It is economics, not health, that is driving the controversy, she says. “I haven’t heard from anyone that our product hurt them,” said Jennifer Hajali, vice president of CA Chemists, an Anaheim manufacturer that produces both EMA and MMA for use in salons. 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. 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.
#Mma monomer vs ema full#
The discount salons may offer a full set of nails for $25 compared to $60 or more at their more established competitors. Now a surge in openings of discount salons, most run by Vietnamese immigrants, has brought it back with a vengeance. The FDA did not pursue regulatory action, which left a door open for the issue to return in the future.
Manufacturers quickly, and voluntarily, switched their salon clients over to ethyl methacrylate (EMA), a more expensive-and reputedly safer-bonding liquid. 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. 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. women spent more than $4 billion on artificial fingernails, and business appears to be booming right into the new century.īut underneath that glossy veneer is a chaotic scene of unanswered health questions, brutal competition and even claims of racism.Īt issue is a chemical called methyl methacrylate, or MMA.
0 kommentar(er)
