Cosmetics Europe takes legal action against EU’s wastewater treatment rules

Cosmetics Europe and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) have filed legal action against the EU General Court to oppose the revised Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive (UWWTD). They argue that it is based on flawed data, violates the EU treaties’ key principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, and places an unfair financial burden on the two singled-out sectors.

The EU law aims to reduce water pollution from micropollutants and requires the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries to cover 80% of the costs of upgrading wastewater treatment plants across Europe. However, Cosmetics Europe and the EFPIA claim that the EU’s cost assessment disproportionately and unfairly targets their industries. At the same time, other sectors that contribute to water pollution — such as agriculture, cleaning products, and industrial chemicals — are not required to pay.

John Chave, director-general at Cosmetics Europe, argues: “It is becoming apparent that the total cost of water treatment upgrades was woefully underestimated. The European Commission (EC) estimated the cost at €1.2 billion (US$ 1.3 billion) per year for the whole EU, but as individual countries begin to calculate their national costs, some are finding that the actual cost is at least four times higher — with even higher estimates likely to emerge.”

Chave asserts that while the cosmetics industry has no objection to paying its fair share in line with its ethos of maintaining clean water in Europe, it strongly objects to the impact assessment’s significant miscalculations, policymakers’ hesitancy to reassess, and the fact that “other sectors pay nothing.”

Pollution from residues of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and other chemical products can be harmful to aquatic ecosystems.The Urban Wastewater Treatment Directive

The UWWTD was introduced last December to improve water quality across Europe. Pollution from micropollutants, which include residues from cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and other chemical products, can be harmful to aquatic ecosystems and human health.

Regulators argue that upgrading wastewater treatment facilities is necessary to remove these contaminants before they enter rivers and oceans.

The directive follows the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) model to fund these upgrades. However, the final version of the directive only applies EPR to cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, leaving out other sectors that also contribute micropollutants.

This decision has led to strong opposition from the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries who argue that the law is both unfair and ineffective at addressing the full scope of water pollution.

The EU’s reasoning for targeting these two industries is that their products are directly washed off or excreted, making them more traceable in wastewater. However, critics argue that this approach oversimplifies the problem and ignores the other significant contributors to micropollution.

A mysterious jump in estimatesRegulators argue that upgrading wastewater treatment facilities is necessary to remove contaminants before they enter rivers and oceans.

Another point of conflict in the dispute is the EU’s data on micropollution contributions. Initially, the EC’s in-house researchers estimated that the cosmetics sector was responsible for a mere 1% of micropollutants in wastewater.

However, in a later impact assessment, this figure changed to 26% — an increase that many industry players argue has no clear justification.

Industry groups argue that this lack of transparency weakens the directive’s scientific credibility. Cosmetics Europe has demanded that the EU release its full methodology, but so far, this information has not been made publicly available.

The EFPIA represents the pharmaceutical industry and has argued that medicines are an essential part of public health. While pharmaceutical residue does end up in wastewater, the organization claims holding drug manufacturers solely responsible for treatment costs is a complex ethical issue.

They argue patients cannot control how their bodies process and excrete medications, making it questionable whether pharmaceutical companies should bear the cost of wastewater treatment.

EC in-house researchers estimated that the cosmetics sector was responsible for 26% of micropollutants in wastewater.Broader economic risks

Cosmetics Europe anticipates that the financial impact of the law will be a concern for SMEs in the cosmetics industry. While large multinational corporations may be able to carry the weight of additional costs, smaller businesses could struggle to comply with added financial obligations.

The group expresses frustration with the EC’s lack of response to complaints, highlighting that if the directive is not revised, some SMEs could be forced out of business.

However, beyond local business, global competition also stands to be affected. If Europe enforces stricter environmental regulations, companies outside the EU (for example, in the US and China) will not be subjected to the same financial burdens, which could put European beauty and pharmaceutical firms at a competitive disadvantage in international markets.

As health-driven cosmetic innovation surges and pharma-cosmetics gain momentum, creating a regulatory landscape that fosters cooperation and collaboration between these industries is essential.