28 Apr 2015 Julie McCabe · Prevention of Future Deaths report North Yorkshire and York
View report summary
Concerns raised 5 Failure to instruct users to report allergic reactions to the manufacturer View source Failure to provide adequate warnings about the consequences of black henna temporary tattoos View source Continued hair dye use after an allergic reaction to pre-use PPD testing View source Failure to obtain accurate information on the scale, nature and severity of allergic reactions to PPD View source Black henna temporary tattoos containing high concentrations of PPD View source See 2 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
AI-generated summary
Julie McCabe · Prevention of Future Deaths report
This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.
Report summary
Julie McCabe died after an adverse reaction to para-phenylenediamine (PPD) in hair dye caused anaphylactic shock and irreversible brain damage. The report’s concerns included inadequate information about the scale and severity of allergic reactions to PPD, risks from black henna tattoos causing sensitisation, and the practical limitations of the required pre-use allergy test.
Read the report on judiciary.uk
× Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to instruct users to report allergic reactions to the manufacturer
Wider context from the report “A)
• The hair colourant industry generally, rely almost entirely on ‘reports’ for information concerning adverse reaction to hair dye from users. So called, spontaneous reports.
• The industry accepts these reports are an efficient way of collecting information, but no more than that. They result in very small samples
• The industry statistics for such matters are calculated on ‘reports per million sold’.
• From the industry’s figures, best case is 0.3 per million, worst is 4.3 per million.
• There is a massive disconnect with some independent research.
• For example. Work carried out by Amersham hospital with a sample of 1800 revealed:
- 14% (270) of users reported an allergic reaction of some nature,
- 15% (36) of those sought medical help
- And 0.02% reported their reaction to the manufacturers.
• Extrapolation of those figures to the industry standard per million:
- 140,000/million have some allergic reaction to hair dye colourant;
- 21,000 would seek medical help
- 5 would report it to the manufacturer
• It was said in evidence that the true figure will lie somewhere between those two ‘very’ extremes.
• There is further independent research suggesting that perhaps as many as 50% of users have to a greater or lesser degree some reaction. A significant number of those at the ‘lesser’ end do continue to use hair dye..
• It was generally accepted in evidence that repeat users who continued to suffer a reaction and were willing and able to tolerate the effects, were unlikely to report it to the manufacturer.
• It was also clear that the medical professionals are under no obligation, nor have they been asked, to report any adverse reaction to hair dye to anybody.
• The instruction provided with colourant advises a test 48 hours before using. Research indicates that only 5% carry out the test, even though 86% are aware of the necessity of the test.
• The instructions included in the hair dye kit, also advise users to seek medical assistance if they do have a reaction, including shortness of breath, to hair dye
• The instructions, in L’Oreal hair colourant do not advise those who suffer an allergic reaction of any kind to contact the manufacturer. Their trade association does advise that such information should be included in the instructions for use leaflet
My concern is that the industry has no accurate information on the level of allergic reaction to PPD:
- Not its scale, nature or severity
- Nor do they actively seek that information
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide adequate warnings about the consequences of black henna temporary tattoos
Wider context from the report “B)
My second concern is the effects of Black Henna, (as opposed to normal Henna) which will contain PPD probably well in excess of that permitted under the cosmetic regulations I am told that this substance is illegal throughout the E.C. when used for tattoos. The artisan tattooists who offer these tattoos are often found on beaches, fairgrounds and festivals. Research by the Spanish Authorities in the Canary Islands indicates a PPD content in Black Henna there of between 15% and 64%. The permitted level in henna tattoos in the EC is 2%.
It is likely that similar strength black henna is used elsewhere in the EC.
Black Henna will no doubt be available in the UK but the evidence suggested the major problem is in holiday resorts abroad. I was told that travel companies refuse to co-operate with the trade body: - Cosmetic, Perfume and Toiletries Associations (CPTA) of the cosmetic industry to include a warning notice in travel brochures about the possible consequences of temporary tattoos
I have alerted my local authority, North Yorkshire County Council Trading Standards Department to the issue of black henna tattoos. As the enforcing authority they have said they will monitor what is happening in the county, particularly the larger holiday resorts on the east coast, come summer
I’m hoping that approach will be communicated to other local authorities with the power to confiscate black henna that is being used for temporary tattoos
My concern is that without adequate warnings children, in particular, could be offered one of these temporary tattoos . That first tattoo, particularly at the strengths being quoted can sensitise that person, adult or child, for life.
In the case of children the effects may not show themselves until much later in life. Perhaps flaring up on the first occasion they dye their hair, I am told that a black henna tattoo, like a hair colourant containing PPD, will not necessarily cause an allergic reaction on the first occasion it is used
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Continued hair dye use after an allergic reaction to pre-use PPD testing
Wider context from the report “C)
An allergic reaction to the test required to be conducted 48 hours before using, are being required to buy a hair dyeing kit for some £8+The kit is then worthless. Once opened the contents have a limited life. The contents of the colourant sachet oxidise when exposed to air.
To expect a consumer to simply throw away £8 reflects the views of someone who is perhaps not living in the real world. It is not going to happen very often, not with a product that is all about a person who wants to feel good about themselves. In some cases consumers may also be motivated by vanity
It was said that PPD was cheap.
The test involves a small ‘dab’ behind the ear.
It was said by one expert that a free small tester phial which included PPD was an excellent idea.
Such a phial could be picked up at a retailer, perhaps the week before: was the thought that crossed my mind.
Unfortunately it was said that such a phial would have the effect of taking the sample containing PPD from being a cosmetic to a medicinal substance and subject to a different licensing regime.
My concern is the industry is being a little naive in expecting consumers to simply throw away a beauty product which then, unfortunately turns out to be a £8 testing kit.
The statistics and some of the research papers referred to at the inquest quite clearly showed that a substantial number of users will continue to dye their hair in circumstances that others might find difficult to comprehend.
So an £8 “tester kit” is not going to be routinely thrown away by a consumer in the manner whereby the remains of a free tester kit would be. And importantly, an allergic reaction to a free tester might, And I put it no higher than that, persuade someone who does have an allergic reaction, not to dye their hair .
Alternatively they might be persuaded to purchase a non-permanent hair dye which may not include PPD.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to obtain accurate information on the scale, nature and severity of allergic reactions to PPD
Wider context from the report “A)
• The hair colourant industry generally, rely almost entirely on ‘reports’ for information concerning adverse reaction to hair dye from users. So called, spontaneous reports.
• The industry accepts these reports are an efficient way of collecting information, but no more than that. They result in very small samples
• The industry statistics for such matters are calculated on ‘reports per million sold’.
• From the industry’s figures, best case is 0.3 per million, worst is 4.3 per million.
• There is a massive disconnect with some independent research.
• For example. Work carried out by Amersham hospital with a sample of 1800 revealed:
- 14% (270) of users reported an allergic reaction of some nature,
- 15% (36) of those sought medical help
- And 0.02% reported their reaction to the manufacturers.
• Extrapolation of those figures to the industry standard per million:
- 140,000/million have some allergic reaction to hair dye colourant;
- 21,000 would seek medical help
- 5 would report it to the manufacturer
• It was said in evidence that the true figure will lie somewhere between those two ‘very’ extremes.
• There is further independent research suggesting that perhaps as many as 50% of users have to a greater or lesser degree some reaction. A significant number of those at the ‘lesser’ end do continue to use hair dye..
• It was generally accepted in evidence that repeat users who continued to suffer a reaction and were willing and able to tolerate the effects, were unlikely to report it to the manufacturer.
• It was also clear that the medical professionals are under no obligation, nor have they been asked, to report any adverse reaction to hair dye to anybody.
• The instruction provided with colourant advises a test 48 hours before using. Research indicates that only 5% carry out the test, even though 86% are aware of the necessity of the test.
• The instructions included in the hair dye kit, also advise users to seek medical assistance if they do have a reaction, including shortness of breath, to hair dye
• The instructions, in L’Oreal hair colourant do not advise those who suffer an allergic reaction of any kind to contact the manufacturer. Their trade association does advise that such information should be included in the instructions for use leaflet
My concern is that the industry has no accurate information on the level of allergic reaction to PPD:
- Not its scale, nature or severity
- Nor do they actively seek that information
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Black henna temporary tattoos containing high concentrations of PPD
Wider context from the report “B)
My second concern is the effects of Black Henna, (as opposed to normal Henna) which will contain PPD probably well in excess of that permitted under the cosmetic regulations I am told that this substance is illegal throughout the E.C. when used for tattoos. The artisan tattooists who offer these tattoos are often found on beaches, fairgrounds and festivals. Research by the Spanish Authorities in the Canary Islands indicates a PPD content in Black Henna there of between 15% and 64%. The permitted level in henna tattoos in the EC is 2%.
It is likely that similar strength black henna is used elsewhere in the EC.
Black Henna will no doubt be available in the UK but the evidence suggested the major problem is in holiday resorts abroad. I was told that travel companies refuse to co-operate with the trade body: - Cosmetic, Perfume and Toiletries Associations (CPTA) of the cosmetic industry to include a warning notice in travel brochures about the possible consequences of temporary tattoos
I have alerted my local authority, North Yorkshire County Council Trading Standards Department to the issue of black henna tattoos. As the enforcing authority they have said they will monitor what is happening in the county, particularly the larger holiday resorts on the east coast, come summer
I’m hoping that approach will be communicated to other local authorities with the power to confiscate black henna that is being used for temporary tattoos
My concern is that without adequate warnings children, in particular, could be offered one of these temporary tattoos. That first tattoo, particularly at the strengths being quoted can sensitise that person, adult or child, for life.
In the case of children the effects may not show themselves until much later in life. Perhaps flaring up on the first occasion they dye their hair, I am told that a black henna tattoo, like a hair colourant containing PPD, will not necessarily cause an allergic reaction on the first occasion it is used
” Open source report
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations