Your Silver Is Capped at 0.2% in the EU. Great Britain Just Said 0.3%.

Keywords: EU UK cosmetics divergence · SAG-CS silver opinion · UK Cosmetics Regulation SI 2026/109 · micron-sized silver cosmetics · Annex III entry 379 · dual-market cosmetics compliance

A committee most brands don't track just moved your ingredient limits

On 21 August 2026, Great Britain's Scientific Advisory Group on Chemical Safety (SAG-CS) published seven safety opinions on cosmetic ingredients. SAG-CS is the UK's structural equivalent of the SCCS: it advises the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), and its opinions are what Great Britain's ingredient restrictions are built from, in the same way SCCS opinions feed the European Commission's amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009.

Six of the seven landed exactly where the EU already is. One did not. If you sell the same SKU in both the EU and Great Britain, the opinion that diverged matters more than the six that didn't — not because silver is in most formulations, but because of what it proves about the six that agreed.

The six that agreed — and why that half is the misleading one

Four antimicrobial preservatives, a soy isoflavone and a hair-dye ingredient came back aligned with positions already reflected in EU law:

• Triclocarban — 1.5% in rinse-off products for adults; 0.2% as a preservative, excluding mouthwashes for all age groups and toothpastes intended for children

  
  

• Triclosan — 0.2% in mouthwashes, 0.3% in toothpastes, and 0.3% in hand soaps, shower gels, non-spray deodorants, face powders, blemish concealers and nail-cleaning products

  
  

• Orthophenylphenol (OPP) — 0.2% in rinse-off, 0.15% in leave-on

  
  

• Sodium orthophenylphenate (SOPP) — the same limits, with the combined OPP + SOPP concentration capped at those values

  
  

• Daidzein — 0.02%

  
  

• Resorcinol — up to 1.25% on-head in oxidative hair dyes and eyelash colouring products, 0.5% in hair lotions and shampoos

  
  

Those figures match what already sits in the EU Annexes. The comfortable reading is that Great Britain is effectively shadowing Brussels, and that a single formulation review still covers both markets. That reading is wrong, and the seventh opinion is the reason.

No legal mechanism obliges Great Britain to follow the SCCS. Since 1 January 2021, GB has operated its own retained version of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, amended independently through UK statutory instruments. Six matching outcomes are six matching outcomes. They are not a policy, and they do not create one.

Silver: where the numbers actually split

Both regimes agree on the extremes. Silver (nano) and silver (massive) are prohibited on both sides — in the EU under Omnibus VIII, and in Great Britain under SI 2026/109, published on 9 February 2026. The divergence sits in the micron band: silver powder with a particle diameter above 100 nm and below 1 mm.

The EU position, in the draft amendment to Entry 379 of Annex III notified to the WTO on 30 July 2026:

• Rinse-off products: 0.2%

  
  

• Leave-on products: 0.3%

  
  

• Oral products, except mouthwash for children: 0.2%

• Mouthwash for children: 0.05%

  
  

• Nail products: 0.3%

  
  

• Limited to silver powder with a porous and sintered particle structure, and excluded from any application that may lead to inhalation exposure

  
  

SAG-CS Opinion 26, on the same ingredient:

• Rinse-off products, excluding mouthwashes and toothpastes: 0.3%

  
  

• Leave-on products, excluding lip products: 0.3%

  
  

• Lip products: 0.2%

  
  

• Mouthwashes and toothpastes, all age groups: 0.05%

  
  

• No dedicated assessment for nail products; propellant sprays not covered

  
  

Four practical differences. Great Britain permits 50% more silver in rinse-off than the EU does. GB carves lip products out of leave-on at a lower limit, which the EU does not. GB applies 0.05% to mouthwashes and toothpastes for all ages, where the EU allows 0.2% in oral products generally and reserves 0.05% for children's mouthwash — stricter than the EU for adult oral care, and without the child-versus-adult distinction the EU makes. And GB has not assessed nail products at all, where the EU explicitly permits 0.3%.

A rinse-off product formulated at 0.25% silver is legal in Great Britain and non-compliant in the EU. Same formula, same batch, same artwork.

What an opinion is, and what it isn't

This is the part worth keeping once the news cycle has moved on.

A SAG-CS opinion is scientific advice. It is not law and it carries no deadline. The sequence that turns it into an obligation runs: SAG-CS opinion, then an OPSS policy decision, then WTO notification, then a statutory instrument, then a date after which non-compliant product cannot be placed on the market, and a later date by which existing stock must be withdrawn.

Hexyl salicylate is the worked example. A SAG-CS opinion concluded it was safe under specific conditions; OPSS translated that into SI 2026/109, published on 9 February 2026, adding it to Annex III as it applies in Great Britain. The dates followed: non-compliant products could not be placed on the GB market after 15 August 2026 and must be withdrawn by 14 February 2027. The same instrument added a further set of substances to Annex II — including silver (nano) and silver (massive) — with a placing deadline of 23 March 2027 and a withdrawal deadline of 22 September 2027.

So the value of the 21 August opinions is not a date. It is lead time. You are seeing the likely shape of the next UK statutory instrument roughly six to twelve months early, while there is still room to change a supplier, adjust a fill or split a SKU without doing it against a deadline.

Three mistakes we keep finding in dual-market files

Treating "retained EU law" as "the same law." The GB text was identical on 31 December 2020 and has been amended separately ever since. Neither side publishes a consolidated list of what has diverged. If your ingredient review runs against one Annex set, it covers one market.

Confusing "the UK" with "Great Britain." The names are all "UK" — UK Cosmetics Regulation, UK Responsible Person, UK SCPN service — but the market is Great Britain: England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland still applies EU Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 under the Windsor Framework, so SAG-CS opinions, OPSS decisions and SI 2026/109 don't reach it. The trap sits inside the naming: the Responsible Person for the GB market must be established in the UK, Northern Ireland included, and notification runs through the UK SCPN service — while your Northern Ireland units go through CPNP behind an EU-side RP. Two markets, one word.

Reading an aligned opinion as a guarantee. Six of seven matched this time. BHT, methyl salicylate and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives have all produced GB-specific positions before now. Alignment is an outcome, substance by substance — not a rule you can plan around.

What's already in the pipeline

The divergence count goes up from here, not down. On the EU side, the silver amendment is open for WTO comment until 28 September 2026, with adoption expected in Q4 2026 and retroactive application from 1 May 2026. Separately, the draft combining Omnibus Ingredients III with the CMR-based Omnibus IX provisions was notified on 8 July 2026, and its CMR prohibitions are proposed to apply from 1 February 2027.

Great Britain will process every one of those substances through its own SAG-CS and OPSS route, on its own timetable — and, as silver now demonstrates, will not necessarily arrive at the same number. Two rulebooks, two clocks, and no obligation on either side to wait for the other.

Your dual-market check, this quarter

• Pull every SKU sold in both the EU and Great Britain and check its restricted ingredients against both Annex sets separately — not one review applied twice

  
  

• Flag any product containing micron-sized silver and confirm which of the two limits your actual fill sits under

  
  

• Check whether your GB formulations were reviewed against SI 2026/109; the Annex II additions bite on 23 March 2027

  
  

• Confirm your UK Responsible Person designation covers SKUs launched since it was signed — the RP may sit anywhere in the UK, Northern Ireland included

  
  

• Check every CPNP-notified product has a matching, current UK SCPN notification, formulation versions included

  
  

• Split Northern Ireland units from GB units in the file: NI runs on EU 1223/2009 and CPNP, GB on the UK Cosmetics Regulation and SCPN

  
  

• If you still omit UK RP details from the label under the transition that began on 1 January 2021, diarise its expiry at the end of 2027

  
  

• Put a standing quarterly slot in the calendar to read both the Official Journal and UK statutory instruments — nobody publishes the diff for you

  
  

Cláritas Regulatory works with indie and small cosmetics brands on EU compliance, and on the dual-market files where the EU and GB rulebooks have stopped agreeing. If you sell into both and haven't checked your formulations against both Annex sets since 2021, get in touch.