The European Commission’s Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability aims to create a “toxic-free environment” for all, and is an important part of the EU’s Zero Pollution ambition – a key commitment of the European Green Deal (EGD).
With the EGD end-goal in mind, many regulations are currently being revised and the European cosmetics industry is currently in a period of ever-adapting regulations.
Indeed, with regards to these changes, a major concern of the cosmetics industry is now that some of the newly created policies being considered may not necessarily follow time-tested science and data, and that these decisions could in turn, leave EU-based cosmetics companies at a competitive disadvantage globally.
The International Fragrance Association (IFRA) – the global representative of the fragrance industry – has been especially vocal on this matter and has even published a series of recommendations for the EU mandate, with one asking that policymakers “follow the science” and “base decisions on time-tested science and data – preserving an exposure-based risk assessment approach.”
What is the European Commission regulation on cosmetics?
At the 2024 Cosmetics Europe Annual Conference, which took place in Brussels in June 19 – 20th 2024, panellists took to the stage to review regulations that currently impact the cosmetics industry beyond the industry’s main regulations – the Cosmetics Product Regulation (CPR) – to observe that the classification and labelling of chemicals is having unexpected impact on future NPD.
Speaking about some of the key learnings from the conference, Cosmetics Europe’s director-general John Chave said that while there had been plenty of positive messages about the industry’s contribution to sustainability, its capacity for innovation, and the potential of new technology, many of the sessions spoke about several challenges that the industry faces, particularly on the regulatory front.
Chave noted that the cosmetics industry often concentrates on the CPR ‘core legislation’ but that a significant change in recent years is “how much we are being affected by regulations outside of ours.”
He said that the CLP (Classification, Labelling and Packaging of chemical substances) was now a big focus and that one of the panellists had made the remark that this was originally about labelling, but now it was no longer just about labelling – it’s about hazardous substances.
Chave observed that “the capacity for the classification of hazardous substances to impact our ingredients palette is now, I think, quite significant.”
He continued to say that “The atmosphere with ingredients continues to be challenging.”
“At Cosmetics Europe over the past year we have been discussing challenges around natural complex substances,” he said.
“Many fragrances use natural complex substances and defending ingredients within this context doesn’t really fit into the current regulatory paradigm that we have.”
“You can’t simply look at the CPR, you have to look at the whole regulatory to understand the exact position of the industry, particular around CLP,” he continued.
“The industry is constantly trying to innovate, where you have a threat hanging over ingredients and you can’t plan for innovation and investment, and I think that will be something that causes significant issues.”
“We spend so much time defending current ingredients that we are diverting investment away from what we need to create new ingredients and that is a significant challenge.”
And this is not just an issue being faced in the EU. In the UK, in February 2024, the Cosmetics Toiletries and Perfumery Association (the CTPA) launched its first-ever manifesto to present to the next government, and this also flagged up this issue.
“Basing regulation on intrinsic hazard properties runs the risk of removing safe and beneficial ingredients from the market,” stated the CTPA’s director-general Dr Emma Meredith in the manifesto.
Anticipate more of this to come & get ready to innovate
At the CEAC conference, during a talk on ‘Weaponising hazard: regulating ingredients outside of the CPR,’ Meglena Mihova, an expert in chemical regulation and managing partner at EPPA (a specialist management consultancy that manages alignment between business and EU institutions and governments) noted that the cosmetics sector has been taken outside of its comfort zone.
Mihova said that the bigger focus is on environmental and noted that the industry “can anticipate more of this to come”.
Her advice was “do more research on neurotoxicity and endocrine disruptors and also on environment.
“You have to speak up and have a say in this now in the design,” she urged. “We have to promote the scientific research that is done. Look beyond what you know from the cosmetics products regulation system and look outside, as this is much more impactful.”
Is ‘essential use’ a ‘way out’?
Mihova noted that the ‘way out’ of this looming issue is the essential use ‘argument’: the point that many cosmetic products are necessary to prevent health issues. And said to focus on functionality and performance.
However, she also acknowledged the fact that essentiality cannot be recognised in terms of ‘luxury goods’. “Who can judge what is a luxury good? Is a cosmetic product a luxury good?,” she questioned.
Mihova said that beauty and personal care brands and ingredients companies will need to “explain the dynamics of their supply chains” as there will be things that the people who are passing new laws don’t understand or know about it
She noted that “we cannot isolate ingredients in terms of making green claims now” as the regulations are also looking at whether you omit hazardous chemicals into the water supply, for example.
She advised focusing on environmental-related innovation and said: “Don’t be defensive – participate actively in the process.”
“With the political cycle changing the time is now to go outside of your comfort zone and engage. You need to explain what you do. Take the time to educate or we will be in firefighting mode,” she said.
“Raise the challenges and put forward constructive recommendations.”
Jan Ahlskog, secretary general at ERIF (European Regulation and Innovation Forum) also took part in the panel and dubbed the current state of affairs: “a paradigm shift from risk to hazard.”
For Ahlskog, the “essential use” argument in defence of this was “useless” because “the world is complex”.
However, he noted that in the light of recent EU election results, “we are likely to see a shift to the right at the EU”, which he believed would then result in more focus on competitiveness.
Ahlskog also highlighted the point that “the Member States cannot cope with this speed of change.”
‘Many inconstancies’ and ‘extremely perceptional’
Meanwhile, partner at international corporate law firm Mayer Brown, Pavlina Chopova-Lepretre, said that CLP has “become central to cosmetics industry regulation.”
“There was once chemical labelling and there was cosmetics, but now there is more crossover,” she said.
On examining some of the wording from a legal perspective, Chopova-Lepretre pointed out that you can “see so many classifications for so many substances and therefore you can find different answers to the same question.”
She explained that potential hazards can include everything from endocrine disruptors to respiratory disruptors, to chemicals that are harmful to ozone layers, and the first criteria these are judged on is whether the substance is harmful to the environment or society.
The second criteria is whether there is an “acceptable alternative” that can be used as a substitute, which she stated is: “extremely perceptional.”
“Big groups of substances can be taken together and classified,” she explained. “But there is very little guidance on this, and how you can be sure that the science you’re referring to is the correct one is debateable.”
Chopova-Lepretre pointed out various in inconsistencies in the wording, noting how one specific ingredient is still allowed to be used in places where “A high level of disinfection is required eg hospital or other similar places” – asking: what constitutes ‘other similar places’? Can this be a beauty salon for example?”
She asked the question “will toothpaste be considered ‘a luxury?’ and added “how this will be decided is a mystery.”
“From a practical standpoint – this is a question mark,” she continued. “The way it is drafted right now is not sufficient for me”.
“Can a cosmetic ever be an essential, or is it a luxury? Will they have capacity to assess every use?” she said.
She also noted the “danger” that Member States will directly draw inspiration from this and interpret it in different ways.
“It’s loose and not well drafted – it will take lawyers time,” she continued.
“I have questions from clients asking if something can be considered ‘essential’ and I often don’t know the answer. I can argue that it is, but this is not good for consistency,” she said.
A “move away from science”?
“It’s not just moving away towards a hazard-based approach, we are moving out of science,” said the director for global regulatory affairs at IFRA, Cristina Arregui Garcia.
She said that this ‘science dilution’ is a challenge and noted that while the hazard is a starting point for any regulatory decision, “the industry is now facing less opportunities to have a discussion with them”.
“CSS is focused on accelerating these decisions and this acceleration is having a big impact on the cosmetics industry,” she continued.
“The fragrance industry is facing defence of certain flower ingredients, and we don’t have time to discuss our feedback – there is no dialogue. It is impossible to have a scientific discussion about this.”
She berated the “lack of dialogue” and “not listening to industry”, noting that now a “more precautionary approach” is being taken and that certain chemicals are being grouped together.
“This is going to restrict the industry a lot and it’s happening now,” she said.
Potential paracymene ban in cosmetics formulations
Arregui Garcia mentioned the upcoming potential ban on use of paracymene in cosmetic products.
“The discussion will happen in two weeks’ time and a final decision will be made in September – the clock is ticking,” she said.
“Paracymene is present in thyme oil and it’s approved in higher usage levels for consumption,” she explained
Arregui Garcia said that this issue was “not only with paracymene” and that “this issue with naturals has to be resolved now.”
“The impact into downstream is high and we cannot accelerate things in this way,” she said. “Classification is about hazard – the use is not taken into account.”
So how does this look for the future of formulating cosmetics in the EU?
While Chave agreed that there are certainly challenges that need to be addressed in some areas, he was still optimistic about the future.
“The industry has always been dynamic and adaptive. It’s never been a better time to deploy that aspect,” he said.
“We look at the growth over the past year and it was positive; it exceeded growth in recent years. Our consumers need and value our products,” he continued, before imparting the following words of advice for industry professionals: “Keep engaged, realise the speed of the industry, and be prepared to adapt.”