Environmental groups accuse EU of insufficient REACH enforcement

Thirty-six not-for-profit organizations have called on EU lawmakers to proactively enforce REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) to keep their promise of supplying safe products. The environmental NGOs say that an ambitious implementation, enforcement, and modernization of the EU chemicals framework — in line with 21st-century science — is needed urgently. 

The group asserts that current enforcement against dangerous chemicals in consumer products is insufficient and emphasizes the current struggle with PFAS pollution. The open letter stresses that REACH should ensure “pollution crises such as PFAS never happen again.” 

The letter calls on European leaders to deliver the “promised” level of protection against hazardous chemicals and accelerate the identification and phase-out of the most harmful substances. However, it claims that instead of doing so, industry interests are influencing political judgment and that the EU is heading toward imposing more harm on its constituents. 

“Rather than taking swift action to strengthen chemical safety protections, the commission is advancing a deregulatory agenda driven by industry demands and framed as ‘simplification.’ In reality, this approach amounts to deregulation, with serious consequences for health, the environment, the enjoyment of human rights, and public trust, including the Chemicals Omnibus,” reads the letter.

The Omnibus proposal, if approved, will facilitate and extend the use of chemicals in cosmetics. The NGOs claim that the chemicals that would be allowed in personal care products have caused cancer or negatively affected fertility. 

“This particularly affects vulnerable groups such as children, women, and pregnant people at risk,” say the signatories. 

The organizations also explain that Omnibus slows down the development of safer beauty ingredient alternatives and “significantly undermines consumers’ and workers’ access to information on hazardous chemicals.” 

“Harmful chemicals remain in widespread use, even within our homes and workplaces.” 

REACH’s requirements

The letter names REACH as the “backbone” of the EU’s chemicals safety policy. It established value chain information requirements, improved knowledge on hazards, prioritized the regulation of the most hazardous chemicals, and strengthened authorities’ capacity to control chemical risks.The European Commission faces pressure from 36 environmental groups over chemical safety. 

The signees say that, with the CLP Regulation, REACH positioned the EU as a global frontrunner in chemicals regulation. It has been copied and adapted by other countries, according to them.

However, the organizations say 20 years of lax implementation have allowed known harmful chemicals to remain on the cosmetics market for decades, blocking efforts to develop and market safer alternatives, while hindering the transition to a circular economy.

Now, they say the EU is falling behind in chemical innovation. Other regions are advancing chemical policies that address polymers, cocktail effects — when normally safe chemicals create a toxic effect in combination — , and PFAS-free alternatives. 

“This loss of leadership does not benefit European industry, workers, or consumers. On the contrary, strong chemical regulation is a key driver of innovation and long-term EU competitiveness,” say the organizations. 

Joanna Ryglewicz, founder and CEO of Nisha Manufacturing, previously told Personal Care Insights that what keeps Europe at the forefront of cosmetics innovation is its strong regulatory oversight. 

Ryglewicz stated that Europe has become a global benchmark for clean innovation because sustainability is embedded directly into regulation, rather than being treated as an optional brand choice.

The letter details that the challenges facing the chemicals industry and the need to create sustainable solutions were identified and addressed in the European Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS), adopted in 2020. The CSS sets out a vision to strengthen protection and support innovation. The writers say it must remain the guiding framework and vision for the commission’s actions on chemical policies.

“Europe is facing a chemical pollution crisis, contributing to severe diseases and resulting in billions of Euros in health, environmental, and societal costs each year. Despite repeated political commitments to improve EU legislation, Europeans are not adequately protected. The high level of protection promised under EU law has not been delivered.” say the non-profits. 

Saving or spending

The non-profits acknowledge that the European chemical industry faces genuine challenges, including high energy costs, dependence on fossil fuels, and unfair global competition. But they say that weakening REACH and stalling its implNGOs urge for a stronger enforcement of REACH. ementation will not solve the structural problems. Instead, they suggest that regulatory uncertainty and delayed action lock Europe into toxic dependency and slow down innovation. 

“The EU must address industry challenges (energy, feedstocks, level playing field) while strengthening REACH, not dismantling it. Ambitious chemical regulation is essential to accelerate innovation, support safer alternatives, and ensure long-term competitiveness,” says the letter.

“Beyond competitiveness, adopting, implementing, and enforcing strong chemicals legislation is the only wise pathway in economic terms. The costs of chemical pollution can exceed the benefits to society of their production by manyfold.”

A focal chemical group named in the letter is PFAS. The group of over 10,000 synthetic “forever chemicals” has gained increasing attention in the personal care industry due to their persistence in the environment and human body. 

According to a study published by the European Commission, if current levels of PFAS pollution in Europe continue through 2050 without regulatory action, the cost will reach approximately €440 billion (US$518.5 billion) over that period. Tackling such PFAS releases at the source by 2040 would save €110 billion (US$129.6 billion), whereas treating polluted water alone would cost more than €1 trillion (US$1.18 trillion).

On January 1, 2026, France’s ban on PFAS in cosmetics came into effect. Now, the production, import, and sale of any product — including cosmetics — that does not replace PFAS with alternatives are prohibited in the country. 

The nation passed the ban in February 2025. It is the second European country, after Denmark, to adopt comprehensive national regulations restricting PFAS.

Last month, the US Food and Drug Administration did not reach a definitive safety determination for PFAS in cosmetic products, citing “significant uncertainty” due to data gaps. 

The awaited congressionally mandated report, under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, resulted in no federal measures to regulate PFAS in cosmetics. However, some US states have taken PFAS protections into their own hands.

Claiming corporate capture

The NGOs flag what they consider a worrying pattern in the European Commission’s recent initiatives. They say that certain industry interests are shaping political priorities at the expense of public health, fundamental rights, and environmental protection.

“High-level political forums and declarations — such as those linked to the Antwerp declaration and the Critical Chemicals Alliance — have increasingly influenced commission decisions, sidelining scientific evidence, civil-society input, and the EU’s own legal obligations,” says the letter.Environmental groups highlight PFAS pollution as evidence of the urgent need for stronger chemical regulation in Europe. 

According to the organizations, almost 70% of the meetings held by commission cabinet members last year were with industry representatives. 

“This erosion of evidence-based policymaking must be confronted. Chemical safety is a public interest issue, and decisions must be guided by science, precaution, and the EU’s Treaty obligation to ensure a high level of protection.”

In April last year, the European Commission proposed a major update to the REACH Regulation, introducing stricter rules directly impacting cosmetics companies retailing in the EU. The changes aimed to improve chemical safety but were also said to significantly increase costs and compliance work, especially for smaller businesses.

One of the biggest proposed changes was that REACH substance registrations would be valid for only 10 years. Currently, once a substance is registered, the approval lasts indefinitely.

Additionally, the European Chemicals Agency would be allotted greater power to cancel registrations if the required information in their submitted dossiers is missing or not fully updated. Companies will then lose their registration status, their incurred expenses will not be reimbursed, and they must start the process over.