The beauty industry must prepare for a series of regulatory changes in Europe. The Commission evaluates in particular the current regulatory framework carried out by the European regulation relating to cosmetic products [1] And will communicate its conclusions at the end of 2026, which could lead to updates. A revision of Reach regulation on the registration, evaluation and authorization of chemicals [2] is also underway and should be finalized by the end of the year.
In front of the participants of the annual conference of Cosmetics Europe (CEAC) in Brussels, last month, John Chave, Managing Director of Cosmetics Europecalled these announced changes as “regulatory tsunami”.
Pending details on this new regulatory era, what are the challenges for brands and manufacturers?
Towards the simplification of “certain elements”
Pour Hans Ingels, head of unit at the European Commission GROW DGthe evaluation of the European Cosmetic Products Regulations is important to ensure that the system implemented almost 20 years ago remains relevant today. “The world is changing. The cosmetics are evolving. We must therefore check whether the current regulations on cosmetics are consistent and if it is effective,” said Ingels as part of a round table during the annual conference of Cosmetics Europe.
“We want to create a single market for cosmetics, with a single rule and not 27. We think this is in the interest of the competitiveness of the European cosmetic industry,” he added.
In the short term, the European Commission is working to simplify certain elements of the regulation, such as declaration requirements, notification processes and on possible sectoral exemptions. An example is the in -depth examination of the recent updates of article 15 of the European regulation on cosmetic products concerning the prohibition of CMR (substances classified as carcinogens, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction). The ban on CMR in cosmetics will be maintained, said Hans Ingels, but the European Commission is studying the possibility of extending adaptation times and granting exemptions to certain sectors of the industry, including SMEs. “Today, for most companies, six months of adaptation is far too short. We all know that we cannot reformulate a product in a few months.”
The Commission also focuses on the last stage of the revision of the Reach regulation, around three axes: consumer protection, the single market and competitiveness.
Pour Agustin Reyna, Director General of the European Consumer Unions Bureau (BEUC)the simplification of certain aspects and processes of Reach and the European regulation on cosmetic products would certainly be positive for industry as well as for consumers.
“The examination of the regulatory framework for chemicals, especially in the context of Reach and the Cosmetics Regulations, offers an opportunity to simplify and accelerate things, both on the side of businesses and the authorities,” he explains. “We cannot let the examination of chemicals last for years. We must act much faster so that the industry can have certainties.”
“Lack of visibility”
An opinion shared by Andrea Maltagliati, Secretary General of the European Federation of Cosmetic Ingredients (EFFCI)which underlined the need for greater visibility concerning animal tests – ideally in the direction of their total suppression – and a clearer orientation concerning the evaluation of nanoparticles and the positive lists of authorized colors, conservatives and UV filters.
According to Maltagliati, the European regulation on cosmetic products can certainly be considered a benchmark for global cosmetic regulations, because it is “targeted, structured and understandable”, but inconsistencies remain from one European market to another and between regulations. In particular for manufacturers of cosmetic ingredients, subject to Reach at the ingredient stage and the Cosmetic Product Regulations at the formulation stage, which generates “too many uncertainties”, according to him.
“To invest in innovation, research and development of cosmetic ingredients, industry must benefit from a clear, transparent, sustainable and stable horizon,” he said. “This is the condition on which it is generally based to invest in innovation and lasting alternatives. For the moment, the problem is that we receive contradictory messages, without clarity.”
The cosmetic ingredient sector wishes more “dialogue, consistency and cooperation”, as the regulations are evolving in Europe. This would guide investments and limited resources towards innovation rather than the defense of existing ingredients.
A point of view shared by Gerald Renner, Director of Technical Regulatory Affairs at Cosmetics Europefor whom: “We are an innovative industry that thrives its reformulations. The problem is that we divert our resources to forced reformulation for reasons of conformity. … We must be able to integrate these forced reformulations in the normal reformulation cycles of our industry – that is innovation.”
For him regulatory developments must therefore support innovative reformulation, which notably involves the acceptance of alternative and new security test methods.
Competitiveness and conformity
In the long term, Hans Ingels believes that the overall competitiveness of the cosmetic industry – and other European industries – is now the subject of a “horizontal policy on the commission level”.
“Competitiveness is today a major element, and it will remain so. If Europe remains too passive; if we do not defend our industry in the face of trade partners with much firmer trade policies, there will be no more industry in Europe. And this is something that we cannot afford. It is an absolute priority,” he said.
For Agustin Reyna, from the BEUC, this also involves attacking “the influx of non -compliant products” on the European market, which has become “a major problem”.
“When a person is looking for an online cosmetic product, he considers security as acquired, because we have a security culture in Europe. But some companies take the opportunity to offer extremely cheap and non -compliant products. We must therefore redouble their efforts.”
Digital product passports
According to him, digital labeling could be useful in this regard. The subject is dealt with within the framework of Consultation on the digital product passport (Digital Product Passport) [3] Launched by the European Commission this year. “We must really consider digitization as a tool. If we want to take it seriously, let’s think about how it can really help consumers make an informed choice when buying a cosmetics.”
For Hans Ingels the introduction of digital products of products could make significant positive changes for industry. He believes that “this would solve the problem of the application of regulations”, Acar the QR codes could be linked to artificial intelligence systems (AI) connected to customs. These digital passports could also allow manufacturers and brands to bring together “a lot of information” and thus resolve the translation problems and various challenges linked to the misinterpretation of the labels. Ultimately, they could even replace the cosmetic product notification portal (CPNP) of the European Commission.
“This could be a precious tool,” said the European official. “I do not believe that traditional measures will work (…) There are too many products on the market, too much international exchanges, too many products entering through electronic commerce.”
