Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2015

Julie McCabe

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2023-0508, written 4 Apr 2015. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report4 Apr 2015
Reference2023-0508
DeceasedJulie McCabe
CoronerGeoffrey Fell
Coroner areaNorth Yorkshire and York
CategoryOther related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses publishednone published

The report

Text extracted from the PDF text layer. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

ANNEX A 
REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS 

THIS REPORT IS  BEING SENT TO: 

1. 
2. 
3. 
CORONER 

1 

Rt Hon Dr Vince Cable M.P 

 - Director General CPTA 

Chief Coroner - HH Judge Peter Thornton QC 

I am Geoffrey Fell,  Assistant  Coroner, for the coroner area of Western Area of North 
Yorkshire 

2 

CORONER'S LEGAL POWERS 

I make this report under paragraph 7,  Schedule 5,  of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 
and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. 

3 

INVESTIGATION and  INQUEST 

On 30/11/2012 I commenced an investigation into the death of Julie McCabe (aged 39). 
The investigation concluded at the end of the 3 day,  inquest on 19/02/2015 

The conclusion of the inquest was: -

Accidental death due to a rare but known potential adverse reaction to hair dye 
which caused  irreversible brain damage due to anaphylactic shock on  30th 
October, 2011. 

Cause of death was: -

1 a) Acute Cardiorespiratory Arrest 
1 b) Longstanding Severe Anoxic Brain Damage 
1 c)  Anaphylactic Shock on 30th October 2011 

4 

CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 

Julie McCabe died as a result of an adverse reaction to a chemical component 
contained  in  hair dye.  That component;  Para-Phenylenediamine (PPD) is a long 
recognised potent and  powerful allergen.  Julie and her treating G.P.'s were aware of 
her longstanding allergy to hair dye going back to at least 2005 .  Julie was  known to 
have had a  black (probably) henna tattoo in  2007.  The frequency of her visits to the 
G.P. increased after 2007.  Black Henna, which contains PPD,  is known to sensitise 
people who use hair dye which also contains PPD.  That is  all permanent and to a 
lesser extent,  some non-permanent hair dye 

Julie had used hair colourants for probably 1 O years before she died.  During that time 
she had visited her G.P.'s surgery 16 maybe 20 times, and the local hospital twice 
following adverse reactions.  Evidence was given that Julie would  have a reaction every 
time she used hair colourant.  It would appear she did not seek professional help every 
time. 

5 

CORONER'S CONCERNS 

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed  matters giving rise to concern. 
In  my opinion there is a risk,  probably slight,  that future deaths will occur unless action  is 
taken.  In  these circumstances it is  my statutory duty to report to you.  The matters of 
concern are as follows: -

 ANNEX A 
REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

Background:  -

•  PPD is used in all  permanent hair colourants.  It has long been known as a 

powerful allergen. 
It has been the subject of numerous research papers 

• 
•  Since 1979 the effects of PPD have been considered by the Scientific 

Committee on  Consumer Safety (SCCS) of the European Commission on 6 
occasions, the last in  2012 
The 2012 report referred to in  excess of 200 research documents. 

• 
•  No other component of a cosmetic has been the subject of so much research as 

• 

PPD 
The SCCS said  in 2012  " ... PPD in  hair dye  remains a considerable concern 
for  consumer safety'' 

•  Hair colourant used in the  EC  cannot legally contain more that 2% PPD which at 

the scalp equals 1mg  (1/5 of a teaspoon of PPD). 

•  Anaphylaxis is a rare but documented reaction according to research within the 

• 

• 

industry. 
The SCCS in  2012 also noted that exposure to temporary tattoos (black henna) 
may also result in  sensitisation in consumers. 
In addition to anaphylaxis a more common (but rare according to the industry) 
may be oedema of the face,  eyelids and scalp. 

•  More moderate reaction such as erythema,  suppuration and ulceration at the 
scalp margin, on  the ears and sometimes with eczema where the dye has run 
down the neck are seen. 

•  About half of todays' population have dyed their hair at some time or other, 

again according to  industry research. 

Matters of Concern 

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 

• 

• 

• 

 ANNEX A 
REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO  PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

• 

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 

It was said in evidence that the level of the risk would dictate the warnings 
contained in  the  kit. 

I would suggest,  by analogy, it will  also dictate the level of resources, their nature 
and how and where they are to be focussed to address the allergic problems 
associated with PPD. 

Unfortunately for the relatively small but probably significant percentage, of  the 
tens of millions of users who annually buy hair colourant, and who have a n 
allergic reaction, the industry does not have that level or detail of information. 
Until they have that information or come up with a  safer alternative to PPD a 
small minority, (probably) of consumers will be at risk of anaphylaxis and the 
risks associated with that medical condition. 

A much larger number of consumers will continue suffer the less life threatening 
consequences of an  allergic reaction to PPD 

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 

 ANNEX A 
REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

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 

C) 
n 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 which 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. 

6 

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN 

In  my opinion action should  be taken to  prevent future deaths and  I believe you  and your 
organisation  have the  power to take such action. 

 ANNEX A 
REGULATION 28:  REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) 

7 

YOUR RESPONSE 

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, 
namely by  28th  April 2015 . I,  the Assistant Coroner,  may extend the period. 

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to  be taken,  setting out 
the timetable for action. Otherwise you  must explain why no action is proposed. 

8 

COPIES and  PUBLICATION 

I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following  Interested 
Persons: -

 - Director General,  Cosmetic Toiletry and  Perfume 

Association 

I am  also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response . 

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both  in  a complete or redacted  or summary 
form.  He may send a copy of this report to  any person who he believes may find  it useful 
or of interest. You  may make representations to me,  the coroner,  at the time of your 
response,  about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner.

Related reports

More reports categorised “Other related deaths”

See all →

Track Geoffrey Fell

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Geoffrey Fell, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.