Volume 1: Findings and Conclusions
Executive Summary of the Report of the Inquiry
9. Cosmetics

• Cosmetics, like topically applied medicines, might be applied to the skin, eye or mucous membranes but were covered by a less stringent regulatory regime under the aegis of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The category presenting the highest risk comprised 'exotica' or 'premium products', such as anti-ageing creams, which might contain lightly processed brain extracts, placental material, spleen and thymus.
• MAFF and DH failed to alert DTI to the need to consider the risk through cosmetics from BSE despite this having been identified by the Tyrrell Report in June 1989. This contributed to several months' delay in the start of action to secure their safety.
• Guidance was provided to the industry in February 1990 on the initiative of DTI, but was made available only to members of the cosmetics and toiletries trade association. This was the most significant single action to address the risk from cosmetics.
• Thereafter no further initiative was taken by DTI. A muddled situation developed about lead responsibility for action. Responsibility for taking action should have been clearly understood to rest with DTI with professional advice from DH.
• Following a request from SEAC in July 1991 for the cosmetics guidance to be updated, DH omitted to advise DTI about this and subsequently made its own unsuccessful approach to the trade association in April 1992 seeking detailed information. DTI was brought back into the picture only in September 1992 at a meeting between DH, MAFF and the trade association.
• The confusion about lead responsibility both between Departments and within DH continued thereafter, and responsibility for updated UK guidance was effectively left with the trade association. The topic became embroiled in protracted negotiations at European level on EU guidelines, and the trade association UK guidance did not emerge until 1994.
• The hallmarks of the handling of BSE in relation to cosmetics were lack of purposeful leadership and an absence of a sense of urgency. Manufacturers were left to use up stocks, and checks were not made to ensure they reformulated their products. This has left unanswered questions both about what material was being used, and about how long production continued and on what scale.