The European beauty industry says the European Commission’s EU Chemicals Industry Action Plan will help keep industry innovative and, in fact, improve safety standards not minimise them.
On July 8, 2025, the European Commission presented its European Chemicals Industry Action Plan – a wide-reaching proposal designed to strengthen competitiveness and modernise the sector by addressing “high energy costs, unfair global competition, and weak demand while promoting investment in innovation and sustainability”.
Within the plan, a simplification package – the 6th Omnibus for the Chemicals Industry – aimed to streamline and simplify key EU chemicals legislation: on the classification and labelling of hazardous chemicals; across EU cosmetic regulations; and on the registration of fertilising products. These measures would save industry at least EUR 363 million annually, according to the Commission.
Another proposal within the plan – the ECHA Basic Regulation – aimed to improve governance and financial stability of the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) via an independent legal framework.
The Action Plan would now go through a co-decision process under the EU’s Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP), involving both the European Parliament and Council as co-legislators. This process typically took between 12-18 months. Any final agreed regulatory changes, therefore, could be published and adopted within two years – from mid-to-late 2026 onwards.
The impact on beauty
For EU beauty businesses, reliant on a vast number of chemicals for formulations and packaging, these proposals held important implications.
In a joint press statement, leading European beauty trade associations welcomed the Action Plan, defining it “a step in the right direction” and describing the Omnibus within the plan as “balanced”.
Cosmetics Europe, The International Fragrance Association (IFRA), The European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients (EFfCI), The International Natural and Organic Cosmetics Association (NATRUE), The European Federation of Essential Oils (EFEO), The International Federation of Essential Oils and Aroma Trades (IFEAT), and SMEunited said: “We believe it offers a proportionate and science-based approach that maintains the strong emphasis on consumer safety.”
European Consumer Organisation BEUC disagreed, suggesting the proposals could “greatly increase consumer exposure to dangerous chemicals and increase health risks”. BEUC said the Action Plan went against consumer concerns and clashed with the Commission’s wider commitment to maintain high protection standards.
“Targeted changes”
The European Commission said the overall goal was to “reduce burdens, improve clarity, and support innovation without compromising safety”.
The Omnibus within the Action Plan, for example, featured a range of “targeted changes”, the Commission said, such as transitional periods for adaptation and the promotion of digital documentation to simplify hazardous chemical labelling rules and align information requirements between the EU Cosmetic Products Regulation (CPR) and REACH Regulation for chemicals.
For chemical labelling, proposed changes included options of more flexible and easy-to-read designs, more digital labelling, and easing of advertising rules to reduce costs and complexity. For cosmetics, amendments aimed to clarify procedural timelines and introduce clear timelines for exemptions from substance bans, including those related to classified CMRs [1]. There was also guidance on use of natural complex substances.
The new ECHA Basic Regulation then aimed to speed up delivery of scientific opinions, providing industry quicker clarity on substance regulations, the Commission said.
“Simplification means clarity, not reduced safety”
John Chave, director-general of Cosmetics Europe, told Premium Beauty News these proposals certainly “go some way” in addressing existing blockages and overly complex processes – “providing more legal certainty and predictability, with safety as a priority”.
“…We very much hope that when the Omnibus is considered in the adoption process, stakeholders see it for what it is – a common-sense improvement in the derogation process which has no consequences for safety, but which will indeed help our flagship European industry remain competitive,” Chave said.
The director-general added that European consumer organisations against these proposals were “spreading unjustified alarm”. “…The proposals reduce hurdles for the industry in the derogation process, but don’t remove them – CMR substances are still treated as a special case within the regulatory framework. Consumers should be reassured that no-one is taking chances with safety.”
Alexander Mohr, president of IFRA, agreed: “Simplification means clarity, not reduced safety. Clearer rules build consumer confidence by making it easier for people to understand and trust the safety assessments behind cosmetic products. Transparent, science-based regulations ultimately reinforce consumer trust.”
The proposals do not lower safety standards, Mohr said, rather strengthened them by clarifying cosmetic ingredients be assessed based on actual risk, “not just theoretical hazard”. Europe’s fragrance industry, he said, was “fully committed” to supporting clear, scientifically robust regulations and remained engaged with policymakers and stakeholders to ensure these proposals supported both consumer safety and continued industry innovation.
“Alignment of regulation with actual risk”
Dr Mark Smith, director-general at NATRUE, said the proposals were particularly welcome amongst the natural and organics sector for the clarity they provided on natural complex substances.
Current crossover between the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP) and Cosmetic Products Regulation (CPR), Smith said, meant some natural extracts could be automatically banned based solely on the hazard classification of a constituent. “The proposal’s alignment of regulation with actual risk, under conditions of intended cosmetics use, is important to acknowledge – otherwise natural ingredients, even those allowed in food, which are safe for cosmetics, may be removed from the market as an unintended consequence of automatic bans.”
Smith said proposals helped safeguard use of a “wide palette of plant extracts” key to industry innovation and future product development.
Industry signatories said the Action Plan reinforced the central role of safety in EU legislation whilst making a positive move towards making competitiveness ambitions “more tangible” for industry.
