House Reps Want to Know Why FDA Has Delayed Hair Relaxer Formaldehyde Ban

Lawmakers note that women of color are disproportionately put at increased cancer risk from hair relaxers while the formaldehyde ban is delayed.

Three U.S. House Representatives are asking federal regulators to explain the continuing delay of a ban on the use of formaldehyde in hair relaxers, which was originally proposed nearly a year ago, following substantial evidence showing users may face an increased risk of cancer from hair relaxer products that remain on store shelves.

The same lawmakers who spurred the initial investigation into formaldehyde risks in March 2023, Ayana Pressley of Massachusetts, Nydia M. Velaquez of New York and Shontel Brown of Ohio, have now sent a letter (PDF) to Commissioner Robert M. Califf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), seeking more information on why the proposed ban has not been put in place yet.

The FDA first proposed a hair relaxer formaldehyde ban in October 2023, which would affect both formaldehyde and chemicals that release it, such as methylene glycol. Under the rule, such chemicals would no longer be allowed in hair relaxer products sold in the U.S., which have been widely used by African American and minority women for decades.

Originally, the agency indicated the rule was expected to be finalized in April 2024, but the month passed with no word on the final ban, and many products continue to be sold as hair relaxers with formaldehyde, which could lead to the development of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries.

An update by the FDA in July indicated the formaldehyde ban was again pushed back to September 2024, but it remains unclear whether any final rule will be released next month.

Formaldehyde Cancer Risk in Hair Relaxer Products

Formaldehyde is an industrial chemical used to make many construction and building materials, paper products and cosmetics. However, exposure to high levels of the chemical can cause serious health problems when inhaled or absorbed through the skin. Short-term exposure to formaldehyde can cause eye irritation if inhaled or allergic reactions if it touches the skin, while longer exposure can result in lung damage, severe eye irritation, reproductive issues, asthma, allergy-related conditions and even cancer.

Exposure to formaldehyde has been a concern among health experts for years, especially exposure from workplace environments and certain consumer products. Research published by the American Academy of Neurology in 2021 found that long-term formaldehyde exposure in the course of employment was associated with a 21% higher risk of cognitive impairment, including lower IQ scores and memory loss.

The chemical’s use in hair relaxers has been associated with both short-term and long-term health effects, according to FDA warnings when the proposed rule was first announced, including skin reactions, respiratory problems and an increased risk of certain types of cancer. In April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a draft evaluation declaring that formaldehyde exposure is an unreasonable risk to human health.

Manufacturers such as L’Oreal and Revlon already face thousands of hair relaxer lawsuits brought by women diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other injuries that were allegedly caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals contained in many of the most popular products on the market in the U.S., including Dark & Lovely, Just for Me, ORS Olive Oil Motions, Optimum Care and others.

The lawmakers’ letter to the FDA asks what factors have led to the delays of the formaldehyde ban and whether there are clear timelines for its implementation. They also ask whether the FDA has concerns about the impact of the continued use of formaldehyde in hair relaxer products, particularly on communities of color, who are disproportionately targeted by product ads.

Pressley, Velaquez and Brown highlighted the resulting risk to women of color, noting that research has suggested about 50% of hair relaxer products advertised to black women contain formaldehyde, compared to only about seven percent of those advertised to white women.

They also asked the FDA to explain what the agency is doing to mitigate the ban’s effects on businesses, and whether they will be ready to implement the ban when announced.

“As the FDA works to address these pressing issues, it is essential to continue to highlight the gravity of formaldehyde exposure, as highlighted by both epidemiological data and laboratory research,” the lawmakers wrote in an August 28 press release. “Ensuring that regulatory actions align with the best interests of public health, remains the goal and we look forward to your prompt response.”

September 2024 Hair Relaxer Lawsuits Update

The hair relaxer cancer litigation emerged in late 2022, following the publication of a study that highlighted a link between the use of hair relaxer and uterine cancer, finding that women who regularly used the products face a 156% increased risk compared to women who did not use hair relaxers.

Since those findings were released, nearly 8,000 product liability lawsuits have been brought in the federal court system, where they are currently centralized for discovery and pretrial proceedings before U.S. District Judge Mary Rowland in the Northern District of Illinois, as part of a hair relaxer injury lawsuit MDL, or multidistrict litigation.

However, dozens of additional cases are pending in various different state courts, including Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois, each raising nearly identical allegations that women could have avoided a cancer diagnosis if manufacturers had not placed their desire for profits before consumer safety.

Following coordinated discovery in the MDL and any early bellwether trials, if the parties fail to negotiate hair relaxer settlements for individuals diagnosed with uterine cancer, endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer and other complications, Judge Rowland may later remand each individual lawsuit directly filed in the MDL back to the U.S. District Court where it would have originated for a separate trial.