Innovations in Salon Hair Color: Skip the At-home Hair Dye Job

The product is horrible. It is so thick that it is impossible to work with. INOA is so time consuming to mix and prepare which normally takes me 25 minutes alone! After the second application the hair dries out and becomes quite corse. INOA fades off tone which begins about a week after the application and fades more dramatically with grey coverage. I have had my L'Oreal rep and educator in my 24 chair salon 9 times and wasted a ton of time, money, and credibility on this underperforming product.

The shampoos contain high concentrations of "Ammonia Hydroxide" which is really "ammonia water". The color contains extremely high levels of PPD's which are very dangerous. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO CONDUCT A PROPER PATCH TEST, WHICH IS LEGALLY REQUIRED, ON EVERY CLIENT THAT YOU PLAN ON SUBJECTING TO INOA --- which I learned the hard way. Also, INOA is simply a repackaged product L'Oreal took off the drugstore shelf that used to be called Natural Match. They simply gave it a new name and charge us 4x more for it.

The packing is ridiculously inefficient as two tubes won't even do a full head of hair. You end up wasting more product than you are using. These costs add up over the long run.

The price of the product is completely unacceptable. I figured I am averaging close to $25 per application after I add in all the product I am wasting. It is simply too high and probably double of OCS.

Although I wish I never heard of this line, because it is literally ruining my salon, if you are interested in it you will be far better off buying if for pennies on the dollar at Walgreens or on Amazon.com.

Here is a comparison of Wella and L'Oreal INOA which I found remarkably accurate after months of using a lot of INOA. My rep claims I am one of the biggest single salons using the color. I can't wait until my stock has run out so I can start using OCS. If anyone wants to buy my stock for half price, I still have a few thousand dollars worth. Please email me!

http://www.haircolorist.com/news/inoa-headtohead.php

Whew! Seems that while some hairstylists highly recommend the INOA system, others really dislike the way it works. Thank you very much for sharing your experience, even though it was a negative one. You make some excellent points.

To minimize problems with any hair color, consumers should always get a patch test perfomed, even if they've used the exact same product before. Natural ingredients are no exception, since plant extracts like chamomile can cause rashes and other skin reactions.

Consumers should always ask if a product contains chemicals that cause them concern; and should check the label if they don't trust the information they're receiving. Some dye components (including PPD or p-phenylenediamine) have been shown to cause cancer when fed to lab animals; but it is not known if this ingredient or other commonly used hair dye ingredients pose a definite cancer risk when used as directed in a hair color, according to the FDA. People who are extremely leery of any possible risk factors probably shouldn't use synthetic hair color at all, especially dark brown or black shades.

It can't take 25 minutes to prepare as one person wrote. It takes 6 - 8 initially and then 2 or 3 after that. I believe that the person who wrot ethat it took 25 minutes to prepare misrepresented the ENTIRE LENGTH OF TIME OF APPLICATION with the amount of time it take to actually prepare this item.

If it takes this person 25 minutes to prepare this product, as was originally stated, then they may be some issues with the person herself ( or himself ) . Perhaps they can't follow instructions or are physically unable to do this. The person may have some sort of limitation preventing them from doing something that the majority of people do in 2- 6 minutes

The comment that it is " packed full of ammonia " is also a misrepresentation of the fact. Ammoniun hydroxide is listed far down in the ingredient listing- it is difficult if not impossible to tell what amount of Ammonium hydroxide ( AH ) is actually in it.
I would be interested in knowing the relative amount of AH in one application of iona versus one application of Matrix or Wella or whatever.
I also would be interested in knowing how much ammonia gas is generated in this new formulation.

EVery line recommends a " patch test". So this is a misdirection on whoever said this. YOu are obliged ( by good business practice or legal reguirement ) to have the client take a patch test.

The main issue is how it is that L'oreal is allowed to state on their label that the product is ammonia free. Perhaps there is a percentage under which a statement such as " now ammonia free" is legal. This typically occurs in the food industry for certain items.

The negative comments seem a bit over the top and are a bit suspect.

I don't like the fact that the label says 'ammonia free " and then lists ammonium hydroxide on the ingredient list.

What is worse than this is that there has been no explanation about this discrepancy from L'Oreal.

If they would have explained how they can do this or why they say it, then all would be in the open and understood. As it stands, it just seems sneaky.

The negative comments about the product seem to stem from the label itself- not so much the product. it is more expensive and a bit more time consuming- but nothing like what is being said in regards to the time. it takes more time to apply. it does cost more money. It gives better results and increases customer satisfaction.

The comparison in the link clearly states that wella is cheaper and easier to use but wella stinks of ammonia and gives a less satisfying result. Inoa is more expensive , a bit more time intensive , has little to no offensive odor and gives a better end result for the customer.

I'll wait for L'oreal to give an explanation for the apparent label issue.

"Regarding the above comment: The author's reply is that concentrations of ammonia produced by the ionic compound ammonium hydroxide are dependent on several factors, including pH levels (is the environment acidic or basic?) ....."

ammonium hydroxide is NOT an ionic compound. it is not a salt of the two ions created when ammonia is mixed in water. the NH4 ion is only present in miniscule amounts. something like 1000 grams of ammonia is needed to have 0.452 grams of the ion present. the calculation and numbers may be off yet that is not the issue.

AMmonia is the item that is present in much larger quantities than the ion. not much of the ammonia is " broken down" to become the ion. it is a bit of an odd duck or red herring to be talking about how much ammonia is formed from the ion.

this ion does not combine with the OH ion to create ammonium hydroxide. ammonium hydroxide really doesn't exist. the reaction does shift in one direction or the other depending on heat, pH and concentration of the reactants.

ammonium hydroxide is simply aqueous ammonio NH3 ( aq).

the issue though is HOW is it that L'oreal is able to put " ammonia free " on the label of the shampoo yet have ammonium hydroxide listed as an ingredient.

that is it.

the product clearly contains ammonia.
that is a dead issue.
ammonia is ammonium hydroxide is ammonia.

HOw do they get away with the label claim?

They listed it on the ingredients as they knew that it would be tested. I am surprised that I haven't read of any of these other companies TESTING L'Oreal Inoa products so that the amount of ammonia can be actually verified.

why hasn't any of these other companies tested the product so we can see how much is in there?

we know it's in there.

so how much?

it appears that any ingredient used in the manufacture of these beauty / cosmetic product have to be listed on teh ingredient listing. it may not be be in the end product as it may have been converted to something else. I believe that what is happening is this: ammonium hydroxide is a base, although somewhat weak. Thus, it is being used to bring acidity level to the desired range. The ammonia is completely used up in this function and is NOT IN THE FINAL PRODUCT. as the final pH of the end product is acidic. so there is no ammonia in the product. the other companies may already know this, which is why they are not the ones who are crying foul about this. The chemists for the other companies know what is going on and all the other companies know this. the other companies certainly are benefiting from the fact that the salon owners / stylists are going ballistic about this. so this is also why no other company is going after L'oreal for false labelling claims. ammonia was used int he manufacture of the product , but is not in the final product that the customer uses.
what is clear is that L'Oreal has done a poor job in educating their sales staff, who in turn have done a poor job in educating their customers, and who, upon confrontation, became defensive as they believe themselves to be blindsided. and they didn't know how to defend themselves as they don't have the information.
and to top if off, L'Oreal used a product upon which it's complete absense was integral to the marketing campaign. seems to have been a confusing if not poor choice.
reminds me of the introduction of 'new coke' and other marketing decision disasters.

I read so many different things about Inoa.
The salon owners and stylists who I know and talk to pretty much all like the product and have very little trouble with it It does not cover grey as well as L'Oreal insists and advertizes that it does. Some hair textures do not respond favorably ( it doesn't seem to work well with women having thin stringy hair) and you have to follow instructions to the letter.

it is more expensive but not so much that people freak out over it. At least not freak out to the extent that some people have written.

It does appear that many women like Inoa and don't mind the extra price as they love the end the results. ( this was from a study comparing wella products to Inoa in a " Head to Heal " test comparison )

people who are g reatly upset at the product seem to be all on the internet.

the product these people like to use has another ingredient that is listed in the chemical hazard books as being an allergen and skin irritant as well- (
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred06=701516 )

although indeed found in natural ( 'natural " ) it may not be the best thing for a person- even in low doses. it does seem that almost nothing is good to put on your scalp to change she shape, color texture of your hair.
mea is not so good , ammonia is not the greatest thing, this cocamide thing may not be all that it is cracked up to be- looking at the articles written up on it by scientists and the medical community. all of these things appear to have similar risks involved.

I found a product at my local super market called natural match - it's 15 bucks and has no ammonia. it does the job. at the right price. and at a risk level that I can tolerate.

Terrible. This person should not be "writing" by picking up press releases and reworking them. MEA can be worse than ammonia, depending on the percentage in the color. Not to mention, if you are a chemist and read the ingredients to the accompanying INOA shampoo, etc, you'd see it uses...ammonia (as ammonia hydroxide). If this writer knew anything abut the industry she is allegedly writing about, she would know there have been hundreds of compliants about L'Oreal reps forcing this on salons, lying to them, etc, and she'd realize how and why they have this power. Then, there is the problem with the oil and wearers of extensions. Basically..stick to what you know.

About the article -I liked it. It was a starting point for the discussion.
The author got the conversation rolling - it wasn't a definitive dissection of the product. No one was passing it off as a thesis. It simply got the ball going.

Inoa does not have ammonia in the final product. from reading about it ( on non hair industry sites that talk about the uses of ammonia )- it turns out that ammonia was added to the formulation to get the pH to a desired range. it can be described as destroyed or as being neutralized but however you describe it, there is no ammonia being put on the client's hair.

All the other companies know this as their own chemists must have told them this fact. This is why no other company is suing or filing false label charges against L'Oreal.

L'Oreal has never said that their product is organic. It says 'ammonia free"- leaving out the fact that ammonia was used to make it but that ammonia is not in the end product when it's applied to the client's hair.

As for the 'natural" word being attached- this is a strange thing as simply because something occurs in nature does not make it better or worse. Ammonia is as natural as cocamide in that sense as ammonia occurs in nature as well. Ammonia is simply offensive to the senses.

There doesn't seem to be anything good to put on your hair.

Ammonia is effective but not good for you.
this MEA is not so good.
DEA is not good.
and cocamide does not appear to be so good either.

as it seems that it isn't cocamide but rather cocamide DEA or cocamide MEA that is in the bottle.

Oddly, people are saying that cocamide is natural due to it being from coconuts. While this is true, cocamide is actually combined chemically with another chemical to turn it into cocamide MEA or cocamide DEA.
it is as natural as ammonis is.
here is a link about cocamide . the article is cut and pasted below.
I am not taking credit for the article. it is for information purposes only.

http://thegreenbeautyguide.com/?p=204.

My sister is a bit slow in grasping the basics of cosmetic label reading, so when she buys a shampoo with a word “organic” on the bottle it’s most often will be used to mop floors. So this time, when she came back with a happy yellow tube of Australian Organics shampoo which contained cocamide DEA, parabens, and disodium EDTA among other crap, I decided I need to spend a minute educating her.

So here it is, sweetheart. Let’s talk about one of the most ubiquitous ingredients in the shampoos you (and millions of other people) are buying, cocamide DEA.

Cocamide DEA is cocamide diethanolamine. It is used to thicken the shampoo, a body wash, or a facial cleanser and give it a nice goopy consistency. That’s it. It serves no other purpose than creating a nice look to the product. It doesn’t help the health of your skin, it doesn’t assist in cleansing, it’s all about marketing gimmicks when it comes to cocamide DEA.

Product manufacturers believe that the thicker is the product, the more appealing it seems to the customers. Maybe they think the product is more “rich” or “nutritious” or “natural”. But there’s nothing natural about cocamide DEA.

Smart marketers will state that cocamide DEA is sourced from coconuts. That’s true: coconut oil is mixed with diethanolamine to make cocamide DEA. It’s then used as a emulsifier and a surfactant.

Diethanolamine may hide under such names as Lauramide diethanolamine, Coco Diethanolamide, coconut oil amide of diethanolamine, Lauramide DEA, Lauric diethanolamide, Lauroyl diethanolamide, and Lauryl diethanolamide.

Chemophiles also insist, and here I am quoting LUSH Cosmetics who are very protective about their parabens, synthetic dyes, and artificial fragrances in their “homemade” skincare, that “cocamide DEA has been safely used for more than fifty years.”

And how about skyrocketing rates of allergies and cancer in the last fifty years? I am sure that cocamide DEA, as well as its relatives triethanolamine and diethanolamine, parabens, and phthalates, is partially to blame. These ingredients do not make us healthy, but they make the manufacturers richer. And speaking of health…

DEA and its variants are suspected of increasing the risk of cancer. DEA can combine with amines present in cosmetic formulations to form nitrosamines (N-nitrosodiethanolamine), which are known to be highly carcinogenic.

Studies also show that DEAs (including cocamide DEA) directly inhibits fetal brain development in laboratory studies by blocking the absorption of choline, a nutrient required for brain development and maintenance.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill researchers have discovered that when DEA was applied to the skin of pregnant mice at concentrations similar to those found in shampoos, the fetuses showed inhibited cell growth and increased cell death in an area of the brain responsible for memory - the hippocampus.

“I don’t believe any woman who’s been using these products needs to have a sleepless night about having caused harm to her child,” said Dr. Steven Zeisel, Kenan Distinguished University Professor of nutrition in UNC’s schools of public health and medicine and associate dean for research in the School of Public Health.

“At this point it is a caution,” he added. “But it would probably be prudent to look at labels and try to limit exposure until we know more.”

DEA is also associated with miscarriages in laboratory studies. “We saw smaller and smaller litters as we gave higher doses. No one has ever noted that before,” Zeisel said.

“This agent not only affects brain development, but at higher doses probably affects some other development in a way that is fatal to the fetus,” he said.

So that’s what diethanolamine does to animals. But what about humans? An average bottle of shampoo contains up to 10 ml diethanolamine. When we use this shampoo, we massage the diethanolamine into our scalp, pouring in hot water to increase absorption. After 30 shampoos, we are exposed to 10 ml (0.3 oz) of pure, undiluted diethanolamine - more that poor lab mice were!

So stop thinking like a mouse. Just because it appears on a bottle with the word “organic” on it, it’s not organic. What’s worse, it’s carcinogenic and it damages your brain. Be proactive and shield yourself and your loved ones from harmful chemicals like cocamide DEA - they aren’t doing you any good!
end of article.

again, here is the link to view the original article.

http://thegreenbeautyguide.com/?p=204.

FRom reading other web article, it's weird that some people are actively promoting other so called ' organic' companies over Inoa. That is their choice of course. They are free to do so.

Some of these companies don't appear to have better ingredients.
Better in terms of not being allergenic, toxic or nauseating to the consumer.
INstead of ammonia, they use chemicals containing MEA or cocamide DEA.
they all appear to have PPD.

the consumer is the person whose hair is being done but more importantly, the stylist is the consumer most in peril as they expose themselves to the ingredients far more than once every few months.

these other companies have only as few as 3 ingredients that are certified organic. Out of 20 ingredients. These ingredients are usually fragrances. and are present in small percentage of the total weight. So perhaps only 3-5% ( by weight ) of the product is 'certified organic " .
The fragrances often cause allergic reactions to people. The rest of the ingredients are chalk a block chemicals synthesized in a lab.

Some of the products that these other organic companies use :

1. ppd- quite toxic actually
2. cocamide MEA- probably worse than ammonia.
3. cocamide DEA- probably worse than ammonia.
4. parabens
5. resorcinols
6. the less toxic chloro resorcinols.
7. formaldehyde-releasing products.

and other assorted chemicals made in the lab.

These organic things are barely that but do have the authenticity of saying that they include some organic ingredients. HOwever, the consumer may believe that the product is 100% organic.

The average consumer equates the word " organic" with " safe'.

But the majority of the chemicals found in their product are listed as being mildly toxic to moderately toxic . And often, somewhat carcinogenic. Its all listed on websites keeping track of the ingredients found in hair color products .

some sales rep for these organic lines are telling people that their product contains cocamide.

They don't say cocamide MEA . or COCAMIDE DEA.

as the MEA and DEA are the things that people are trying to avoid.

and PPD. most people want to avoid PPD. but if you look- it's in their product.
look for phenylenediamine. or para- phenylenediamine.

L'Oreal INoa line may be shoddy in a number of areas but they are telling the truth about what is in the product.

I have not yet found a product that works and is safe to the stylist , given how frequently she/he is exposed to the product. It seems that the organic lines do not have completely safe ingredients either. These PPD and cocamide DEA and cocamide MEA and other chemicals are bad news as well.

I am still waiting for a good safe product. It may not be Inoa. It may not be any of the organic lines I have read about. AS I have not found one company that doesn't use one or more of those items in the list.

Someone come up with a good safe product that works.