The epidemic in the bathroom: manufactures told to remove chemical linked to skin allergies In a statement, the body said: "This action is recommended in the interests of consumer safety in relation to adverse skin reactions. It is recommended that companies do not wait for regulatory intervention under the Cosmetics Regulation but implement this recommendation as soon as feasible. MI, or MIT, which is short for methylisothiazolinone, is a preservative which is also found in paint. It is added to products to prevent growth of bacteria and yeasts. Manufacturers started to use it from 2006. It is safe and non-toxic, but European regulations now permit stronger concentrations, leading to an outbreak of allergies, dermatologists said. Experts say the chemical is second only to nickel in causing contact allergies The issue was raised at the annual conference of the British Association of Dermatologists" this year. The organisation held a summit at its London headquarters with industry representatives. Cosmetics Europe also carried out an investigation. It has concluded that there was "evidence to suggest a relationship between the use of leave-on skin products, including cosmetic wet wipes containing MIT, and the induction of contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis." It added: "Therefore, the removal of MIT from leave-on skin products including cosmetic wet wipes is expected to significantly decrease the incidence of induction of contact allergy to MIT." The chemical was previously mixed with another preservative, Methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) in a three-to-one ratio. But concerns about MCI causing allergies meant some manufacturers started using MI as a single agent. Used alone, it has been included at a much higher concentration. When the two compounds were used, MI was found in concentrations of around four parts per million (ppm). But, on its own, a level of up to 100ppm is allowed under European regulations introduced in 2005. Experts say that since its concentration in products increased there has been a serious rise in cases of contact dermatitis, particularly in the last two years. They believe there is a link. In one case, it was reported a woman suffered blisters and a swollen face after she used suncream containing MI. In another incident, a woman who was also allergic to MI needed hospital treatment in Spain after she used a sun cream. Her skin became inflamed and she required steroids and antihistamines to reduce the swelling. Dermatologists expect to see a rate of allergic reaction of between one and two per cent to a cosmetic product. Data collected from clinics in the UK indicated that the rate of reaction to MI was more than 10 per cent. Dr John McFadden, consultant dermatologist at St John's Institute of Dermatology in London, said the allergy outbreak was on a scale "not seen before in out lifetime." The problem was highlighted in The Telegraph in July, when MI was found in Nivea body lotion, Wet Ones and Boots men's face wash. Several companies have since stopped using MI. It has been removed from major brands including Vaseline, Brylcreem, Huggies, Molton Brown and Nivea. Johnson & Johnson has taken the chemical out of its Piz Buin sun cream and other products. Dr David Orton, a member of the British Association of Dermatologists and president of the British Society of Cutaneous Allergy, welcomed the move but said it did not go far enough. He said: "This is a promising step forward, and I welcome this demonstration of responsibility by Cosmetics Europe to pre-empt regulation on the use of MI. I hope that this recommendation will be adhered to by the association's members and will go some way towards protecting UK and European consumers. Nevertheless, as it currently stands, this recommendation falls short of calling for the removal or a reduction of MI levels in rinse-off cosmetics, such as shower gels or shampoos. We still have concerns that its continued use at present concentrations in such products will elicit allergic reactions in those that are already sensitised. This is a matter which we are hoping to reach agreement on in future planned discussions. The British Association of Dermatologists said it was aware that the cosmetics industry may struggle to replace the substance, because of the limited number of safe alternatives. "However, our priority must be the protection of patients and stemming the growing tide of allergic reactions," said Nina Goad, the association's director of communications.