EU Commission draft proposes easing carcinogen rules in cosmetics

A leaked European Commission proposal reveals plans to relax the automatic ban on cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics and to simplify hazard labelling rules, part of a broader 'simplification' drive that consumer groups say risks public health. The draft 'chemicals omnibus' bill, obtained by Politico, would amend the Cosmetic Products Regulation (CPR), the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP), and fertiliser rules in a single legislative package expected on 8 July.

How the cosmetic products regulation would change

Under the current CPR, substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR) are broadly prohibited in cosmetics, with narrow derogations allowed only after a safety assessment by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. The draft revision keeps that principle but shifts the trigger for an automatic ban. If a substance exhibits CMR properties only when inhaled or ingested, but not through dermal contact, it would no longer be automatically excluded from cosmetic formulations.

The Commission argues that the route of exposure matters. A chemical that poses a cancer risk when breathed in or swallowed may be safe when applied to skin in a controlled formulation. The proposal also removes a requirement for companies to demonstrate compliance with food safety legislation to secure a derogation. Food and cosmetics are 'distinct products,' the Commission says, and an inedible substance is not necessarily unsafe in a cosmetic applied to skin.

Derogations would still require a positive opinion from the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. The committee evaluates toxicological data, exposure estimates, and the specific conditions of use. The Commission's accompanying document states the aim is a 'more predictable and less burdensome regulatory landscape' while maintaining a high level of human health protection.

Industry says current derogation process is broken

Cosmetics Europe, the trade association representing the European cosmetics industry, did not comment directly on the leaked text. Its director general, John Chave, said the CPR 'remains the international regulatory benchmark for safety' and that product safety is a 'sacrosanct' principle for the sector. He added, however, that the existing derogation process 'does not always allow the industry to demonstrate safety, for example because of vague criteria, or unrealistic deadlines.'

Chave argued that these procedural obstacles 'can stop us from using substances which have been scientifically assessed as perfectly safe for use in cosmetics.' The industry has long complained that the derogation pathway is slow, opaque, and inconsistent, creating uncertainty for product development and innovation. The Commission's proposal appears to respond to those complaints by narrowing the automatic ban and streamlining the evidence required.

Consumer groups warn of a retreat on health protection

The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) reacted sharply. Pelle Moos, senior advisor, said in an emailed statement: 'The simplification proposal is taking a concerning direction for consumer protection by extending the use of cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics. Not only does this clash with consumers' legitimate expectations to use safe products but also with the Commission's commitment to maintain high standards of protection.' He called on the Commission to 'reconsider and safeguard public health and consumer safety.'

BEUC's concern centres on the shift from a hazard-based approach, where intrinsic properties trigger a ban, to a risk-based approach that depends on exposure assessments. Consumer advocates argue that risk assessments can underestimate real-world use, especially for products applied daily to large skin areas, on broken skin, or by vulnerable populations. They also question whether the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has the resources to handle a potential increase in derogation dossiers.

Labelling and advertising rules for hazardous chemicals simplified

The omnibus also targets the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation, which only entered into force in December 2024. The draft proposes loosening formatting, labelling and advertising requirements for hazardous substances. Currently, any advertisement for a hazardous substance aimed at the general public must display the relevant hazard pictograms, hazard statements, and the sentence: 'Always follow the information on the product label.'

That would be replaced by a single sentence: 'Always read the label and product information before use.' The Commission's justification includes reducing paper use for environmental reasons. ClientEarth legal expert Julian Schenten dismissed that rationale as 'absurd.' He said: 'Let's be clear: cutting paperwork does not make toxic products any safer.' Schenten argued the plans put 'business interests ahead of people's health and environmental safety.'

The CLP regulation implements the United Nations Globally Harmonised System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals in EU law. Its recent revision introduced new hazard classes for endocrine disruptors and persistent, mobile, and toxic substances. Industry groups had warned that the new labelling requirements, including minimum font sizes, colour contrast rules, and mandatory digital labelling via QR codes, would impose significant costs, especially on small and medium-sized enterprises. The Commission's simplification push appears to address those concerns.

The broader simplification agenda

The chemicals omnibus is one piece of a wider European Commission programme to reduce regulatory burden. President Ursula von der Leyen's second term has made 'competitiveness' and 'simplification' central themes, responding to criticism that EU legislation hampers innovation and economic growth. The Commission's draft document states: 'The reduction of administrative burden on companies should lead to societal gains in terms of wealth creation, employment and innovation. At the same time, the proposal seeks to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment.'

Critics see a pattern. The omnibus follows a 'fiscal simplification' package, a 'reporting simplification' initiative, and proposals to delay or weaken elements of the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Environmental and consumer organisations argue that 'simplification' has become a euphemism for deregulation, and that the cumulative effect could erode the EU's precautionary principle, the legal basis for acting on scientific uncertainty to protect health and the environment.

What the scientific committee's role will be

The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) sits at the centre of the new derogation framework. An independent body managed by the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, it issues opinions on the safety of cosmetic ingredients, including nanomaterials, hair dyes, UV filters, and preservatives. Its opinions are not legally binding but form the basis for Commission decisions on annexes to the CPR.

The committee operates with a pool of external experts and a secretariat in Brussels. Its workload has grown as the CPR has expanded to cover new hazard classes and as industry submits more complex dossiers. If the omnibus leads to a surge in derogation requests for CMR substances previously caught by the automatic ban, the SCCS may face capacity constraints. The Commission has not indicated whether additional resources will be allocated.