Industry News: Global sales of colour cosmetics are expected to reach a beautiful US$ 48.3 bn in 2018, up 6% from US$ 45.5 bn in 2017, according to new research from Mintel. And it seems that looking good is big business, as across the globe the top five colour cosmetics markets in 2018 are forecast to be: the US (US$ 12.1 bn), Japan (US$ 6.4 bn), China (US$ 5.1 bn), the UK (US$ 2.7 bn) and South Korea (US$ 2.2 bn).

This comes as the 28th edition of in-cosmetics Global, the world’s leading exhibition for personal care ingredients, kicks off today (Tuesday 17th April) in Amsterdam. Mintel’s Global Colour Cosmetics Analyst Charlotte Libby will present the very latest trends in colour cosmetics at the conference. Here, she identifies the hottest macro-trends in the category: social media, sustainability, transparency, and hybridisation.

Vlog me beautiful

41% of Chinese colour cosmetics users are influenced by celebrity beauty bloggers and vloggers to buy products
31% of German make-up users aged 16-24 wear make-up to feel trendy
66% of UK women aged 16-24 say it’s easy to learn new beauty techniques from the internet
“The success of influencers has shown that people buy the personality, and not simply the products. It has become more important for brands to have a personality, to showcase their founders, and tell their story to be relatable for consumers. Social media gives brands a way to give customers behind-the-scenes access to their culture.

“As fashions change, new ‘selfie-friendly’ zones of the face are receiving more attention. Eye make-up is moving away from the lids, with the brow bone and inner eye corners growing in popularity as focus points for bright and bold colours. Meanwhile, the Youtube-born ‘boy beat’ complexion trend is catching on, encouraging make-up users to switch to sheer bases and embrace so-called flaws such as freckles, pigmentation or dark circles.” Says Charlotte.
Focus on sustainability

66% of UK female beauty buyers aged 16-24 want retailers to give them more information about which beauty products are environmentally-friendly
24% of Italian women have bought natural and organic make-up in the past year
“The beauty industry’s shift towards natural and organic products will have a unique impact on colour cosmetics, leading to increased attention on product origin and quality of ingredients. Brands will be expected to demonstrate their ethical policies and consideration of resources and alternatives. For instance, many glitters found in colour cosmetics contain non-biodegradable microplastics. As consumer awareness around the negatives of microplastics grows, glitter in make-up will be subject to more scrutiny.

“Consumers are drawn to brands that act responsibly. Attempting to reduce the carbon footprint by tackling waste is an area in which colour cosmetics brands can innovate. Alternative materials like bamboo, coconut husk and rice bran have been a growing trend in packaging. As well as appealing to consumers looking for environmentally-friendly products, they have the added benefit of standing out on the shelves where plastic and glass is the norm.” Adds Charlotte.

Millennials seek transparency

34% of Brazilian Millennials aged 19-35 say they prefer to buy from brands that support social causes
39% of US women aged 18-34 think brands that support charities are trying to make themselves look better
“As global politics becomes more divisive, consumers want to be sure the companies and brands they buy from align with their personal views. As a result, an increasing number of brands are making their political views known and embarking on more action-led initiatives, such as charitable donations. This trend is expected to become more prevalent in 2018. Rather than just offering products, brands need to offer a way to support the world.

“While younger audiences are most likely to seek out brands that align with their beliefs and values, they can also be the most cynical, fearing charitable brands are disingenuous. Consumers need confirmation that this is a genuine positioning. Hence, a strategy involving charitable donations needs to be long term and treated appropriately, becoming part of the core business of the company.” Continues Charlotte.

Make-up meets skincare

67% of Chinese women want to minimise make-up steps
41% of US female beauty buyers would be interested in multi-purpose beauty products
41% of French women think that the environment (eg pollution, cold weather) affects the appearance of the skin
“As consumer demand for make-up with skincare benefits increases, there is more opportunity for brands to develop hybridisation between categories. As part of growing concerns around pollution, face make-up can act as another layer of protection. Hence, it is important that colour cosmetics incorporate skincare benefits such as hydration and UV protection.

Probiotics also have a chance to grow; a prominent trend in skincare, connecting good bacteria to healthy skin, they are increasingly being used in colour cosmetics too.” Concludes Charlotte.

On the 9th of April this month,  the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) register of persons providing non-surgical treatments and hair restoration surgery has been accredited by the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care, an independent statutory body, accountable to Parliament.

The JCCP has been established as a registered charity with the primary aim of raising awareness amongst the public/patients of the risks involved in these treatments and to provide information to enable them to select a ‘safe practitioner’ who has met the rigorous standards set by the JCCP in collaboration with its sister body the Cosmetic Standards Practice Authority (CPSA). www.jccp.org.uk

Under the Accredited Registers Programme, practitioners on the JCCP register will be able to display the Accredited Register quality mark, a sign that they belong to a register which meets the Professional Standards Authority’s robust standards. Professor David Sines CBE, JCCP Chair said: “The JCCP is delighted to have been able to demonstrate compliance with the rigorous standards mandated by the Professional Standards Authority in recognition of the Council’s declared commitment to patient safety and public protection. The co-design and implementation of both a new Practitioner Register and a Register of Approved Education and Training Providers has been informed by the engagement of more than two hundred organisations and stakeholders, including patients, members of the public, professional associations, professional statutory regulators, government advisors, product manufacturers, pharmacies, education/training providers, industry experts, individual practitioners and many others.

Harry Cayton, Chief Executive of the Professional Standards Authority said: “We are very pleased to accredit the Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners register. Bringing these practitioners into a broad framework of assurance is good for patients, the public and is the best way to promote patient safety. Accreditation does not imply that the Authority has assessed the merits of individuals on the register. This remains the responsibility of the JCCP”. Accreditation means that the JCCP’s register meets the Professional Standards Authority’s high standards in governance, standard-setting, education and training, management of the register, complaints handling and information. Accredited Registers encompass a growing range of occupations and organisations and the Professional Standards Authority may accredit more than one register in any particular occupation.

Further information about Accredited Registers is available at: www.professionalstandards.org.uk/what-we-do/accredited-registers

Sharon Bennett, BACN Chair, speaks freely about her thoughts on the launch of the JCCP/CPSA.

CHAIR STATEMENT

Dear members, Last weekend, I attended a conference with my colleagues whilst also looking at some of the questions surrounding the BACN regarding the Joint Council of Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP) and the Cosmetic Practice Standards Authority (CPSA). The whole BACN board is aware of the host of conflicting opinions and the reading into certain drafts which have been made available by the JCCP and CPSA. The JCCP launch on Thursday 22nd February at the House of Lords presented the outline of the council and the CPSA. Various publications, press, medical, nursing and educational representatives attended, and the wider industry was represented. Aesthetic Journal summed the evening up in a ‘On the Scene’ piece, which can be found at https://aestheticsjournal.com/news/on-the-scene-jccp-launch-house-of-lords.

The JCCP is such an emotive subject, but may I firstly say, it is voluntary and no one has to join. However, before one decides either way, it is important to look at the whole cosmetic arena picture and think more open in regards to it, rather than fixated on some of the white noise that has blown up, creating confusion. What I have gathered from listening to others, and what I have been informed, there seems to be a blur or a misunderstanding between the BACN as an organisation and the organisation and work undertaken by the JCCP and CPSA. The BACN have representation within the JCCP just like all the other associations such as PIAPA, BCAM, BAPRAS, BAD, not to mention many expert individuals. As an association, we do not have a greater or lesser voice than any other expert or organisation. The BACN wanted to input in setting cosmetic clinical standards and clarity in educational levels as a continuation of the Health Education England (HEE) framework, which was handed by Department of Health (DoH) to the JCCP. HEE framework was loose in many areas, and is still being mapped against, ad hoc, by multiple training organisations and unfortunately regarded as the holy grail.

I have asked Andrew Rankin, Vice Chair of the BACN, to give a precis of HEE and its journey. The BACN vehemently oppose beauty therapists undertaking higher level aesthetic procedures at Level 6 and Level 7. We would not bely the excellent therapists out there who are working within their competencies at the lower levels. Patients have to be afforded a delivery of safe, managed, well delivered, appropriate treatments mapped against a set of robust approved, evidenced clinical standards. Training must be delivered to reflect these ideals and both training and practitioners should be subject to scrutiny and appraisal.

This is something I do not think anyone would disagree with. Many BACN members may say it is unsafe having beauty therapists injecting and I completely agree. However, to try and control the havoc of no regulation with which we have been dealt with (frustratingly) by the DoH and Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), perhaps making it difficult for beauty therapists by placing barriers and limitations is better than helplessly and furiously observing them carry on as they are; able to set up poor training courses delivered by lay people or unscrupulous medical practitioners and managing to acquire insurance for their low qualified delegates. I do think both the JCCP, which owns the HEE Framework, and the CPSA are still developing and have a way to go, much like any new business would be. HEE was mandated by government to be inclusive of the beauty therapists and the final report offloaded any responsibility rather than putting a law in place. The BACN believe cosmetic practice should be delivered by healthcare professionals.

It does not seem enough that we are medical. Evidence is required to make our case and the collection of data has not been formal, with small groups (including the BACN) collecting, what is often, anecdotal reports from members. What currently exists is not enough to present to Government or change policy. This is something that has been tried before and also through HEE, and the government informed us as such.

I understand the CPSA have set up (or are in the process of setting up) a national collection base of evidence and for this I am glad, as it is too big a task for us or any small organisation and it needs properly centralising. I think we would agree also that we must look at our own regulated practitioners as the recent statistics from Safety In Beauty shows both medical and non-medical practitioners reported to them relating to poor practice, and I believe this is mirrored within the other groups who have collected some data. A code of practice is clearly not enough. Professor David Sines (JCCP Chair) has said in a number of public forums, and at the launch of the JCCP and CPSA, that he will continue to press the Government to regulate in this arena and that he agrees with the recommendations made by Keogh to limit the higher level treatments to medical practitioners only. A robust set of evidenced clinical standards to work against are very much required and should not frighten us. It is as it should be as there are none, and very needed in our haphazard cosmetic arena where there is poor training, questionable qualifications, questionable experts, lone working and rarely a professional oversight of competence. Grandfathering clauses would ensure those who can demonstrate their experience and/or qualifications, can carry on as normal. From looking at what has been worked on to date, the non-healthcare practitioners would struggle to reach the standards. Those committees creating the standards of education and clinical practice are mainly nurses and other medical practitioners from a variety of areas of practice and expertise. Regardless of this, the CPSA have one end point in mind when creating the standards which is patient safety and not ease of practice.

Any clinical standards produced need to be achievable without compromising patient safety. Additionally, what I understand at the moment, there seems to be concern over the Draft Supervision matrix which was circulated in various forums and which is still subject to final changes before its publication. I have read the Draft Supervision matrix to see where supervision is required for us for every first patient (as previously reported on social media) and I still cannot identify this. The Draft Supervision matrix which I have a copy of outlines on the front page to consider the matrix as if a Day 1 practitioner. These are for new practitioners or those who have just done a course in something new, rather than a new technique in something you are experienced in. Someone pointed out that we are supervised as student nurses, then when qualified we are also supervised (more lightly) when we work on a new ward or move into a new area of practice. An example of the outline of supervision can be considered when looking at Toxins. The supervision matrix outlines that a non-prescribing nurse requires direct supervision for the first patient after training. Then non direct supervision for first 4 months of practice.

The supervisor will deem if further supervision is necessary. (In 4 months the nurse may have performed only a few treatments or alternatively multiple, and so competency requires assessment). For prescribers, it currently outlines that it is direct supervision for first patient after training and non-direct for 2 months and more if supervisor seems necessary. For non-healthcare practitioners I have been informed that if they managed to achieve Level 7, there is no scenario where they can work independently. Supervision ranges (according to the assessment of the supervisor) from ‘direct’ i.e. looking over their shoulder, to being able to respond in an emergency. This latter is the named prescriber’s responsibility which they will sign up to, but I am told is likely to be defined as something like ‘in the same building’. Responding to an emergency might be closer supervision for fillers than for toxin for instance, but either way, close supervision is demanded. All practitioners are being encouraged to move away from lone practice and develop networks in their geographical area either through the JCCP portal or themselves. The CPSA recognise this is an evolutionary process and will take time to establish. As an association, the BACN regions are ideal for preventing isolation and as we have already established the shadowing programme this may be something we should be doing anyway to defend our competence as experienced practitioners in emerging treatments and for new practitioners.

There is scope here for the BACN to support this area of practice. I have just completed a Level 7 University mentorship course in cosmetic practice and know the NMC are currently in consultation over mentoring, supervision and assessment and the likelihood is they will move from the 2 person relationship of mentor and mentee to 3 people with an additional assessor who is expert in the field of practice. Many beauty therapists and other Non-Healthcare practitioners will not sign up to the JCCP because they do not need to, or more likely, they will find it exceptionally challenging to attain the standards coupled with the requirement for supervision, which will be difficult for them.

If they do not, or are unable then what happens to them? I do believe that they will find it more difficult to work as they now do now over time. The tightening up of filler regulation, data protection is changing considerably and insurers, pharmacies, suppliers are all at the table to put limitations in place. A solution which would help is to penalise those who prescribe or support these practitioners and we continue to work on this, it is not forgotten.

With or without non healthcare practitioners included, cross disciplinary evidenced standards of practice are required. As we well know there are many poor medical practitioners as well as non-medical. Our regulators are there to protect the patient and we have a Code but specific guidance in the cosmetic arena is lacking. My understanding is that the JCCP will be publishing in the next few weeks a detailed memorandum agreed with the General Medical Council (GMC) over joint working and recognition of the CPSA standards and the Joint JCCP/CPSA Code of Practice. Negotiations are currently taking place with all the Professional Statutory Regulatory Bodies to follow the GMC model. I love the BACN, I love cosmetic practice and I do not support the fact that a beauty therapist can pick up a syringe. But I am not having panic attacks about it now as I used to, as I feel that at least there is something starting which can potentially develop some form of control where there is absolutely none, and change will come about. I try and see a bigger picture, which is far stronger, by having closer ties with all the multi-disciplinary medical associations and those in high positions to force the change we want. It has to be highly strategic and measured, as policy change is never based on an instinct or emotion.

It is based on expert knowledge, in depth research backed evidence coupled with the legal considerations. Coming together to agree a common goal is stronger than many individual voices travelling in different directions and speeds to achieve the same. Various organisations have different roles of expertise, assets and resources which can complement each other and speed up the process to influence. Policy change takes sustained collaboration and communication with all stakeholders PLUS evidence of the need to change. Whether anyone joins the JCCP or any other register makes no difference to the work of the BACN. The BACN supports anything or anyone that looks to clean up our industry, forces practitioners to raise the bar and scrutinise their practice.

The BACN is mindful that we need to inform our members more frequently with news items and info as it emerges, however that info can be outdated within a very short space of time and suppositions made, hence we tend to await until our information can be guaranteed. (For reference, the BACN Board will communicate through the BACN Social Media sites only and all information, statements, and press releases will be on the BACN website). In the meantime there has to be a focus on BACN issues. For instance, our own education, our successful and updated regional meetings, the Autumn Aesthetic Conference, new opportunities for facial anatomy courses which will be released, GDPR issues and guidance, VAT, business and social media courses and succeeding in our own clinics across the UK. From all this it is fundamental to establish, what is your USP? Being a BACN nurse I hope.

Sharon Bennett BACN Chair