European beauty braces for “regulatory tsunami,” says Cosmetics Europe

Waves of regulatory change will hit Europe's beauty sector over the next two years as the European Commission updates and simplifies processes to sharpen competition, and industry is calling for clarity and certainty as change unfolds.

This year across Europe, the beauty industry must brace for regulatory change. The European Commission is currently evaluating the existing framework of the EU Cosmetic Products Regulation [1] and will communicate findings at the end of 2026, potentially leading to updates. A revision of the EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals [REACH] Regulation [2] is also underway, set to be finalised by the end of this year.

Addressing attendees at the Cosmetics Europe Annual Conference (CEAC) in Brussels, Belgium, last month, John Chave, director-general at Cosmetics Europe, described what's to come as a "regulatory tsunami."

So, as industry awaits details of this new regulatory era, what exactly is important for brands and manufacturers? And what areas deserve a closer look?

Simplification of "certain elements"

Hans Ingels, head of unit for DG GROW at the European Commission, said the evaluation of the EU Cosmetic Products Regulation is an important one, to ensure the system put in place almost 20 years ago is still relevant today. Speaking during a panel session in Brussels, Ingels said: "The world is changing. Cosmetics is changing. So, therefore, we need to see whether the current cosmetics regulation meets the standards of innovation and whether it's coherent and effective."

"...We want to create a single market for cosmetics, so there's a single rule instead of 27. We believe this is in the interest of competitiveness of the European cosmetics industry," he added.

In the short-term, the European Commission is working on "the simplification of certain elements" of the regulation, he said, such as reporting requirements, notification processes and potential industry exemptions. One example is the closer look at recent updates to Article 15 of the EU Cosmetic Products Regulation around banned CMRs – substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. The ban on CMRs in cosmetics will remain, Ingels said, but the European Commission is currently looking into whether adaptation timelines should be extended and whether exemptions for certain parts of industry, notably SMEs, should be made. "Nowadays, for most companies, six months to adapt is way too short. We all know you can't reformulate a product in a few months."

Ingels said the Commission is also heavily focused on finalising its revision of REACH, working around three elements: consumer protection, the single market and competitiveness.

Agustin Reyna, director-general at the European Consumer Organisation BEUC, said simplification of certain aspects and processes within REACH and the EU Cosmetic Products Regulation would certainly be positive for industry and consumers alike.

"When we look at the chemical framework–under REACH and the Cosmetics Regulation–there is an opportunity to make things simpler and faster, both on the side of firms and the authorities," Reyna said. "We cannot have chemicals being scrutinised for years and years and years. We need to have a much faster reaction, so that industry can get certainty."

"The clarity is not there"

Andrea Maltagliati, secretary-general at the European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI), agreed, outlining the need for more clarity around animal testing – ideally that it be removed entirely – and a clearer direction on nano particle testing and the positive lists of colourants, preservatives and UV filters allowed on the market.

Maltagliati said that whilst the EU Cosmetic Products Regulation can be considered a "lighthouse" for cosmetic regulations worldwide, because it was "focused, structured and understandable", there remain inconsistencies from market to market across Europe and also between regulations. For cosmetic ingredient manufacturers, in particular–working under REACH at the chemicals stage and under the Cosmetic Products Regulation at formulation stage–there are currently too many "inbetween" gaps, he said.

"Regarding what the industry needs in order to invest in innovation, research and development for cosmetic ingredients, the horizon should be clear, transparent, long and stable," Maltagliati said. "This is the condition, normally, that industry relies on to invest and put money into innovation and sustainable alternatives. At the moment, the problem is we're receiving mixed messages, so the clarity is not there."

Moving forward, the cosmetic ingredients sector wants "dialogue, consistency and cooperation" as regulations evolve across Europe, he said, as this will help ensure investments and limited resources are used for innovation versus defending existing ingredients.

Gerald Renner, director of technical regulatory affairs at Cosmetics Europe, confirmed. "We are an innovative industry; we thrive on reformulations. The problem is, we are diverting our resources into forced reformulation because of compliance," Renner said. "...We need to be able to reintegrate this forced reformulation into the normal reformulation cycles of our industry – that is innovation."

Regulatory changes, therefore, need to support innovative reformulation, he said, and that means accepting alternative and new safety testing methods, for example.

Competitiveness and compliance

Longer-term, Ingels said overall competitiveness of the cosmetics industry – and other European industries – is now a "horizontal policy across the entire Commission".

"...Competitiveness is one of the major elements now, and this will remain. Because if we are, as Europe, too passive; if we're not defending our industry against trading partners that have much more assertive trade policies, there will be no industry left in Europe. And this is something we cannot afford. This is very, very high on the agenda," he said.

Reyna added that it will also be critical to address the "influx of non-compliant products" on the European market, which has become "a huge problem".

"When someone goes online to look for a certain cosmetic, they take safety for granted because we have a culture of safety in Europe. But there are companies taking advantage, shipping extremely cheap products which are non-compliant. So, we need to do much more here."

Digital product passports

Digital labelling is one option that could help here, he said, and it is an area being explored under the European Commission's Digital Product Passport consultation [3], launched this year. "We really need to think about digitalisation as a tool. If we really want to be serious about digitalisation, let's think about how this can actually help people make a meaningful choice when buying a cosmetic product," Reyna said.

Ingels said the introduction of digital product passports could bring about significant positive change for industry. "First of all, it would solve the enforcement problem," he explained, because QR codes could be linked to Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems connected to customs. These digital passports could also enable manufacturers and brands to condense a "lot of information" onto the package, solving cross-border language issues and various challenges around misinterpretation of labels. Ultimately, he said they could even end up replacing the European Commission's cosmetic products notification portal (CPNP).

"It could be an invaluable tool," Ingels said. "I do not believe that the old-fashioned enforcements are going to function (…) There are too many products on the market, too much international trade, too much coming in through e-commerce."

From : Premium Beauty