Clean beauty gentrification: The role of historic and contemporary resource allocation practices on hair product safety in Boston, MA

Abstract

Background: Personal care products are a well-documented source of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Differences in exposure to EDCs are reported, with Black women more commonly using products, such as hair products, containing EDCs. Our previous work identified differences in access to safer hair products between neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts; however, limited research has explored what may be driving these differences. Redlining and gentrification are two resource allocation practices that may impact neighborhood-level access to health-promoting services and goods, including access to safer hair products.

Objective: We examined if there is an association between historic and contemporary practices related to resource allocation (i.e., historic redlining and gentrification) with hair product safety (i.e., containing EDCs and other chemicals of concern) among the neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts.

Methods: We randomly selected and visited 117 stores in Boston to collect data on hair product availability and safety. We used the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) Skin Deep database to evaluate hair product safety through hazard categories (low, moderate, or high). We collected data on historic and contemporary factors at the census tract level (redlining and gentrification). The associations between the historic and contemporary factors and EWG hazard categories were examined using multinomial logistic regressions.

Results: A total of 39,421 hair products were cataloged in Boston, Massachusetts. Stores in previously Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) graded C and D-not gentrified areas had increased access to high-hazard hair products (risk ratio [RR] HOLC C = 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.9, 1.4, RR HOLC D = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1, 1.7). Decreased access to low-hazard hair products was reported among stores in HOLC D-gentrified or intensely gentrified (RR = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.5, 1.1), HOLC C-not gentrified (RR = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.5, 1.0), and HOLC D-not gentrified areas (RR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.4, 0.8).

Discussion: Differences in access to safer hair products were reported when examining the impacts of both redlining and gentrification. Our findings present evidence of the role of historic and contemporary resource allocation practices on current-day neighborhood-level safer hair product accessibility, which may have potential downstream health consequences.

Figure 1.

Stacked bar chart of the percentages of low (0–2), moderate (3–6), and high (7–10) Environmental Working Group hazard score hair products in each neighborhood in Boston, Massachusetts. Each neighborhood was assigned a number from 1 to 23; 1 = Beacon Hill, 2 = Chinatown, 3 = Dorchester, 4 = Downtown, 5 = East Boston, 6 = Mattapan, 7 = Mission Hill, 8 = Roxbury, 9 = Fenway, 10 = Longwood, 11 = Allston, 12 = Back Bay, 13 = South Boston, 14 = Jamaica Plain, 15 = Hyde Park, 16 = Roslindale, 17 = West Roxbury, 18 = South Boston Waterfront, 19 = South End, 20 = Brighton, 21 = West End, 22 = North End, 23 = Charlestown.