UK MPs call 13-year filler regulation delay unacceptable

By Sophie Lindqvist

UK lawmakers have called a 13-year government delay in regulating high-risk, high-volume fillers, including liquid BBL products, “unacceptable,” the Science and Technology Committee said.

The committee’s new report, produced through its inquiry into “The science and regulation of hair and beauty products and treatments,” describes cosmetics regulation as a “confusing mess” for consumers, practitioners and enforcement officers. It says a highly technical sector using complex chemicals is often treated as if its hair and beauty products were inert consumer goods.

Women form the majority of consumers, practitioners and scientists in the sector, while government has not prioritised avoidable harm in the traditionally women-led industry.

What must change before new products reach market?

MPs call for an urgent product-safety framework capable of bringing new and emerging products within the regulatory regime “as they reach the market.” For formulators and compliance teams, the implication is direct: rules must accommodate product innovation rather than wait for established categories to develop enforcement precedents.

Existing rules have not kept pace. Consumers have no basic protections for fat dissolvers and skin brighteners, despite their arrival as newer injectable products. The report also says no regulation governs who can administer Botox, despite Botox being prescription-only; MPs therefore call for mandatory national training and qualification standards.

For treatment providers, those standards would affect service menus, practitioner credentials and client safeguards. The committee welcomed the government’s recent consultation on restricting some high-risk cosmetic procedures, but says action must follow swiftly.

Dame Chi Onwurah, chair of the Science and Technology Committee, said: “People buying products and treatments on the high street should be able to trust that these are safe, properly regulated and being provided by someone with the right training.”

“Years of delay have left dangerous gaps in regulation and exposed people to avoidable harm. Complacency over this has clear roots in sexism and racism, with no other sector of its size having such a high proportion of female-owned businesses.”

Onwurah added: “Action, not just a consultation, is long overdue, and quick solutions must be found to regulate injectable products like fat dissolvers and skin brighteners, whilst making sure any regulation doesn’t push female-led businesses off the market.”

The committee also says new standards must be “reasonably obtainable” and must not reduce women’s already limited access to business, particularly for women of colour. Those conditions make training design consequential for both practitioner competence and market entry.

Who is accountable for products sold online?

Product-safety laws have not kept pace with online marketplaces. Illegal and dangerous cosmetics now reach UK buyers faster and in greater volumes than regulators can police, often without any reliable UK accountability.

The government has legislated to give itself powers to make online marketplaces responsible for product safety, but it has yet to introduce the necessary regulatory changes. The committee says it must act urgently, hold marketplaces responsible for the products they profit from and impose meaningful penalties for non-compliance.

For procurement teams, the report makes enforceable marketplace accountability and meaningful penalties the relevant supplier-screening test, rather than voluntary seller assurances.

Can regulation respond faster than emerging harm?

The Office for Product Safety and Standards is “thorough,” the committee says, but slow to respond when emerging evidence of harm appears. It calls for safety-related regulatory changes to move faster and for risks to be communicated more clearly.

The evidence base also fails the groups most exposed to potential harm. MPs found insufficient research into chemical hair relaxers and other products used primarily by Black women and girls, which may have caused avoidable harm. They call for further research to close gaps in knowledge and trust.

Onwurah also argued that the industry must treat cosmetics as science, putting research, faster responses and clear risk communication at the heart of regulation. She warned that consumers should not pay the price for rules that have failed to keep pace.

How can consumers report cosmetic harm?

The committee says systems for reporting cosmetic harm “are failing at both ends.” Consumers have no clear route to raise the alarm, and under-reporting deprives regulators of the evidence they need to identify and respond to harm.

The committee calls for a single, widely promoted point of contact for reporting harm, plus routes through which consumers can seek support and redress. For compliance teams, better reporting should supply the evidence base regulators currently lack.

What must happen next?

MPs welcomed the government’s recent consultation on restrictions for some high-risk cosmetic procedures, but the committee wants action rather than further consultation. The wider package includes an urgent safety framework, rules for emerging products, national practitioner standards, enforceable marketplace duties, faster OPSS action, more research and a single reporting channel.

Watch for the first rules on high-risk procedures and injectables, the regulatory changes that make marketplaces accountable, and the launch of the single harm-reporting contact. No compliance dates accompany the report, so those implementation steps are the next data point. Until then, the 13-year filler-regulation gap remains open.