MMA

[min11]

I'm not sure whether you're English on the basis of your spelling and grammar but certainly it's set alarm bells ringing with me. Maybe you should consider a GSCE to improve your spelling/grammar before you criticise others over their communication skills.

Of course you're very concerned people are going to 'tai' bars (do you mean Thai?) or Vietnamese salons - they're not using you! This is blatant protectionism folks not an altruistic interest in health & safety. To quote: 'Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo said the Health Protection Agency had no record of having received any complaints of ill effects from the use of MMA in nail bars in the last three years'. Yes MMA is unpleasant but so is EMA or acetone for that matter. As you also state, only 'some' US states have banned it and this after around forty years of use - Maybe the early problems were with the application rather than the product! If I had nails that were two inches long, real or not, EMA or MMA I wouldn't want to catch one in a car door in much the same way I wouldn't want to fall awkwardly with a high stiletto on potentially breaking an ankle! No sign of a ban on the stiletto yet! Same principle.

Maybe I'm having a dim moment here but whats your point? That MMA is fine? I'm not sure why you have alarm bells ringing just because you didn't like the spelling or grammar of the poster you quoted either.

 

[Eric Dolphy]

Maybe I'm having a dim moment here but whats your point? That MMA is fine? I'm not sure why you have alarm bells ringing just because you didn't like the spelling or grammar of the poster you quoted either.

Scary! Completely missed the point!

Apologies firstly to all those people out there that do really care about their client’s wellbeing.

I’m hoping to open a salon and was seeking an informed debate on health concerns regarding the chemicals regularly used in nail salons. All I’ve learnt so far is that a portion of the UK nail industry is running scared of the oriental nail franchises and is using every trick in the book to fight back. This fight is in some cases; thinly disguised ‘Do I really have to spell it out’. I’ve even seen the term ‘chop’ shop used. Yes we’ve all heard horror stories and not only from the oriental salons. The concentration by Nail Geek ‘blogs’ on MMA appears to be simply because the industry divides EMA - UK nail salon and MMA - oriental salon. The logic follows discourage people from using oriental salons or ideally close them all down because they use MMA and come to us because we use nice, safe EMA. The person I responded to provided a convenient example of this attitude. This ‘blog’ is not to do with the safety of clients it’s about lost business. Try and be honest enough to admit it. If everyone here were that concerned about health issues they probably wouldn’t be using EMA either.
I finally found this on a local government website:-In the USA Methyl Methacrylate (MMA) has been banned since the mid 1970’s due to the related health effects. A similar chemical EMA is used and is presently considered less harmful, although research is still being undertaken. You should not use any products that contain MMA. Products that contain EMA are considered safer but still harm your health.
As I understand it and please correct me if I’m wrong – The above statement isn’t quite correct since this ban was across 30 states and not the whole of the USA. So a ban in 60% of the USA and this after around forty years! So on a quick calculation with a pop. of 300 million people in the States – There is still an area with a population of around 120 million (twice the size of the U.K.) where people can still have their nails done using MMA. What’s happening in the rest of Europe – our immediate neighbours? – They don’t seem to get a mention!

And if you only ever read the end of a book - I wasn’t saying MMA is safe – safety with these sort of chemicals isn’t absolute it’s relative. So just how safe is EMA or just how unsafe is MMA!

 

[The Geek]

Eric, your posts are both ill informed and unnecessarily rude.

MMA is banned in 38 of the 50 US states. FWIW, that ban covers the 3 states that have 90% of the USA licensed nail professionals and as such I guess you can say that the ban covers a good 98% of nail professionals in the states.

Is MMA horrible? In itself, it isn't. However in nail applications, it is for 2 very important reasons:

1- They create enhancements that are far too hard and can permanently damage fingernail growth in the event of a break.
2- They require an obscene amount of damage to the natural nail plate in order to adhere. Why? Because MMA is not attracted to the natural nail plate at all. The crappiest EMA based product is at least twice as attracted to the natural nail as MMA.Therefore the only way to make MMA stick is to shred the natural nail plate during preparation. This leads to a greater risk of permanent damage if a break were to happen and an increased risk of overexposure (not to mention a black mark on our industry).

Are there any other reasons? Sure. The FDA has never banned MMA, however it has stated that since 1974 MMA should not be used in nail applications. The FDA is happy for EMA to be used because the CIR has reviewed and tested over 24 types of EMA 3 separate times over the past 30 years always coming to the same conclusion: EMA for nail applications is safe for intended use (last review found it to be even safer than earlier tests).

FWIW: I do not know of anything called PMA, however PEMA and PMMA are both polymerised (cured) EMA and MMA respectively which are not really relevant to the discussion.

Another FWIW: Local councils have had numerous complaints regarding the use of MMA over the years.

There may be some level of truth to your concerns regarding protectionism, however if people really feel that banning MMA will prevent budget salons from 'taking' business... They are wrong. Banning MMA won't in any way shape or form put budget salons out of business. It would at least mean that nails will not have to be completely ruined in order for products to adhere which would be a huge benefit to all of the industry. Saying that, it isn't really MMA that needs to be banned... it is the techniques used to apply MMA that need some level of address.

If some idiot thinks that salons are able to charge cheaper prices simply because they use cheap MMA is very wrong. Budget salons work on volume. Increasing their COG per service by 30p because they swap MMA to a high end EMA isn't going to radically impact their business.

I like intelligent discussions here, but I have little time for the ill informed and rude.

nJoy

 

[Eric Dolphy]

Eric, your posts are both ill informed and unnecessarily rude.

MMA is banned in 38 of the 50 US states. FWIW, that ban covers the 3 states that have 90% of the USA licensed nail professionals and as such I guess you can say that the ban covers a good 98% of nail professionals in the states.

Is MMA horrible? In itself, it isn't. However in nail applications, it is for 2 very important reasons:

1- They create enhancements that are far too hard and can permanently damage fingernail growth in the event of a break.
2- They require an obscene amount of damage to the natural nail plate in order to adhere. Why? Because MMA is not attracted to the natural nail plate at all. The crappiest EMA based product is at least twice as attracted to the natural nail as MMA.Therefore the only way to make MMA stick is to shred the natural nail plate during preparation. This leads to a greater risk of permanent damage if a break were to happen and an increased risk of overexposure (not to mention a black mark on our industry).

Are there any other reasons? Sure. The FDA has never banned MMA, however it has stated that since 1974 MMA should not be used in nail applications. The FDA is happy for EMA to be used because the CIR has reviewed and tested over 24 types of EMA 3 separate times over the past 30 years always coming to the same conclusion: EMA for nail applications is safe for intended use (last review found it to be even safer than earlier tests).

FWIW: I do not know of anything called PMA, however PEMA and PMMA are both polymerised (cured) EMA and MMA respectively which are not really relevant to the discussion.

Another FWIW: Local councils have had numerous complaints regarding the use of MMA over the years.

There may be some level of truth to your concerns regarding protectionism, however if people really feel that banning MMA will prevent budget salons from 'taking' business... They are wrong. Banning MMA won't in any way shape or form put budget salons out of business. It would at least mean that nails will not have to be completely ruined in order for products to adhere which would be a huge benefit to all of the industry. Saying that, it isn't really MMA that needs to be banned... it is the techniques used to apply MMA that need some level of address.

If some idiot thinks that salons are able to charge cheaper prices simply because they use cheap MMA is very wrong. Budget salons work on volume. Increasing their COG per service by 30p because they swap MMA to a high end EMA isn't going to radically impact their business.

I like intelligent discussions here, but I have little time for the ill informed and rude.

nJoy

Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to respond. I've no problem with being described as ill informed as for rude - My wife is a foreign national and was rather offended by some of the comments made on this site.

You have, in your short response been extremely helpful. I am not a nail technician but someone that will have some input into the running of a salon. The EMA/MMA debate is new to me and I've found myself on a path of looking at these products that at a first glance appear very similar. Over the past week I've spoken to several distributors and extensively trawled the internet. I have found it very difficult to separate myth from fact. You have helped fill in the gaps. Many thanks.

 

[chimbabweep]

good information. i want to have a couple of leaflets in my salon about mma. this is a great help x

 

[pauline71]

Thank you for your comments and for taking the time to respond. I've no problem with being described as ill informed as for rude - My wife is a foreign national and was rather offended by some of the comments made on this site.

You have, in your short response been extremely helpful. I am not a nail technician but someone that will have some input into the running of a salon. The EMA/MMA debate is new to me and I've found myself on a path of looking at these products that at a first glance appear very similar. Over the past week I've spoken to several distributors and extensively trawled the internet. I have found it very difficult to separate myth from fact. You have helped fill in the gaps. Many thanks.

If your looking for more information check out Doug Schoon.com. He is an international Scientist in the beauty industry and has posted a few articles on his site about MMA. It mainly states what's already been posted here.......

Very good thread indeed!!!

 

[Cershell]

Eric, your posts are both ill informed and unnecessarily rude.

MMA is banned in 38 of the 50 US states. FWIW, that ban covers the 3 states that have 90% of the USA licensed nail professionals and as such I guess you can say that the ban covers a good 98% of nail professionals in the states.

Is MMA horrible? In itself, it isn't. However in nail applications, it is for 2 very important reasons:

1- They create enhancements that are far too hard and can permanently damage fingernail growth in the event of a break.
2- They require an obscene amount of damage to the natural nail plate in order to adhere. Why? Because MMA is not attracted to the natural nail plate at all. The crappiest EMA based product is at least twice as attracted to the natural nail as MMA.Therefore the only way to make MMA stick is to shred the natural nail plate during preparation. This leads to a greater risk of permanent damage if a break were to happen and an increased risk of overexposure (not to mention a black mark on our industry).

Are there any other reasons? Sure. The FDA has never banned MMA, however it has stated that since 1974 MMA should not be used in nail applications. The FDA is happy for EMA to be used because the CIR has reviewed and tested over 24 types of EMA 3 separate times over the past 30 years always coming to the same conclusion: EMA for nail applications is safe for intended use (last review found it to be even safer than earlier tests).

FWIW: I do not know of anything called PMA, however PEMA and PMMA are both polymerised (cured) EMA and MMA respectively which are not really relevant to the discussion.

Another FWIW: Local councils have had numerous complaints regarding the use of MMA over the years.

There may be some level of truth to your concerns regarding protectionism, however if people really feel that banning MMA will prevent budget salons from 'taking' business... They are wrong. Banning MMA won't in any way shape or form put budget salons out of business. It would at least mean that nails will not have to be completely ruined in order for products to adhere which would be a huge benefit to all of the industry. Saying that, it isn't really MMA that needs to be banned... it is the techniques used to apply MMA that need some level of address.

If some idiot thinks that salons are able to charge cheaper prices simply because they use cheap MMA is very wrong. Budget salons work on volume. Increasing their COG per service by 30p because they swap MMA to a high end EMA isn't going to radically impact their business.

I like intelligent discussions here, but I have little time for the ill informed and rude.

nJoy

agree x