2815 meridian street - bellingham, wa 98225 - Stylist and Salon ...

Pretty Busy in Product Safety
Board Bulletin... Next Board Meeting Is November 3
The Board of Cosmetology next meets on Monday, November 3, 9 am in the Rhoades
Conference Room at OHLA in Salem. Board meetings are open to the public and offer an
opportunity to comment on board business and other related matters.
For a meeting agenda, visit the OHLA Web site at www.oregon.gov/OHLA/COS, call
OHLA at 503.378.8667 or visit the OHLA office. Meeting agendas are usually finalized and
posted to the Web site within two weeks of the meeting.
Product Safety: Under Review
The Oregon Health Licensing Agency
(OHLA) and the Board of Cosmetology’s
Product Safety / Public Protection Committee
are reviewing the following:
• Laser skin resurfacing
• Laser hair enhancement, growth
• Unlicensed practices in licensed facilities
• Teeth whitening
• Aqua-chi
• Ear candling
• Storage boxes claiming disinfection
The Board of Cosmetology will discuss
the committee’s report at the November 3
regular meeting.
Product Safety Step-by-Step
A recent request by a laser company for
clarification on whether or not Oregon estheticians
may use one of the company’s lasers
for skin resurfacing highlights the process for
addressing scope of practice and safety issues.
Is a laser whose intended use is for “…the
excision, incision, ablation, vaporization and coagulation
of soft tissue” allowed for esthetics use
if it performs “shallow” skin resurfacing (10-30
microns, or the upper third of the epidermis)?
Laser skin resurfacing is listed as within
the scope of practice of esthetics in Facial
Forward public education materials at
www.oregon.gov/OHLA/COS and in the
company’s US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) documentation.
However, the Oregon Medical Board’s
2002 “Statement of Philosophy on Medical
Use of Lasers” states that “Destruction, incision,
ablation or the revision of human tissue
by use of a laser is surgery.”
The Oregon Health Licensing Agency
(OHLA) and Board of Cosmetology continually
work to clarify requirements as new and
emerging technologies and services appear.
The following highlights the resources
and steps OHLA and the board are taking to
thoroughly address such requests for regulatory
clarification:
• Company Request – Can estheticians
perform laser treatment?
• OHLA Research – Washington state
comparison (physician supervision)
• Company Documentation – FDA 510(k)
intended use statement
• Company Treatment Guidelines – Qualified
practitioners, appropriate training
• Aesthetic Dermatology News – Light
Therapy Regulations
• Oregon Medical Board (OMB) – Scope of
Practice statement
Part of the process involves reviewing
how other states regulate and how other state
agencies determine scope of practice.
Shear Numbers
How many practitioners and facilities
are currently licensed in Oregon?
(Numbers in parentheses +/- change
from previous month.) According
to Oregon Health Licensing Agency
(OHLA) records as of Sept. 26, 2008:
Practitioners. . . . . . . . . . . . 30,854 (+86)
Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,531 (+42)
Independent contractors . . . . 7,014 (+76)
Certificate of ID. . . . . . . . . . . . 161 (+11)
Barbering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,850 (-26)
Esthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,543 (+12)
Hair Design . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,946 (+45)
Nail Technology . . . . . . . . . 14,945 (+17)
Taking License
Kraig Bohot
Deborah Masten, who has served on
the Board of Cosmetology since 2005,
might have imagined addressing the use of
lasers when she volunteered to sit on the
board’s Product Safety / Public Protection
Committee.
After all, Masten has specialized in the
use lasers in her esthetics practice and has
served as the board’s laser expert during a
time when technology has allowed further
expansion of lasers into the esthetics field.
But did she think she would be deciding
whether or not providing pedicures with fish
that suck dead skin off your feet are allowed
under Oregon law?
“You never know what’s going to come
out on the market,” says Masten. “The
challenge is to see what fits within the limits
of the law.”
Farewell to Fish, Hello to Hair
Enhancement?
At its September 22 meeting, the
Board of Cosmetology elected to leave fish
pedicures off the growing list of items the
Product Safety / Public Protection Committee
is addressing.
Unless someone discovers a way to disinfect
fish, fish pedicures will not be allowed
in Oregon cosmetology facilities.
Nor will something called “ear candling,”
the intent of which is to remove
wax from your ears. I guess the only way
removing wax from your ears would be for
cosmetic purposes is if there is a noticeably
large amount of wax needing removal.
Not a pretty image, and not a service
a barber, esthetician, hair designer or nail
technician should provide to the public
because it leans more toward a medical
procedure than a cosmetic procedure.
But what about laser hair enhancement?
Aqua-chi? Teeth whitening? And the
continuing saga of roll-on waxing?
Safety, Scope and Snake Oil
The Product Safety / Public Protection
Committee’s role is to determine if a product
or service is safe and whether or not it
fits within the scope of practice of barbering,
esthetics, hair design or nail technology.
Whether or not a product or service
actually produces the desired effect that is
promoted by the manufacturer or is just
another hyped under-performing dud is
another story.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) oversees regulation of devices such
as lasers and determines whether or not the
device effectively performs its intended use.
If a product or service is obviously not
within the scope of one of one of the four
individual fields of practice, should a cosmetology
facility be prohibited from offering
that product or service?
Consumers may have the perception
that all products and services offered in a
licensed cosmetology facility are regulated.
For example, spray tanning booths aren’t
regulated but are allowed in cosmetology
facilities.
However, spray tanning is obviously
within the scope of esthetics, unlike teeth
whitening.
Services such as aqua-chi, which claims
to remove toxins through the feet by infusing
a foot spa with direct current, are less
obviously within or without of scope.
Lasers Lead Long List under Review
Besides reviewing laser hair enhancement
and growth devices, the committee is
taking another look at laser skin resurfacing.
New lasers allow shallow skin resurfacing of
the epidermis.
The committee will continue to review
roll-on waxing systems, specifically those
that feature reusable wax cartridges.
Such systems will be allowed only after
manufacturers provide sufficient research
showing no evidence of “flow-back” of used
wax into the wax cartridge.
The same goes for those storage boxes
using a “hospital grade germicidal bulb” to
“sanitize and disinfect.”
Until manufacturers provide evidence
that such products are as effective as stateapproved
disinfectants and autoclaves (for
sterilization), don’t use them for anything
but storage.
Thanks to Outgoing Klarr, Board
Members
Thanks to outgoing Board of Cosmetology
Vice-Chair Deely Klarr for serving on
the board since 2004. I’d also like to take the
opportunity to thank all board members.
Board members for all OHLA-regulated
professions volunteer their time and effort
to provide profession-specific expertise and
a public or consumer perspective.
OHLA is always looking for interested
and qualified candidates for board and council
membership. For more information, visit
our Web site at www.oregon.gov/OHLA and
look under Current Topics.
Kraig Bohot is Communications Coordinator at the Oregon Health Licensing
Agency (OHLA), a state consumer protection agency providing centralized
regulatory oversight of multiple health and related professions.
He can be reached at (503) 373-1939 or at kraig.bohot@state.or.us.
NORTHWEST STYLIST & SALON | OCTOBER 2008 | 13