According to media sources, the European Commission has postponed the presentation of the Chemicals Omnibus Law by one week to 8 July 2025.
On 3 July, representatives and trade associations from across the European cosmetics, fragrance, and essential oils sectors signed a joint statement welcoming the European Commission’s efforts to simplify the Cosmetic Products Regulation (CPR) and the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) Regulation.
Cosmetics and fragrance sectors support simplified CPR and CLP regulations
The organisations — including Cosmetics Europe, the European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI), the European Federation of Essential Oils (EFEO), the International Federation of Essential Oils and Aroma Trades (IFEAT), the International Fragrance Association (IFRA), the International Natural and Organic Cosmetics Association (NATRUE), and SMEunited — stated that while consumer safety remains a priority, there is also an “urgent need to reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, improve legal clarity, and introduce proportionate regulatory measures.”
They emphasised that such changes are necessary to “foster innovation, support the vitality of our industries, and ensure the viability of SMEs.”
The group added that simplification is “about streamlining processes” and “does not undermine consumer safety.” Rather, it is essential for maintaining the EU’s high standards of protection while enhancing industrial resilience and competitiveness.
Reduced red tape and stronger innovation
The statement highlighted that the current interplay between the CLP and CPR can “lead to the automatic bans of cosmetic ingredients based solely on hazard classifications... without practical consideration of actual risk under conditions of intended cosmetic use.”
“As a result, demonstrably safe ingredients — including those of natural origin, many of which are even permitted in food or have a long history of safe use — may be removed from the cosmetics market,” it continued.
Some of the changes the group welcomed include:
- A revised Article 15.2 of the Cosmetic Products Regulation, strengthening a risk-based exemption pathway grounded in assessments by the European Commission’s own Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), and based on actual conditions of cosmetic use.
- Realistic and workable reformulation timelines, particularly for complex cosmetic and fragrance formulations, along with transitional periods for compliance with new bans or restrictions.
- Recognition and protection of natural ingredients and essential oils, which are highly valued by consumers and are integral to Europe’s cultural heritage, bioeconomic fabric, and international reputation.
Director General of Cosmetics Europe, John Chave, noted that the CPR as it currently stands “remains the international regulatory benchmark for consumer safety. Under these rules, our industry must ensure that our products are safe. This principle is sacrosanct,” he said.
He added that simplification is about streamlining processes and improving the regulatory framework to provide greater clarity and certainty for businesses.
“What we have been advocating for are adjustments to the regulation that would, in the short term, address some well-known and identified problems which — without tangible benefit for consumers — create burdens for the industry and divert resources that could otherwise be used to drive innovation and enhance competitiveness.”
Concerns over ‘deregulation’ rather than simplification
However, some organisations have raised concerns, arguing that the proposed changes amount to deregulation rather than simplification.
The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) warned that the move could significantly increase consumer exposure to known hazardous chemicals. In comments released on 20 June, it said it was “alarmed that the Commission apparently considers relaxing the rigid conditions under which continued use of category 1 CMR (carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic) substances can be allowed.”
“While we support the intention to streamline implementation of Article 15, the outlined approach would, however, decrease consumer protection against known dangerous chemicals,” it added.
Meanwhile, Dr Esther Smollich, Senior Science and Policy Officer for Health and Chemicals at the campaign group Health and Environment Alliance, commented that there was a “suggestion to more easily permit known carcinogens in personal care products, such as toothpaste and mouthwash,” which she described as “unacceptable.”
Dr Smollich also noted that it had been “suggested to prohibit the use of these most harmful substances only if they are classified based on skin exposure, but not when they are known to be harmful through ingestion or inhalation.”
She added: “Especially when considering that the cosmetic legislation also covers products such as toothpaste and mouthwash, this is unacceptable and would lead to unnecessary exposure of children and adults to known CMRs.”
