MEPs from the European Parliament’s ENVI and IMCO committees walked a fine line on Wednesday, April 15, during their review of the so-called Omnibus VI proposal aimed at “simplifying” the operating environment for companies in the EU chemicals sector. They endorsed some concessions for the cosmetics industry, though fewer than those initially proposed by the European Commission.
The European Parliament is set to hold a final plenary vote on the text on April 29.
Extended deadlines and "clarifications"
The revised text extends the deadline for manufacturers to withdraw products containing substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction (CMRs) to around two and a half years, up from the current one and a half years.
An additional derogation of up to five and a half years may be granted for uses deemed safe by scientific experts. The European Commission had initially proposed significantly longer timelines.
At the center of the debate was a European Commission proposal to allow cosmetics to bypass certain rules by permitting substances classified as carcinogenic when ingested or inhaled, provided they were used exclusively in topical applications. However, MEPs — like member states before them — firmly rejected the move.
According to the French Federation of Beauty Companies (FEBEA), Omnibus VI clarifies the legislation applicable to substances contained in cosmetic products, notably by removing "inappropriate requirements" and clarifying the timeline for examining exemptions and withdrawals, with "fixed deadlines for each stage" (submission of the application, scientific assessment, decision by the authorities).
Towards a "balanced compromise"?
The MEPs’ vote has exited some “harmful changes” to EU regulations on cosmetics, but “health concerns remain,” reacted the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), a federation of European NGOs.
“Yet the vote retains problematic provisions that would keep people exposed to known harmful chemicals longer than necessary," the organization warned.
"Substances newly classified as carcinogenic would be allowed to automatically remain in cosmetics on the EU market for a year beyond the current limit of 1.5 years, even when companies choose not to defend the use of the substance," HEAL stated.
The Alliance also believes that the definition of alternatives to a harmful substance gives too much weight to economic considerations.
Yoann Coulmont, advocacy officer at the French NGO Générations Futures, warned that manufacturers are likely to “exploit exemption requests simply to buy time.”
On the industry side, FEBEA, however, believes that the "compromise is perfectly balanced."
The products in question "present no risk to consumers, they are deemed safe," stated Brice Leclerc, the Federation’s Scientific and Regulatory Director. The additional time granted "is necessary in relation to industrial reality," he said, emphasizing that developing new cosmetic formulas takes time.
“Omnibus VI demonstrates how regulatory decisions on cosmetic safety can, and should, be grounded in robust scientific evidence and transparent processes," added Alexander Mohr, PhD, President of the International Fragrance Association (IFRA).
Debates over cosmetic safety claims
The vote comes after months of heated debate. NGOs accused the industry of trying to bring back harmful substances that had already been banned from its products, while industry representatives pushed back, saying they were the target of misinformation campaigns on social media.
According to John Chave, Director-General of Cosmetics Europe, "Omnibus VI proposal does not relax any safeguards. But it does better align regulatory decision-making with robust scientific evidence, ensuring ingredients that need to be banned are banned while those that are safe can continue to be used."
"European cosmetic regulations remain the safest in the world. The Omnibus VI proposal does not compromise on the safety of cosmetic products, which remains our absolute priority at every stage. This debate, like any scientific debate, must be conducted seriously and rigorously, based on facts, without fostering unnecessary confusion on a public health issue," added Emmanuel Guichard, General Delegate of FEBEA.
