Under the banner of “simplification,” the European Union is considering loosening cosmetics regulation. Generations Futures warns of a health setback.
“Simplification” or rollback? The EU plans to ease the ban on dangerous substances in cosmetics.
Simplification… or a health setback?
The European Commission has been pursuing for months a strategy of regulatory “simplification” intended to ease the burdens on businesses. But on some sensitive dossiers, this mandate reads more like a rollback than modernization.
In the crosshairs are cosmetics. With the Omnibus VI dedicated to chemicals, the European Union proposes to amend the Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetics. If these changes are approved, they could facilitate the presence of carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive-toxic (CMR) substances in personal care and beauty products used daily by millions of Europeans.
Cosmetics: daily and widespread exposure
The French are among the heaviest consumers of cosmetics in Europe. And the definition of “cosmetic” covers a broad range of everyday products: toothpaste, soap, shampoo, moisturizing cream, deodorant, makeup, hair care, etc.
In other words: whenever a problematic substance is allowed (or maintained) within this regulatory framework, millions of repeated exposures can occur — sometimes starting in childhood.
CMR Substances: a ban more than 20 years old… but weakened
For more than twenty years, substances classified as CMR have been prohibited by default in European cosmetics. This ban, however, is not absolute: it can be subject to strictly framed exemptions.
But according to the association Générations Futures, the proposed changes could open new loopholes, to the point of making this ban significantly less protective. The group warns in particular that, in practice, consumers may already be exposed to certain CMR substances years after their theoretical ban.
Simplified rules… especially to keep toxic substances
“Not harming the health of Europeans is the primary objective our regulations should pursue,” notes Kildine Le Proux de La Rivière, a pharmacist at Générations Futures. “By facilitating the presence of carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive-toxic substances in cosmetics, our European representatives would place private, short-term interests above public health concerns and the sustainability of our healthcare systems.”
In the current political climate, the stated goal of “simplification” could actually lead to easier grant of exemptions — thereby keeping on the market longer substances whose hazards are recognized.
Changing the definition of an “alternative”: the most critical loophole
First major point: the European Commission proposes to modify how the existence of an alternative to a CMR substance is evaluated.
Concretely, obtaining an exemption could be facilitated by introducing restrictive technical and economic criteria in the definition of an alternative. The problem? By making substitution harder to “prove,” it would become possible to assert that there is no “acceptable” alternative… even when solutions exist.
Result: exemptions would become easier to obtain, which could keep certain CMR substances in cosmetics lacking an officially recognized substitution.
According to Générations Futures, this would be not only avoidable exposure for users, but also a bad signal to innovation and to companies investing in safer formulations.
Prolonged timelines: up to four times more exposure
Second point deemed highly concerning: the possible extension of withdrawal timelines.
Currently, when a substance is classified as CMR, a delay of 18 months applies between the entry into force of this classification and the withdrawal of cosmetics containing the substance in question.
Yet, according to Générations Futures, the Commission’s proposals would allow affected products to remain on the market 4 years and 9 months instead of 18 months.
And that’s not all: the European Parliament’s co-rapporteurs Dimitris Tsiodras and Piotr Mülle would even propose extending this delay to 6.5 years, potentially yielding exposure to dangerous substances that is four times longer.
This scenario becomes particularly worrying when one recalls that the CMR classification process already takes an average six years. In total, more than ten years could elapse between the initiation of a classification and the actual withdrawal from the market.
Two new exemptions: the door left ajar to loopholes
Finally, Omnibus VI would introduce two additional exemptions to the default ban:
- CMR substances only by inhalation or ingestion: a substance deemed CMR by oral exposure could continue to be used in a product applied to the skin.
- Chemically unmodified plant-derived substances: an essential oil containing a CMR compound might not be banned by default.
According to associations, these exemptions could lead to prolonged, repeated — and above all avoidable — exposure for consumers, under the guise of a “technical” reading of risk.
What Generations Futures Wants
Générations Futures calls on European co-legislators to reject what the association views as a historic rollback of cosmetic regulation.
Its main demands:
- A non-restrictive definition of an “appropriate substitute” to promote substitution of CMR substances.
- Maintain the 18-month timeline for removing CMR substances from cosmetics.
- No exemptions without full scientific justification: ban CMR substances regardless of exposure route, and heightened caution for complex plant-derived substances until all data are available.
An issue that goes far beyond administrative “simplification”: this is a societal choice between health prevention and short-term economic priorities.
