Media reports of EU ban on high-powered hair dryers are 'alarmist', says NHBF

Reports of an EU “crackdown” on high-powered hairdryers and other electrical goods should be treated with caution but, if true, would be worrying, ill-thought-out and potentially damaging for the industry, the NHBF has said.

According to reports in The Daily Telegraph yesterday (May 11), the European Union is poised to ban high-powered appliances such as kettles, toasters and hairdryers under so-called new “eco-design” restrictions designed to curb the use of energy-inefficient devices.

The NHBF has been lobbying hard within Europe for the past two years over possible restrictions on high-powered hairdryers, although no final decision yet been made on which goods and appliances will be included or excluded from the Ecodesign Working Plan which has not yet been published.  However, the latest information suggests that household appliances are not included and the study is concentrating on equipment such as lifts, refrigerated containers, signage displays and hot drinks vending machines. 

NHBF president Paul Curry said:

We’re very aware of this study and the NHBF has for some time now been lobbying hard against the possible inclusion of hairdryers, particularly for professional users.  Switching to lower powered hairdyers would simply mean it takes longer to dry a client’s hair and so would, if anything, mean greater energy use. There are also health and safety risks from stylists having to hold hairdryers for longer periods of time and increased noise.  This is an argument we have made to EU legislators, and which they have taken on board.

“Consequently, we would be extremely concerned if the EU did decide to impose restrictions on high-powered hairdryers and will continue to lobby hard against this. Saving energy and reducing power consumption are, of course, laudable goals, but a heavy-handed, ill-thought-out approach such as this would not be the answer.

“It would, rightly, be seen by the public and hairdressers as unnecessary and bureaucratic interference and would, in fact, have precisely the opposite effect to that which is intended.”