Regulatory requirements for companies marketing cosmetics in the UK will remain the status quo, at least for the immediate future, following the country’s historic referendum vote June 23 to break from the EU.

And it’s very possible that little will change, regulatory-wise, even after terms of the UK’s separation are finalized, a process expected to take years.

The Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association issued a statement June 24 to reassure its members, outlying industry and consumers that Brexit “does not alter the strict safety laws that govern our cosmetic products.”

“The UK as of now is still a full member of the EU, and the current legal structure will stay unchanged for the time being,” the trade group says. “For our cosmetics sector, it means that all existing laws, regulations and guidelines remain in place exactly as they did before the vote – nothing changes.”

Which is to say that the UK cosmetics market will still be governed by the EU Cosmetics Regulation, as it has been since July 2013 when the regulation entered into force, replacing the EU Cosmetics Directive and the UK Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations.

The UK could explore deals with the EU similar to arrangements Norway and Switzerland have made for access to the Single Market, which likely would preserve the EU Cosmetics Regulation’s requirements for cosmetics products.

Anticipating consumer concerns specifically about the European ban on cosmetic animal testing and its applicability in the UK going forward, CTPA nips those in the bud as well. “We would like to stress that the UK cosmetics industry voluntarily abandoned animal testing seven years ahead of the EU-wide ban, so you can be assured this is not going to change,” it says.

The group’s concluding note suggests that from CTPA’s perspective, the European Cosmetics Regulation is likely to have an enduring presence in the UK’s legal architecture for cosmetics, no matter how the country negotiates its future.

“The European Cosmetic Products Regulation is seen globally as a success, and many other jurisdictions across the world look to it for inspiration. It will remain a passport for trade,” the organization asserts.

Lorraine Dallmeier, a biologist and organic cosmetic formulator who directs online school Formula Botanica, speculates in a June 24 post on the UK’s potential path forward from Brexit and the implications for cosmetics businesses.

One possibility she raises, and the option considered most viable by other pundits monitoring the Brexit situation, is that the UK will seek to join Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein in the European Economic Area. Signing onto the EEA agreement would be a ready, “off-the-shelf” solution enabling the UK to trade freely with members of the EU bloc with minimal transitional costs.

At the same time, the UK would continue to be bound by EU regulations, if to a lesser extent. It would be exempt from the bulk of rules related to agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs, but the EEA pact covers “flanking and horizontal policies” in areas such as consumer protection.

Dallmeier notes that other EEA countries comply with the EU Cosmetics Regulation, including its requirements for product notification and the establishment of a “responsible person” within the EU community to act as a resident courier for information submissions and liaison for other compliance efforts.

She expects that the UK would be expected to follow suit.

The Norway route could be the simplest way for the UK to stay in business, but it has drawbacks, particularly from the “Leave” point of view. As part of the EEA, the UK would have to continue contributing to the EU budget and remain open to the free movement of EU denizens into the UK in exchange for the right for its citizens to travel, work and study freely throughout the continent.

Another option the UK could explore is the Switzerland model. Switzerland is not part of the EEA but does belong to the European Free Trade Association. Its access to the Single Market is governed by an unwieldy package of more than 120 bilateral agreements, and while it is not obligated to apply EU laws to the same extent that EEA members are, a level of harmonization is still necessary to facilitate free trade.

According to Dallmeier, Switzerland’s Federal Act on Foods and Commodities includes provisions for cosmetics regulation that are largely identical to those in the EU Cosmetics Regulation.

She projects that “you would still need to comply with the EU Cosmetics Regulation in general” once the UK drafted its own legislation in line with the EU instrument, which “may take many years to write and approve” as it likely “would take a back seat to other more urgent pieces of legislation.” In the interim, the EU Cosmetics Regulation likely would continue to hold sway, she suggests.

“Even less sweeping EU laws are unlikely to be the subject of UK deregulation, simply because the pace of an exit presents the UK legislature with no practical option but to transpose EU statute into domestic legislation.” – Radius’ VP Consulting Stuart Buglass

Like the EEA, Switzerland’s model requires financial contributions to be made to the EU and guarantees the free movement of labor. The latter point was addressed by a Swiss referendum in 2014 that went in favor of establishing immigration quotas, which now has put Switzerland’s bilateral deals in jeopardy.

Unsavory implications for London’s banking sector could be another factor that removes the Swiss model from consideration, some analysts suggest.

A third possibility is that the UK will pursue an exclusive arrangement with Europe to secure its best interests, but European leaders have emphasized that the UK will not be allowed to cherry-pick privileges while avoiding the challenges that come with EU membership.

The EU has been resolute in its message – that to capitalize on opportunities in the Single Market, countries are expected to respect the foundational “four liberties” regarding circulation of goods, capital, services and people.

Transposition Of EU Laws Almost Inevitable

However the UK proceeds, complete extrication from EU regulations is highly unlikely, as it would run the risk of crippling the country in an increasingly global marketplace.

Blogging in advance of the UK’s referendum, Stuart Buglass, VP Consulting at global advisory and managed services firm Radius, noted that EU standards are shaped in large part by organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the need to keep pace with regulatory developments across major trading partners.

“For the UK to survive as a global economic force, it will need to continue to match these standards,” he says.

Given these imperatives, “EU laws that are considered essential for the UK’s economic survival will simply be transposed into UK law,” he predicts, adding that “even less sweeping EU laws are unlikely to be the subject of UK deregulation … simply because the pace of an exit presents the UK legislature with no practical option but to transpose EU statute into domestic legislation.”

FDA and the European Medicines Agency are among regulators taking a wait-and-see approach to Brexit’s ramifications ([A#02160704006]).

While it is unlikely that requirements imposed on cosmetic marketers in the UK will change substantially following Brexit, US cosmetics companies and others outside the European bloc likely will begin exploring alternative points of entrance into the EU market.

Meanwhile, companies headquartered in the UK could face tariffs and customs challenges for exports down the road, depending on how the country negotiates EU relationships and rights in the years ahead.

Post-Brexit, EU Cosmetics Regulation Will Remain ‘Passport For Trade’

More from Archive

More from HBW Insight