EU strategy on hair dye

26.3.2014

Question for written answer E-003681-14
to the Commission
Rule 117
Christel Schaldemose (S&D)

A while ago I asked a question about allergenic hair dyes, but as I have not received a satisfactory answer, I am trying again.

As part of the EU’s hair dye strategy a number of dyes were investigated by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). Some dyes, such as p-phenylenediamine (PPD) and toluene-2.5 diamine, which are used in so-called oxidative hair dyes, have been regulated but not banned, even when they have sensitising properties.

On the other hand the findings of the SCCS could be interpreted as envisaging a ban on the hair dyes Indigofera Tinctoria, Acid Black 1 and Acid Orange 7. These three substances are to be found in the two ‘alternative’ hair dyeing methods, namely plant dyes and ‘New Generation’ dyes. These two dyeing methods are based on different chemical processes from oxidative dyes and therefore do not contain the same substances giving cause for concern.

These two alternative hair dyeing methods enable many hairdressers with allergies to continue working, and many customers with allergies to continue having their hair dyed. There are no registered clinical cases of allergic reactions to New Generation hair dyes in healthy people.

I should therefore like to ask:

Will the Commission consider taking account of the fact that the harmful effects described by the SCCS in connection with these three dyes (Indigofera Tinctoria, Acid Black 1 and Acid Orange 7) probably do not occur in practical everyday use outside laboratories?

What is the Commission’s answer to the argument that the EU’s hair dye strategy risks not providing alternative dyes for people with allergies? That would be contrary to the real aims of the strategy.

OJ C 346, 02/10/2014