Skip to Content
Press Releases
Dermatologists welcome recommendation by cosmetics trade association to remove MI from leave-on products

Dermatologists today welcomed the recommendation by Cosmetics Europe, the European cosmetics trade association, to all its members that the preservative Methylisothiazolinone (MI or MIT) should be immediately removed from all leave-on skin products and personal care products, including cosmetic wet wipes, without waiting for action from regulators.

Today’s statement follows discussions with European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) after fears of a contact allergy epidemic caused by MI were raised at the British Association of Dermatologists’ (BAD) annual conference.

Dr David Orton, President of the British Society of Cutaneous Allergy 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.”

Open letter to Dr Dan Poulter MP from the BAD, BAAPS, and BAPRAS regarding cosmetic interventions

Open letter to:
Dr Dan Poulter MP
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health
Richmond House
79 Whitehall,

Dear Dr Poulter

The Government Response to the Sir Bruce Keogh Review of the Regulation of Cosmetic Interventions

The British Association of Dermatologists (BAD), The British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (BAAPS) and the British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS) welcome any action taken by the Government to regulate Cosmetic Interventions and prevent future harm to the British public. As you know our three organisations have worked closely with Sir Bruce Keogh’s team at the Department of Health and submitted evidence and expert opinion to the Review Panel. We were therefore alarmed at the report in the Mail on Sunday alleging that the Government had decided not to proceed with the recommendation for a compulsory register for all those carrying out non-surgical cosmetic procedures and proposed instead a voluntary register. If this is the case we would ask the Government to please think again.

Without a compulsory and comprehensive register for all non-surgical cosmetic practitioners the public will be prey to a two tier system: good practice by well qualified professionals on one level, which will almost certainly cost the consumer more; and on another level a cut-price, budget approach provided by untrained practitioners with little consideration of risk or redress if complications arise.
Such a system is unlikely to address the concerns raised in the original Review around unregulated non-surgical cosmetic interventions.

Whilst acknowledging that complications arising from botched cosmetic surgery may well be more serious and potentially life-threatening – surgery is a procedure that can only be carried out by medical professionals in regulated premises. Additional regulation is therefore much easier to implement within the existing framework. The complications which occur from non-surgical cosmetic interventions such as injectable fillers and lasers/IPL can be equally distressing and debilitating, yet these procedures can be administered by practitioners with no medical knowledge or understanding of potential risks.

The market for cosmetic interventions is well advanced and whilst the BAD, BAPRAS & BAAPS acknowledge the challenges of ‘skilling-up’ a large number of non-medical practitioners and that a staged approach to establishing a register may be necessary, we also believe it is the only way to ensure future safety for consumers. Simply because it is difficult, does not mean it should not be done.

We would also ask again, in this letter, to be given information on the timetable of publication and to receive confirmation that we will be allowed to see an embargoed copy of the report prior to publication.

Yours sincerely

Professor C Bunker

President of the BAD

Mr R Grover

President of BAAPS

Mr G Perks

President of BAPRAS 

Back to top