---

Trading Standards (Tooth Whitening)

Let me begin in the usual way, by congratulating the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) on securing a debate on an interesting and important subject. As a result of my research for this purpose, I am substantially better informed about tooth whitening than I was a short time ago. While I nevertheless cannot begin to compete with the hon. Gentleman in terms of knowledge and expertise, I hope that I can set out some of the context of the way in which the Government have handled the issue of reform of the cosmetics directive so far. I undertake to try to keep the hon. Gentleman informed as the reform process gets under way. Of course, if he wishes to bring constituents or colleagues in the dental profession to see me to discuss the matter further, I shall be happy to receive them. Let me now set out what the Government seek to do. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will perceive a good deal of agreement in our respective positions, although I recognise the frustration felt by his profession at the current position. As he said, the use of hydrogen peroxide is controlled under the cosmetics directive. He will acknowledge—and, I am sure, the House will welcome the fact—that my Department takes its responsibilities under the directive, and under the United Kingdom's implementing regulations, extremely seriously. The need to ensure that only safe cosmetic products are available to consumers, and that consumers are equipped to make informed choices about which products to use and the content of those products, is an important part of the Department's role. Hydrogen peroxide has been used in tooth whitening for many years, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, only in the last 10 to 15 years has the desire to have much whiter teeth really taken off with consumers in the UK. I know how long some of the products described by the hon. Gentleman have been used, but I hope he will accept that the trend—stimulated in part by widespread use by consumers in the United States—has been noteworthy in the last 15 to 20 years in particular. However, there has been some confusion, as well as concern, about the regulation and enforcement of tooth whiteners under the EU cosmetics directive, so I welcome this opportunity to put the record straight and to explain what we are doing to deal with that confusion. Let me give some of the context. I shall not go into all the lengthy detail of previous court cases in the late 1990s, but in 2001 the House of Lords ruled that tooth-whitening products should be regulated under the directive, on the basis that the whitening of teeth was a cosmetic process and discoloured teeth were not regarded as a handicap under the medical devices legislation. The directive is implemented in the UK by the Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 2008, which—as the hon. Gentleman said—are enforced on my Department's behalf by local authority trading standards departments. Annexe 2 of the cosmetics directive is a list of substances that cosmetics products must not contain except subject to certain restrictions and conditions. Entry number 12 in that annexe is the listing for hydrogen peroxide, which is the most widely used substance to whiten teeth. The directive states that in oral hygiene products—a definition that includes tooth whiteners—the maximum permitted percentage of hydrogen peroxide present or released is 0.1 per cent. The scientific dental and medical consensus is that this is not sufficiently strong actually to whiten teeth. It is important to note that the directive applies to all products—those sold over the counter and those provided by dental practitioners. Since 2001, the UK has been leading the way in seeking an amendment to the cosmetics directive to allow a greater percentage of hydrogen peroxide so that the bleaching effect will actually work and teeth will be whitened. The process has proved to be far from easy to conclude, and has so far not resulted in an amending directive that has received a positive vote from the member states. A large element of the debate on reform of the directive in relation to use of hydrogen peroxide in tooth whiteners has been around the issue of safety versus efficacy. In other words, we need a level of hydrogen peroxide in products that will actually whiten teeth, but that level must not cause harm to the health of consumers. That is one part of the reason why it has taken so long to get to the stage that we are at today. Let me explain what has happened. First, scientific papers were submitted to the European Commission's scientific committee on consumer products showing that allowing a greater percentage of hydrogen peroxide in tooth whiteners would not be detrimental to the health of consumers. The scientific committee's view was that a greater percentage could be allowed, but it indicated that products with a higher percentage should not be used by habitual smokers and regular alcohol drinkers. That led to a discussion of what habitual meant in these circumstances. This was the start of several years of back-and-forth questions from the member states and the Commission to the scientific committee seeking clarification on that issue. There were also a number of other questions relating to use by children and pregnant women and consumer exposure to hydrogen peroxide as a whole. Without going into the protracted detail of all this scientific questioning, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are now at the position where we have had six opinions from the scientific committee and two draft directives from the Commission proposing changes. I should also say that we have had excellent advice from the office of the chief dental officer and his staff. In October 2008 the Commission presented an amending directive to the experts committee on cosmetics products. It is the result of the protracted discussion I have outlined. It would allow tooth-whitening products containing a maximum of 0.1 per cent. hydrogen peroxide to be freely available to consumers, as they are today. Tooth-whitening products containing up to 6 per cent. hydrogen peroxide would be available to consumers after assessment and first application by a dental practitioner. The remainder of the kit could then be taken home and used by the consumer as directed by the dental practitioner. For kits containing 6 per cent. hydrogen peroxide, this procedure would need to be repeated every time a consumer wanted a tooth-whitening course. Products containing more than 6 per cent. hydrogen peroxide would not be available to the consumer at all. They would only be for use by dental practitioners and should not be used on children under the age of 18. The draft directive also describes a number of labelling requirements that must appear on tooth-whitening products. Unfortunately, as a number of member states still had questions and concerns on the draft directive, the Commission did not put the text forward for a vote in October. It is hoped that the text will be re-presented at the next cosmetics expert working group in February. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, until there is a change to the directive, the maximum hydrogen peroxide level remains at 0.1 per cent. My officials and the chief dental officer's office at the Department of Health will continue to apply pressure on the Commission to bring the situation to a speedy conclusion. Any assistance that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the dental profession could bring, through their own contacts in other member states, would be extremely welcome. The hon. Gentleman also alluded to the fact that trading standards departments have also been faced with the uncertainty of when and if the cosmetics directive will be amended. That has been exacerbated by manufacturers of tooth-whitening products, beauty salons and, indeed, some dental practitioners who have anticipated changes to the directive and offer products and treatments that contain more than 0.1 per cent. hydrogen peroxide. He will recognise that trading standards departments are required to consider action if they become aware of products being supplied, whether by dental practitioners or over the counter, that contain more than 0.1 per cent. hydrogen peroxide. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues in the dental profession face uncertainty and considerable frustration, but he will recognise the difficult position that trading standards officers are in as a result of their need to implement the directive, as required by UK law. This will not offer him complete reassurance, but to the knowledge of the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services—LACORS—no dentists have yet been prosecuted in the UK in this regard. That does not mean that none have been visited by their local trading standards departments, and I recognise and accept the veracity of what he said about the experience in Redcar and the experience of the other dental professionals whom he said have been visited. I am aware that a number of trading standards departments have sought to take action against those selling home kits containing about 10 per cent. hydrogen peroxide. I am sure that he will continue to recognise that that is clearly a situation, regardless of reform, that we would want to see continued. I also join the hon. Gentleman in his concern about the use of other treatments such as the use of chorine dioxide. It is worrying that spas and, possibly, dentists are using alternatives that do not work or, worse still, are detrimental to health. I should take this opportunity to urge the dental industry and others to use only treatments that are proven to be effective and safe. In the meantime, any instances of bad practices by spas and others clearly should be brought to the attention of trading standards, so that action can be taken. Finally, may I return to the key point of the hon. Gentleman's purpose in securing this debate? We want reform of the directive and we are seeking to achieve that, as we have been doing for some time. I hope that we will get a positive outcome shortly, but he and his colleagues in the dental profession can be assured of my officials', and now my attention, for this issue. I would be happy to keep him informed outside the Chamber and, if it is useful, to meet some of his colleagues in the dental profession to discuss this further. I hope that that will not be necessary, and that we will achieve reform shortly, but I leave that offer on the table. Question put and agreed to. House adjourned.