussion about your stylist’s safety. “We often encourage people to take those with them when they go to the salon， and to have that conversation from the point of view of ‘I’m concerned about your health，’ and not， ‘You work a toxic job，’” Scranton says. “Com[e] from that standpoint of ‘I want to make sure that you’re healthy because I appreciate the service that you’re doing.’”

泰尼·阿德烏米对加州英格尔伍德的非裔美籍美发从业人员进行了调查，在调查期间，她屡次注意到相同的健康问题：哮喘、皮炎、脱发、子宫肌瘤、流产。一些资深美发师告诉她，如果她们工作中使用直发膏等化学直发产品，就会出现一些症状，所以现在她们更愿意给顾客做自然发型。但是，很多美发师并不知道她们使用的产品会带来疾病。

阿德乌米毕业于美国加州大学洛杉矶分校费尔丁公共卫生学院，现为加州非营利组织“黑人女性健康”环境正义项目的协调员，致力于在黑人女性中普及健康知识。阿德乌米在英格尔伍德和南洛杉矶的各家发廊帮助培训美发师使用安全产品及进行安全操作。而她的工作还属于全国范围内开展的一项行动，该行动旨在为美容院工作人员（其中大多为女性）提供更安全的工作环境。

行动始于调研。早在20世纪80年代就开始进行的流行病研究已经发现，美发师正面临一系列慢性职业病带来的健康问题，包括皮肤病、呼吸系统疾病和不良生殖结局。发胶和直发剂中发现的某些有毒化学物——如甲醛、苯乙烯和三氯乙烯——和癌症、肝损伤及皮炎等疾病相关。

阿德乌米说：“我们与美发师进行焦点小组讨论时发现，他们普遍缺乏关于化学辐射和化学物质会引起健康问题的教育。尽管他们都上过美容学校，但是学校确实没有告诉过他们这些产品可能对身体和生殖系统造成什么影响。”

部分原因在于，针对美发产品对健康长期影响的研究实在少之又少。环保组织“地球女性之声”的科研负责人亚历山德拉·斯克兰顿解释说：“目前缺乏能将特定化学物和健康影响联系起来的数据，因为几乎从未进行过相关研究。”对发廊里各种有毒化学物的混合状况，科学研究迄今还无法解释。

由于缺少全面纵向的数据，斯克兰顿表示，对特定产品的健康风险评估“是科学，也是艺术”。她所在机构会根据政府部门发布的观察清单挑出值得关注的化学物质，并推荐其他可获取、更安全的替代品。加利福尼亚、华盛顿等州以及欧盟都制作了这样的清单。

“巴西焗油护理剂”为人们提供了一个窗口了解联邦政府对美容业的监管。这款专业柔发产品含有甲醛，一种众所周知的致癌物质——经这种液剂处理的头发在用吹风机和直板夹加热时，其中的甲醛会散发到空气中。

2011年，美国职业安全与健康管理局（OSHA）发布了有关“巴西焗油护理剂”释放甲醛的危险警告。随后美国食品与药物管理局（FDA）对该企业发出了警告信，指出其产品的健康风险及“无甲醛”标签的误导性。但是，即便该产品已被证实与眼睛、呼吸系统和神经系统紊乱等“不良反应”有关，OSHA也没有召回有关产品的权力。直到加州政府起诉“巴西焗油护理剂”的制造商，他们才改进了产品配方，减少而非去除其中含有的甲醛。没有强制召回权，联邦政府最多只能发发措辞强硬的警告信。

FDA对美国化妆品进行监管，但并不负责化妆品上市审批，也不要求生产商列明专业美发产品的成分。这意味着，标签上所写的“香味”一词可能代表了上百种未报告的化学物质。阿德乌米说：“检验这些产品的责任落在了我们消费者或我们这些研究人员身上。”这与欧洲的管理模式相反，在欧洲，化妆品上架前必须接受科学的安全评估。在美国，企业可以事后请求原谅，而非事先申请许可，这就使潜在的有毒产品通过这些漏洞溜进了市场。

美发师面临的健康损害尤其严重，因為她们接触这些化学物质的机会远高于消费者。斯克兰顿说，这些女性“很坚强，她们真的热爱自己的工作，真的想继续从事这份职业，所以即使健康确实遭受损害，也往往不太抱怨”。而且，就算美发师向公共卫生机构报告自己的健康问题，这些机构常常也不愿或无法提供帮助。它们是依据联邦政府颁布的“容许接触限值”来判定工作场所是否安全，但这些限值绝大多数是基于从事重工业的健康成年男性的研究结果，甚至连OSHA都承认，这些数据“不合时宜，不足以确保劳动者的健康”。

这些管理漏洞的存在与临床研究中由来已久的性别和种族不平等是分不开的。20世纪90年代之前，临床研究中女性和少数族裔的数量一直很少，部分原因是对男性的研究被认为可以推及上述群体。

为了保护所有美发从业人员，有必要修改联邦化妆品管理机制。斯克兰顿和阿德乌米希望政府立法，要求生产商在所有美容产品标签上列明成分，禁止含有会引起癌症、先天畸形和发育不良的成分，授予FDA召回不安全产品的权力，并且执行更严格的美发店安全标准。由于化学产品的游说团体阻力巨大，环保倡导者们任重而道远。

不过，环保机构与女性健康组织虽然推动国家政策调整进展缓慢，但在各州和各地区的工作正取得重要进展。安全健康美发店的认证项目已经在加州、波士顿和华盛顿金县等地开展。《纽约时报》对相关事件的曝光引发广泛关注后，纽约州颁布了紧急管理条例，改善美甲店员工的工作环境。阿德乌米目前正与英格尔伍德市政府合作，创建一个美发店健康认证试点项目。

阿德乌米仍然会去美发店，和员工们谈论她们的健康问题。总的来说，她表示，美发师们已经接受了我们的建议，也渴望了解更多更环保的产品与操作。她说：“对于经济状况，我们当然非常关注。她们就是靠美发为生，是黑人社会的中流砥柱，能自主创业说明她们确实是很坚强的女性。我们就是想和她们聊聊，想知道她们过得怎么样……先笼统地问问健康问题，然后将话题引到使用的产品上。”

斯克兰顿鼓励女性顾客与自己的美发师也能进行这样的谈话。关于应避免的有毒化学物质和产品，“地球女性之声”可提供大量材料，顾客可用以开启与美发师的谈话，聊聊美发师的安全问题。斯克兰顿说：“我们常常希望人们去美发店时带着这些信息，希望她们的谈话是出于‘我关心你的健康’而非‘你的工作对身体有害’。之所以聊这个是‘我想确信你身体健康，因为我感谢你提供的服务’。”                                □

（译者单位：浙江农林大学）