Toxic trade-off? EU proposal may ease carcinogen restrictions for cosmetics

The European Commission is preparing to present an updated proposal on the Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) regulation that would make it easier for substances classified as carcinogens to be used in cosmetic formulations.

The “simplification” draft is part of a strategy to improve competitiveness in the EU personal care industry via a series of deregulatory moves, one of which eases controls on harmful chemicals linked to cancer.

Experts advocate for a hazard-based system, which bans chemicals based on their dangerous properties, while the draft takes a risk-based approach that allows the chemicals if exposure is considered low enough to be safe. By choosing the latter, the EU avoids the time and resource demands of the more precautionary hazard-based system — potentially at the expense of public and environmental health.

Currently, carcinogenic ingredients are generally banned from use in cosmetics under EU law unless manufacturers can prove there are no safer alternatives. 

The proposed changes would permit certain carcinogens to remain in products if there is no assumed harm when used as intended. For example, chemicals known to be dangerous when inhaled will be permitted in products designed for topical use.

“Consumers will be horrified to learn that cosmetics and personal care products will contain even more known carcinogens than at present,” says Theresa Kjell, head of policy at chemicals watchdog ChemSec. 

“In this draft proposal we see what simplification really means — making it simpler to use toxic chemicals in personal care products. It takes no account of the fact that cancer-causing substances considered safe when applied to the skin, for example, can be accidentally inhaled or ingested and will end up in the water supply after washing or in the environment via waste disposal.”

The European Commission maintains that relaxing cosmetic chemical rules could help smaller companies compete.Loopholes for looser rules

Under its current system, the EU restricts or bans substances solely based on their inherent danger. The new proposal would grant exemptions on dangerous substances according to specific exposure routes and use conditions.

This shift means that the same chemical could be classified as hazardous in some contexts but acceptable in others — a move critics say opens the door to regulatory loopholes.

An internal memo obtained by ChemSec indicates that personal care ingredients are increasingly classified as carcinogenic, putting pressure on regulators and manufacturers alike.

The group maintains that the proposed system underestimates real-world exposure risks. 

While products applied to the skin can still be accidentally inhaled or ingested, another layer of complexity stems from the fact that harmful ingredients in topical products will be washed into the environment, making long-term effects more complicated to track.

Opponents also warn that consumers are unlikely to understand the technical distinctions between “hazard” and “risk,” making it difficult to make informed decisions.

The proposed shift toward a risk-based approach stands in contrast to recent regulatory efforts like the Omnibus Act VIII, which banned or restricted dozens of hazardous cosmetic ingredients based on their hazard profiles.

The contrast between tightening restrictions in one regulation and loosening them in another highlights growing tensions within EU chemicals policy — between safeguarding public health and reducing regulatory burdens to boost competitiveness.

Researchers and environmental groups are raising concerns over chemical safety in everyday beauty products.Public health vs financial gain

The move comes as the personal care industry increasingly pushes for more flexibility in chemical regulation, arguing that the hazard-based approach is overly restrictive and hampers innovation. A risk-based approach, they say, allows for more straightforward, science-driven decisions.

However, public health advocates maintain that this would create an unnecessarily complex landscape for consumers, ultimately prioritizing financial gain and economic concerns over public safety.

The Commission’s planned overhaul is intended to streamline market access, particularly for smaller manufacturers.

Consumer reactions to the proposal remain to be seen, but advocacy organizations are already warning that the draft legislation could erode trust in product safety standards.

These concerns mirror broader unease surrounding the EU’s upcoming REACH reform, with environmental groups warning that both signal a shift toward weaker chemical safety rules driven by industry pressure and regulatory convenience.

With cosmetics and personal care products used daily by millions across the EU, the question of how much risk is acceptable in pursuit of competitiveness will likely remain a flashpoint in the months ahead.