Ad description
A page on Natur Vital’s website, www.naturvital.co.uk, relating to a hair colourant range, seen on 2 July 2024, featured the heading “PPD FREE PERMANENT HAIR COLOUR”. Further text included “PPD FREE PERMANENT HAIR DYE WITH HIGH SKIN TOLERANCE […] banishes grey hairs in just 20 minutes, along with lessening the risks of allergic reactions and skin irritations. […] NaturVital Coloursafe is free from […] Para-phenylenediamine (PPD) for a kinder and more gentle colouring experience. PARA-PHENYLENEDIAMINE (PPD) is responsible for most allergic reactions following the use of hair dyes. […] The absence of PPD in the formula could minimize the risk of allergic reaction on the scalp. Persons with a prior PPD allergy should read instructions carefully”.
That was followed by hyperlinked text “Allergic to PPD? Click here!” and “Frequently asked questions about ColourSafe Hair Colours”.
Underneath, text included “Confusion occasionally arises as natural hair dye formulas often contain a number of similarly named compounds. Both PPD and Toulene-2,5 Diamine Sulfate belong to the same family of ingredients: phenylenediamines. Since these related ingredients belong to the same chemical family, it is mandated by the European Cosmetics Directive to list the official warning text ‘contains phenylenediamines’ on retail packaging. Natural Vital colour products that do not contain PPD may still list phenylenediamines in their ingredients; however, they will NOT CONTAIN PPD (‘p-phenylenediamine.’)
Clicking the “Allergic to PPD? Click here!” link took consumers to a page which included the text “Should you already be allergic to para-phenylendiamine (PPD), this can trigger a range of allergies from chemical to natural ingredients. Natur Vital has removed PPD from the Coloursafe range we have replaced this chemical with Toulene 2.5 Diamine sulphate a less aggressive ingredient […], our research has shown that 50% of people with a PPD allergy react to Coloursafe, the other 50% show no reaction and can safely use Coloursafe. […] This makes Coloursafe one of the safest hair colours available”. Underlined text then stated, “People who have a prior allergy to PPD please be aware that you may react to other ingredients in the Coloursafe formula. A 48 hour patch test is essential”.
Issue
The ASA received a complaint from the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CTPA), who understood that the products contained paratoluene diamine sulfate (toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate), which could cause allergic reactions in individuals with an allergy to para-phenylenediamine (PPD).
The CTPA challenged whether the ad misleadingly and irresponsibly implied that the products were safe for individuals with an allergy to PPD.
Response
Instituto Naturvita S.L. t/a Natur Vital stated that they were committed to resolving the issue, but did not believe that the information on their website was misleading. It stated, “Allergic to PPD?” and contained a link with information from the New Zealand Dermatological Society.
Underneath that link, they recommended that a 48-hour patch test was essential for the hair colour range. They also stated on the website that toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate was an ingredient in the product, which was why they recommended the 48-hour patch test.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA understood that whilst the Natur Vital hair colourants were free from para-phenylenediamine (PPD), they contained a different chemical: toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate. We understood that toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate was also called paratoluene diamine sulfate and abbreviated to PTD.
The ad featured several claims that the product did not include PPD, and that PPD was linked to allergic reactions. That included “PPD FREE PERMANENT HAIR DYE WITH HIGH SKIN TOLERANCE”, “lessening the risks of allergic reactions and skin irritations” and “[PPD] is responsible for most allergic reactions […] The absence of PPD in the formula could minimize the risk of allergic reactions”. We considered the combination of the wording of the claims and the frequency of their repetition would cause consumers to understand that there was very little risk of the hair colourants causing an allergic reaction in consumers with allergies to PPD or other allergens. The product name “ColourSafe”, further reinforced this impression.We also considered that the wording under the subheading “Frequently asked questions about ColourSafe Hair Colours” was ambiguous. It referenced that, like PPD, toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate was a phenylenediamine. However, we considered it did not make clear that the products featured the on-pack warning “contains phenylenediamines” because they contained toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate. We understood from CTPA guidance that the warning was legally required because all phenylenediamines, including toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate, carried a level of risk of allergic reaction. We considered the ad’s wording therefore had the effects of downplaying the warning and further reinforcing the impression that the products were very unlikely to cause an allergic reaction.
We acknowledged that, if the consumer clicked on “Allergic to PPD?”, they were taken to a page which stated that 50% of people who had an allergy to PPD would also have an allergy to toulene-2,5 diamine sulfate, along with the recommendation that a 48-hour patch test should be carried out. However, we considered that this information was not presented sufficiently clearly nor prominently to counteract the impression created by the previous webpage that there was very little risk that the products would cause an allergic reaction in people with a PPD allergy or other allergies. We further considered that, even if this information had appeared on the previous page, it would have still been insufficient to counter the overall impression of all the other claims in the ad.
For these reasons, we concluded that the ad misleadingly implied that there was very little risk that the products could cause an allergic reaction in individuals with an allergy to PPD and other allergens, when that was not the case. In the context that allergies were a serious medical condition, we further concluded that that implication was irresponsible.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 1.3 (Social responsibility), 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification).
Action
The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Instituto Naturvita S.L. t/a Natur Vital to ensure that their ads did not misleadingly and irresponsibly imply that their hair colourants were safe for individuals with an allergy to PPD or other allergens.
