Commission wants to curb harmful chemicals in cosmetics but no progress on regulation

Internal disagreements have prevented the European Commission from delivering a long-announced revision of the Cosmetics Products Regulation, meaning for now, it will use technical powers and softer guidance to regulate the sector. 

A review of the Cosmetics Product Regulation (CPR) was announced in 2020 as part of Chemical’s Strategy for Sustainability, which aims to remove the most harmful chemicals from consumer products and achieve a toxic-free environment. However, just like the REACH regulation,  the revision of the CPR has been postponed.

“Considering the expected complexity of the ensuing legislative process and the current parliamentary recess, it was deemed advisable not to table the proposal at this stage of the mandate”, Commission spokesperson Johanna Bernsel told Euractiv.

At the Cosmetics Europe annual conference (CEAC), which took place on 19-20 June, Hans Ingels, Head of Unit at the Commission’s DG GROW, explained that after an impact assessment—which showed that some options would be costly for the industry—and a 2022 public consultation, political-level discussions took place on how to proceed with the CPR revision.

However, “there was no consensus within the Commission,” according to Ingels.

“The cosmetics products regulation proposal is a little bit like the Loch Ness Monster. Some people claim to have seen it, but its existence has never been definitively proved,”  John Chave, Director of Cosmetics Europe (CE), told CEAC delegates.

A key objective of the revision was to expand the ‘generic approach’, which currently allows the Commission to ban carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction substances, to other harmful chemicals.

The Commission is already using its existing powers. On 24 June, it notified the World Trading Organisation that it was working on restricting cosmetic ingredients.

Although this approach is a faster and simpler way of restricting hazardous chemicals, currently, the vast majority of chemicals are still regulated on a slower, case-by-case basis.

However, a revision of the CPR would have allowed the Commission to ban chemicals in cosmetics that are found to, among other things, affect the reproductive or endocrine systems or are persistent and bioaccumulative.

The Commission also signaled that it wanted the power to be able to ban chemicals that affect immune, neurological or respiratory systems, and chemicals toxic to a specific organ.

Industry representatives at the conference were doubtful of the merits of a wider application of the ‘generic approach’, and expressed concerns about the potential impacts of the CPR revision upon the sector’s competitiveness.

In an interview with Euractiv, Cosmetics Europe’s Chave argued that “there is a robust scientific mechanism in place to assess ingredients in the current cosmetics legislation (…) our view is that that system works well and we don’t really see any specific need to change it.”

‘Essential uses’

The ‘essential uses’ concept is another key element of the Commission’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability. This concept helps establish circumstances where harmful substances can be allowed—if their use is considered necessary for reasons of health, safety, or critical functioning of society and if there are no acceptable alternatives.

On 22 April 2024, the Commission adopted guiding criteria and principles to determine how the ‘essential uses’ concept would be used.

For now, these criteria are not binding and would only have legal effect if introduced into specific legislation. At the same time, there are doubts about its application.

According to Pavlina Chopova-Leprêtre, Partner at Mayer Brown, who also spoke at the Cosmetics Europe conference, the essential uses criteria can be interpreted in many ways.

As reported by Euractiv, national environment ministers will discuss the implementation of the chemicals strategy on 14 October 2024.

[Edited by Donagh Cagney/Alice Taylor]

Read more with Euractiv