Examination of Witnesses (Questions 840-859)
MR IVAN
LEWIS, MR
ALAN BELL
AND MR
JOHN BROMLEY
18 APRIL 2007
Q840 Chairman: We know that the prevalence
of hair dye allergy as an occupational problem, and indeed for
consumers, is increasing and the Scientific Committee on Consumer
Products in March produced a memorandum, following which the European
Commission announced that it will extend its assessment of hair
dye products. We also know that there are cross-problems with
black, semi-permanent tattoos. Can you tell us who is responsible
for ensuring that allergenic chemicals in these products are properly
labelled in the UK and what the government is doing to make sure
that the public are aware of the potential risks when using these
products?
Mr Lewis: I certainly never expected my ministerial
brief to take in hair dye! But it a serious issue actually, an
increasingly serious issue.
Q841 Chairman: It is.
Mr Lewis: You also mentioned the question of
tattoos and that, again, raises all sorts of very, very significant
health issues that maybe we would not have been responding to
only a few years ago. I think there are different levels of responsibility
here, so it would be helpful to go through those. First of all,
the manufacturers of cosmetic products, including hair dyes, sold
in our country are responsible for ensuring that their products
comply with something called the Cosmetic Product (Safety) Regulations
2004, as amended. Those Regulations were designed to implement
the EU Directive on the safety of cosmetics, for which the Department
of Trade and Industry is the enforcing authority, and on their
behalf it is Local Authority Trading Standards Departments that
are responsible for implementation on the ground. Amongst the
obligations under these Regulations are strict labelling requirements
in terms of making consumers aware—all cosmetic products
must be marked with a full listing of the product's ingredients,
including colouring agents. In actual practice, the testing for
allergy to hair dyes is commonly carried out by using a small
sample of the dye on the skin; tests sold separately to test hair
for adverse reactions prior to dyeing can be considered to be
a licensable medicine, if they act immunologically and the primary
intended purpose is to test for an allergic reaction. However,
to date—and this may change—the MHRA has received
no applications at this stage for market approval.
Q842 Chairman: Does the government
have any input into the raising awareness days, such as the Bad
Hand Day, which the Hairdressers' Association is running, or is
that organised completely independently by their own association
on their own initiative?
Mr Lewis: I am not aware at this stage that
the government has any involvement in it.
Mr Bromley: I think it is through the DTI and
I think there is some kind of sponsorship. Once again, I can find
out, but I am sure that there is government sponsorship in the
relevant department for that.
Q843 Chairman: And it would be helpful
to know the amount of sponsorship when you are investigating that.
Mr Bell: I would add that the other government
body with an interest as far as hairdressers go is of course the
Health and Safety Executive and that body has produced written
guidance specifically for hairdressers.
Chairman: But a lot of these products
are not sold and used by hairdressers, they are used at home.
And tattoos certainly are not done by hairdressers; but that is
another area. Lord Soulsby.
Q844 Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior:
The next question is somewhat related to the previous one.
From previous evidence we have heard that the terms "hypoallergenic"
and "dermatologically tested" are meaningless. The question
is how will the government ensure that consumers are protected
from misleading claims placed on cosmetics, bed linen and other
products?
Mr Lewis: There is first of all the general.
Any description of a product by a manufacturer or a vendor must
not be false or misleading, and this also applies to labelling,
whether provided voluntarily or required by regulation. So, in
general, there must not be false or misleading information or
labelling. There is action that can be taken, if that were to
happen, under the Trade Descriptions Act of 1968: it is a criminal
offence for a person in the course of a business to apply a false
or misleading trade description to goods. Enforcement of the Act
again is the responsibility of Local Authority Trading Standards
services. There is also a new Directive—the Unfair Commercial
Practices Directive, adopted on 11 May 2005, which will, as a
consequence of Regulations, take effect in April 2008, where the
Department of Trade and Industry is the lead department. What
that will do is to introduce a general prohibition of unfair commercial
practices by traders towards consumers; it will also help to strengthen
consumer protection against unfair selling and marketing methods
as well as scams, obviously. Among the practices specifically
prohibited—and I think this is the bit that is the strengthening—are
false claims that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction
or malformations. "Hypoallergenic" is a medicinal claim
and, if made for a medicine, would have to be supported by clinical
data before it was given a marketing authorisation by the MHRA.
So I think that the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive is an
opportunity to toughen and to strengthen the regulation and the
legislation which covers this area. I think the other issue, frankly,
is enforcement. In an area as technical as this it is hard to
believe that Local Authority Trading Standards Officers are marching
around local retailers looking for this, and it may well be that
it is something to which we would want to give some thought, to
ask Trading Standards Officers and Local Authorities whether they
could do a piece of work around these issues.
Q845 Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior:
Do I understand from your answer that you think that there
are standards set already really in the various areas and that
basically it is a question of enforcement, or have I misunderstood
you and that more needs to be done?
Mr Lewis: I am not a lawyer; I am sure there
are lawyers perhaps on the Committee. I suspect that on the issue
of misleading consumers, one of the difficulties is that that
would have to be tested in the court, so you would have to look
at the language that is used; you would have to have enough confidence
that, essentially, it was misleading. But then, having done that,
if you decided to take that further you would have to then, obviously,
test it in the court and the ultimate decision by the court would
demonstrate to us, first of all, whether the Trade Descriptions
Act covers this area adequately, but also from April 2008 whether
the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive has further strengthened
the regulatory and legal framework that affects this issue. So
I think it is a question of enforcement, it is a question of being
confident that there is sufficient evidence to take the matter
further, and I guess it would be a significant test case in this
area, and then it would be for the judgment of a court.
Q846 Lord Haskel: One of the problems
about these claims is that they are made in adverts, they are
not often made at point of sale; so the Trading Standards Officers
are at a disadvantage. Perhaps the Advertising Standards Authority
also would have a say in this. Are they affected in this way by
the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive as well?
Mr Lewis: They certainly have a code of practice,
they certainly have parameters, yes, and there are rules—there
are codes of practice. I cannot say today whether they have even
looked at this issue—I suspect that they have not—but
there is absolutely no reason why we could not refer this matter
to them and seek information from them—the Committee could
do it but we could do it as well—and get them to focus their
attention on whether this is a serious problem in terms of advertising
and whether there are potential breaches of their code of conduct.
It seems to me that the question triggers an action from both
us and the Committee, which could only be helpful.
Q847 Lord May of Oxford: I may have
misunderstood something here—and I do not think we should
spend too much more time on it—I thought you just said from
the pending legislation that it said "hypoallergenic"
is a medical term, whereas the spirit of the question that is
being asked is we have heard people say it is gobbledygook, that
is to say it is not so much misleading as meaningless, but misleading
by trying to sound like it means something.
Mr Lewis: Yes, and that is the problem legally
because if a member of the public were to view it as incomprehensible
that is not the same as it being misleading or inaccurate.
Lord May of Oxford: You read a form of
words a moment ago which suggests that the pending legislation
defined, gave it meaning, which is going to be complicated for
us if we get to say anything about this. We should look at it
in detail later.
Q848 Chairman: We do not want to
spend too much time on it but, actually, talking about something
hypoallergenic should mean that it has a low potential to trigger
allergy and cause an allergic response, but it does not mean that
it is non—it is hypoallergenic—and I am not sure that
we have really seen claims for particularly non allergenic attached
to substances for which there is no known allergy anyway, such
as water.
Mr Lewis: I have to say I think this reinforces
the point. I suspect that there are two issues here. One is whether
the manufacturers believe that the new legal framework requires
them to change the language they are using because their lawyers
will clearly have to make judgments about that; secondly, whether
ultimately in this area there would be a test case, in my view.
Chairman: I think I would like to move
away from cosmetics, if we can. Lady Platt.
Q849 Baroness Platt of Writtle: This
does change the subject. The House of Commons Environment Committee's
report on "Indoor Pollution" recommended at that time
that the government clarify and simplify the departmental responsibilities
for indoor air quality. Who is now responsible for ensuring a
healthy atmosphere inside buildings and who should be educating
the public about the management of dampness, house dust mites
and mould? I might add, is the Interdepartmental Liaison Group
on indoor air quality still operating and what work does it carry
out?
Mr Lewis: I think we accept that responsibility
in this area remains across a series of government departments,
and we have to do something about that. There was a meeting only
on 22 March of the Defra Air Quality Forum, which met then specifically
to look at the scope for clarifying and simplifying these responsibilities.
So the government acknowledges that there is a need to clarify
but that has not yet been done and I think the work of this Committee
will, frankly, help the government—and I am sure you will
want to do that—to clear up responsibility in this area.
The primary responsibility for ensuring a healthy atmosphere inside
buildings is shared between ourselves and the Department for Communities
and Local Government. That department is responsible for the Building
Regulations system for England and Wales; that includes setting
standards for ventilation in new buildings and those that are
undergoing material change of use. The purpose of ventilation
is to draw fresh air from outside into the building to dilute
pollutants and so to maintain good air quality inside. There are
many hundreds of airborne chemical compounds inside buildings
and the effects on health of only a few are well understood. The
Department of Health's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air
Pollutants provided guidance on the effects on health of indoor
pollutants in 2004 and that report suggested maximum levels for
selective pollutants. The Department for Communities and Local
Government used that information to set ventilation standards
in the Building Regulations, to control, as far as possible, those
pollutants. The Regulations are not tailored to the needs of individual
occupants, but individuals are not precluded from improving their
indoor air quality by using all sorts of means—filters,
dehumidifiers, et cetera. Also, the Department of Health and the
Health Protection Agency provide advice on the impact on health
of indoor air pollution. So it is true to say that there are lead
departments that would have a greater focus on this than others,
but there is still a need to clarify roles and responsibilities
across government and that work is ongoing at the moment.
Q850 Baroness Platt of Writtle: Does
this Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Air Quality still operate?
Mr Lewis: I cannot answer that at this stage;
I can write to the Committee if that would be helpful. We know
that the Air Quality Forum, which may or may not be the same body
that you are referring to, does still meet because it met on 22
March and it seems to be the body that took responsibility for
considering the best way of clarifying roles and responsibilities,
but I do not know if you are referring to that body or a different
body?
Baroness Platt of Writtle: Perhaps you
could clarify it afterwards.
Chairman: We understood that there was
another body as well. Lady Perry.
Q851 Baroness Perry of Southwark: Minister,
we were very interested in a recent development in Scotland where
Fairfield Housing Cooperative has built 14 affordable low allergy
homes. These used non-toxic materials, they avoided the use of
gas heating and they incorporated various heat recovery and ventilation
strategies. Have you discussed with other departments whether
the construction industry should use more of these strategies
when building new houses? How could you encourage that?
Mr Lewis: As I understand it, the Department
for Communities and Local Government offered some funding specifically
for the design and monitoring of the Fairfield development. As
a consequence of that, guidance has now been produced on the subject
to guide others who would want to go down this path, but that
would be on a voluntary basis. I think the question here really
is how active government is going to be in saying that the Fairfield
development produced evidence which is highly persuasive and desirable
in terms of other types of development, and I suspect at the moment
it is simply by having guidance that is available; that is quite
a passive position to adopt. Whether we ought to be more proactive
is something we ought to reflect on. Again, what I can offer to
do following this evidence is to write to the appropriate colleague
in that department, flagging up this issue, raising the question
of Fairfield and the persuasive evidence that Fairfield offers,
and ask them to consider what more they can do, rather than simply
issuing guidance, to get future developments to look at the Fairfield
model.
Q852 Lord Haskel: What is more, it
would be putting it into the Building Regulations.
Mr Lewis: Absolutely. The Building Regulations
are uniform at the moment, they are not focused on distinct needs.
But absolutely, that ultimately would change behaviour.
Q853 Baroness Perry of Southwark: As
I understand it, Minister, this particular project produced houses
which were not only low cost but which were healthy in lots of
other ways as well, so it would go broader than simply being allergy
proof.
Mr Lewis: I agree.
Q854 Chairman: And they were energy
efficient as well.
Mr Lewis: I was just going to say that, in terms
of what is happening next, the DTI is consulting at the moment
on a new strategy for sustainable construction, and it seems to
me that there would be another opportunity to influence what will
come out of that because if they are going to publish a new strategy
in the near future it would be logical, if Fairfield is as persuasive
as it appears, to have that as part of the new Strategy. So I
will write to colleagues in both those departments if that would
be helpful?
Q855 Chairman: Yes, it would.
Mr Lewis: And flag this up and when we get the
response we will forward that to the Committee.
Mr Bromley: I would say that as a department
we are having discussions with the trade bodies, the Construction
Confederation and the National Federation of Builders as well
on this issue, so we are being proactive on that and looking at
these forms of construction and how they affect people's health.
I think there are other trade bodies as well that we need to contact,
but we have started the process.
Q856 Lord Colwyn: I am afraid we
are coming at you from all angles and this is a total change of
subject, about pregnant mums and young children and advice that
is given to them. We have been in Denmark recently where the National
Board of Health specifically does not issue dietary avoidance
guidance for mums and infants because they say there is not adequate
evidence to support the claim that this prevents allergy development.
On the other hand, we are also aware of studies that show that
levels of vitamin D in mothers-to-be have a pronounced effect
on the chances of their children developing a condition, and lack
of vitamin D, found in oily fishes, et cetera, can hinder the
development of a child's lungs and immune system. We know about
the importance of selenium and zinc. Can you tell us who is responsible
for updating the Department of Health's dietary advice and then
perhaps after that I could be a little more specific and ask you
what specific advice you are giving on peanut consumption and
maybe avoidance for pregnant mums.
Mr Lewis: Hairdressers and peanuts, there is
an interesting combination! The current advice that we make available,
which is described as precautionary, is based on a report that
was issued by an independent expert committee, the Committee on
Toxicity, in 1998. There have been two research projects which
have been undertaken to actually consider the impact of that advice,
and that has been done by the Food Standards Agency—those
were only published recently and I do not know if the Committee
has sight of them? It would be worth the Committee having sight
of them. The outcome of those two research projects was published
in March and April of this year so they are very, very contemporary.
We are going to need to seek the view of the independent expert
committee, which is still established, on the findings in terms
of the Food Standards Agency's research. Having done that we will
then consider whether the existing advice needs updating, refreshing
or completely changing, but we need to consider what that advice
tells us. Would it help the Committee if I were to be a little
more specific about essentially some of the key elements of the
advice that we currently give to people?
Q857 Chairman: Yes, it would.
Mr Lewis: Pregnant women who are atopic (which
some members of the Committee will be aware, is an inherited tendency
to develop allergies) or for whom the father or any sibling of
the unborn child has an atopic disease, may wish to avoid eating
peanuts and peanut products during pregnancy and breast feeding.
Those same mothers are also recommended to avoid introducing peanuts
into the diet of their children until their children are three
years of age. For mothers from non-atopic backgrounds, the Government
advice is not to introduce peanuts into an infant's diet before
six months of age, and then only crushed or flaked to avoid choking
hazards. Whole peanuts should not be introduced until five years
of age. We can laugh at this because for some parents this is
commonsense but for other parents they would simply be unaware
of some of these issues.
Lord Colwyn: But, Minister, we are becoming
aware that that advice is not correct.
Q858 Lord May of Oxford: It may be
irresponsible, indeed.
Mr Lewis: Hold on, that is very serious. Our
position at the moment is that there is no definitive evidence
to support this advice, which was based on possible mechamisms
identified in 1998, which is why this research is really quite
important.
Chairman: We visited the research unit
at St. Thomas' where there is a big study going on, and they were
suggesting that it may actually be making the situation worse
to avoid peanuts during pregnancy and to delay exposure to any
peanut products. The position with whole nuts is completely different,
that is about choking and not about allergy, and we have to be
very clear that we separate whole nuts that can block off the
windpipe of a baby from the allergy potential. But there was concern
expressed to us during that visit—and they have a large
research project going on—and that concern was echoed when
we were in Denmark.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I think
we were also told, if I may, Lord Chairman, that in countries
where they wean babies on crushed peanuts there was no peanut
allergy, if there is very early exposure to peanuts.
Q859 Chairman: That was particularly
from Israel and from African countries where they are often weaned
on to groundnut soup.
Mr Lewis: Looking at the research that has just
been published, which has considered the impact of the advice
that is out there, what that has indicated is that the advice
is misunderstood—that is their take on this—in that
many non-atopic mothers also avoid peanuts during pregnancy and
breastfeeding. There was no clear effect seen in either study
on the prevalence of peanut allergy in the United Kingdom. They
have looked at the impact of the advice that is out there, and
that is their conclusion in this information that has been published
only within the last few weeks.
Mr Bromley: I would say that the FSA is close
to agreeing a contract to conduct mechanistic research based on
the clinical study that you have talked about, so we are involved
in looking at that.
Mr Lewis: This is quite serious.
| 
