Shampoos, lipsticks and other everyday cosmetics could remain on the EU market containing controversial ‘forever chemicals’ for years under proposed simplification rules. Lawmakers split over how far Europe should go in easing restrictions on substances linked to cancer and other serious health risks in the name of cutting red tape and improving competitiveness.
The European chemicals sector includes around 29,000 companies and employs 1.2 million people. It supports another estimated 19 million jobs across supply chains. According to the European Commission, measures to reduce compliance costs and administrative burden could save the industry at least €363 million per year.
Critics argue the real stakes are not administrative savings — but what those rules mean for chemicals in everyday products like cosmetics. The European Parliament’s environment and internal market committees adopted their position on the Commission’s ‘Chemicals Omnibus’ package in a joint vote on Wednesday.
If you ask citizens whether they are willing to apply to their skin a product that could give them cancer, the answer will always be no. — MEP Yvan Verougstraete (Renew/BEL)
“If you ask citizens whether they are willing to apply to their skin a product that could give them cancer, the answer will always be no,” MEP Yvan Verougstraete (Renew/BEL), one of the most vocal critics of the proposal. “So why should we accept what no one wants? To please lobbies? That would make no sense.” He argued that, under the banner of simplification, some proposals risk undermining core consumer protections.
PFAS at the heart of the debate
The discussion is particularly sensitive when it comes to PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). This is a group of so-called ‘forever chemicals’. They are widely used for their technical properties but increasingly linked to environmental persistence and potential health risks.
“PFAS are at the heart of growing health concerns because of their persistence in the environment and their potential impact on health,” MEP Verougstraete said.
You might be interested
He warned against what he described as a “form of political schizophrenia”. “We cannot, on the one hand, warn about the risks linked to ‘forever chemicals’. And on the other, open the door to their presence in products that we apply directly to the skin.”
Parliament pushes back, but not entirely
The Chemicals Omnibus aims to simplify EU rules on classification, labelling and the use of chemicals in products including cosmetics. But it has raised concerns among lawmakers and public health groups. They fear that simplification could come at the expense of consumer protection.
MEPs did roll back some of the Commission’s most controversial elements. But they stopped short of a full tightening of the rules. Most notably, MEPs removed a provision that would have allowed certain carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances to remain in cosmetics depending on how exposure occurs.
This means that substances deemed harmful through inhalation or ingestion could still be used in products applied to the skin. The deletion of this ‘exposure-based’ approach was widely demanded by public health organisations.
Differentiated system
However, the disagreement is not only political, but also technical. Lawmakers diverge on how long harmful substances can remain in products during phase-out periods. Under the Commission’s proposal, products containing newly banned substances could continue to be placed on the market for up to 12 months. They could remain available for a further 24 months.
MEPs replaced this with a more differentiated system. If no exemption is requested, products can be placed on the market for six months and remain available for a further 15 months. Where an exemption request is rejected on safety grounds, timelines are shortened further. These products are allowed on the market for just three months and sold for up to 12 months.
But in cases where an exemption is rejected because safer alternatives are considered available, transition periods are significantly extended. Products can continue to be placed on the market for up to 24 months and remain available for as long as 48 months.
In parallel, lawmakers tightened the conditions that define a ‘suitable alternative’ for a substance. They give more weight to whether safer alternatives are realistically usable and affordable for industry. According to critics, this could slow down substitution with safer chemicals.
This layered system has become one of the most controversial parts of the proposal. In practice, this creates a two-speed system: faster removal in some cases, but prolonged exposure in others. Substances linked to cancer or reproductive harm could remain in everyday products for up to four years.
Labelling and transparency at risk
MEP Verougstraete warned that some amendments could weaken transparency by making ingredient information less accessible or harder to interpret. “Reducing the readability of labels or complicating access to information deprives consumers of ability to make informed choices,” he said.
Europe can deliver simpler, smarter and more effective regulation without compromising safety. Human health is non-negotiable. — Dimitris Tsiodras (EPP/GRC)
Rapporteurs behind the file defended the outcome, arguing it maintains the balance between simplification and safety. “Europe can deliver simpler, smarter and more effective regulation without compromising safety. Human health is non-negotiable,” Dimitris Tsiodras (EPP/GRC) said after the vote. “This compromise ensures a science-based approach, legal clarity and realistic timelines, fully protecting consumers while strengthening innovation, jobs and Europe’s competitiveness.”
Also according to Piotr Müller (ECR/POL), this is a step in the right direction. “The most important achievement is that we are introducing real simplifications for European business and innovation. And we’re doing this while maintaining high safety standards. I hope the more far-reaching solutions we have proposed will be included in the next review,” he added.
Health groups echo concerns
Ahead of the vote, the Association of European Cancer Leagues called for stronger protections against carcinogens. The association argued that efforts to reduce exposure should be reinforced rather than weakened.
The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) said the outcome of the vote still risks leaving consumers exposed to harmful chemicals for longer than necessary. “This omnibus exercise has clearly shown that so-called simplification does not deliver more protection for people’s health,” said HEAL executive director Genon K. Jensen.
The reform is part of a broader push by the Commission to simplify EU legislation and reduce administrative burden, in line with its competitiveness agenda. This reflects wider efforts to support industry, including those outlined in the report on EU competitiveness by former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi.
A broader EU dilemma
Against this backdrop, political pressure is intensifying on negotiators. MEP Verougstraete urged colleagues not to give in to pressure. “Europe must remain a space of trust,” he said. “That requires clear, readable and protective rules, not compromises that put health on the line.”
As negotiations continue, the outcome will determine whether the EU strengthens its approach to hazardous chemicals, or accepts a compromise that allows them to persist in everyday products. Parliament is scheduled to adopt its mandate for negotiations with EU member states during the April plenary session.
