Good-bye to ‘whack-a-mole’ regulation for beauty?

Last week the House of Commons issued the Science and Regulation of hair and beauty products and treatments report making its recommendations to government.

The comprehensive 89-page report covers everything from gaps in safety, to governance of online marketplaces, consumer reporting and harm, and a proposal for a new licensing framework.  Written evidence was filed by a number of major market players including the British Beauty Council, Cruelty Free International, Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association (CPTA) and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).  The survey evidence makes for compelling reading.

The prevalence of fake products through online marketplaces was a particular and ongoing concern and lack of consequence was a prevailing theme of the report.

Common harms reported in the survey included allergic reactions (13%), rash, itching, redness (48%), chemical burns (22%), scarring or pigment change to skin (12.8%), muscular problems (5%) and sight problems (2%).

Whilst outlining the new licensing framework the report also added that successive Governments have failed to act swiftly enough to legislate in this area and that lack of action was fostering complacency in self-regulation within the industry and compromising safety, with further harms being allowed to occur.

When asked to score out of 10 the trust in the safety of products and treatments, both within and outside of the UK, the results were stark (10 being high and 1 being low):

The science and regulation of hair and beauty products and treatments

The science and regulation of hair and beauty products and treatments

The conclusions and recommendations of the report are as follows:

Gaps in safety: cosmetics is a high-tech, constantly evolving sector using complex chemical techniques which can have significant adverse effects. However, its regulation is a mess.  This section of the report makes clear that those products that touch on becoming medical (whether through ingredients or method of use like injectables) need to be captured by regulation. 

Online marketplaces: product liability laws were not made for today’s online marketplaces.  Where an unsafe product is sold through an online marketplace, no one with a presence in the UK is reliably accountable for it. 

The whack-a-mole ‘identify, remove, repeat’ model of enforcement is unsustainable and ineffective and should not be carried over to the new product safety framework. 

The Government should bring into force the provisions of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 to impose safety duties on online marketplaces within the next 12 months making them liable for product safety.

Evidence and Research: The OPSS-run system is thorough but slow to respond to emerging evidence of harm which may already have been acted upon in other jurisdictions.  A timetable for SAG-CS literature review and subsequent safety assessments of substances of concern in chemical hair relaxers was needed. 

There is insufficient data collected about the cost to the NHS of treatment harms from hair and beauty products and treatments.

Consumer recourse: the government should establish a single, widely promoted point of contact through which consumers and health professionals can report harm from a cosmetic product or treatment. They should ensure those reports are shared between the bodies responsible for dealing with those harms.

A new licensing framework: 

In summarising the current system of regulation, the Committee said it was difficult for consumers to understand.  Consumers found it hard to gauge what qualifications those offering treatments had and how that aligned with treatments being offered.  There were mixed arguments on the solution to this – and whether it should be qualification based (qualified doctors only) or competence based (experience).

Whilst there is nuance in how to regulate truly aesthetic procedures, there are a number which could and should be restricted to qualified medical professionals immediately (BBLs, LBJs, genital fillers etc).  The Department of Health and Social Care was encouraged to bring forward the legislation required to restrict the full list of red categories by December 2027.

A clear framework should then set out dates by whilst consultation on the amber and green categories should be completed, including a single national licensing framework rather than a patchwork of local licencing schemes. 

Self-imported products should be safety-assessed, labelled and registered.  Clearly the same tests for importation should apply to those self-imported for professional use as those placed into the market for consumers to buy direct.  This strange loophole has been allowed to exist for long enough.

Obviously, the new licensing framework will rely on local authority regulatory services and the Government has recognised that will add to local authorities’ workload but has not yet set out how that additional work will be resourced. 

To conclude, not an unwelcome or unexpected response, but the report continues to flag the difficulties the government will have in terms of both implementation and the support needed both legislatively and within supporting government bodies to get this across the line.