'Sorry' can't cure hair dye disaster

By REBECCA WALSH health reporter

The manufacturer of a hair dye that caused a severe allergic reaction for an Otago woman has offered a "sincere apology" and says it will pay her medical expenses.

But Roxburgh resident Sue Rattray-Johnson says that is not enough, and she plans to take the company to court.

Mrs Rattray-Johnson was taken to Dunedin hospital two days after dyeing her hair with Clairol's Nice'n Easy.

Her face puffed up so much she couldn't see and her scalp split.

The 54-year-old spent 2 1/2 days in hospital and three weeks later said she still had a rash all over her back, neck and chest. She had no energy and had not been able to go to her part-time job.

"I'm very cross with them. Just because they are a big company they think they can push the little people under the mat. It's not on.

"I want them to come clean and say there is a problem with the products."

Doug Anderson, regulatory affairs manager for Procter and Gamble, which produces the Clairol brand, said the reaction Mrs Rattray-Johnson suffered was the worst he had seen but was a rare occurrence. Company records showed about two or three people had to be hospitalised each year.

The company sold about 354,000 units of Nice'n Easy hair colour in Australia and New Zealand a year and the health complaint rate was 0.07 per cent, he said.

"It is very hard to totally avoid risk. We label our products and people should do a patch test each time they colour their hair."

Mrs Rattray-Johnson said she had an allergy test a couple of days before dyeing her hair and there were no problems.

Mr Anderson said the company sincerely regretted what had happened and would pay Mrs Rattray-Johnson's medical expenses.

"We try to do the best we can to have safe use of the product but we can't give an absolute guarantee because people are so variable in the responses they can have."

Yesterday Mrs Rattray-Johnson said she had not yet received an apology or a written response from the company.

She did not plan to supply her medical receipts.

"I plan to take this to court. I'm not happy with the offer of an apology and medical expenses. The product should be safe enough to use."

She had received phone calls from a number of women who had suffered similar reactions to hair dyes.

Yesterday Pukekohe woman Sue Linsell told the Herald she had gone to hospital after having heart palpitations and breathing problems when she used a hair highlighting product manufactured by another company.

Her experience, six years ago, featured on the television consumer rights programme Fair Go.

Fourteen other women had similar problems after using the same product she said.

Ms Linsell said she was not offered an apology or compensation, but was told she must have used the product incorrectly.