Here is Mr. Schoon’s response:
“I hope you will allow me to make a correction. I am not representing any company that sells these products. My press releases made that very clear. I am helping some companies, as well as government regulators and activists understand the chemical issues, e.g. to correct MSDS sheets, proper labels, correct testing, recommending proper ventilation, etc. That is my area of expertise, as well as, being a salon safety advocate for the past 20+ years. I can’t help who quotes me, that’s the risks of going public and I don’t mind when they do, as long as I am accurately quoted. Actually, I have been working with many other scientists to help clear up the misconceptions about formaldehyde for more than 7 years, so this is not a new issue.
I fully agree with you that an equilibrium exists and said so repeatedly. I love your graphics, but the equilibrium ratio is not 3 to 1, the ratio is 996 to 4 in favor of Methylene Glycol. Misunderstandings like this is what lead Oregon OSHA to originally misreport the levels of free Formaldehyde. That is my only complaint with them. I have a huge respect for OSHA and the important work they do.
Now Oregon OSHA has finally done some air monitoring studies, which is a step in the right direction and the FDA has asked the CIR to looking into both Formaldehyde and Methylene Glycol, so hopefully we can get down to science and move away from speculation based on misinformation. Again, my only interest is to help clear up the long standing misconception that Formaldehyde is a cosmetic ingredient. It is not and never has been! Shampoos, conditioners, body lotions, even nail polish… none of these have ever contained Formaldehyde as an ingredient. That would be impossible, since Formaldehyde is an anhydrous and highly reactive gas. Please feel free to contact me and I’d be happy to discuss this in more detail.”