IFRA flags final opportunity to fix Omnibus VI before EU Parliament steps in

The Omnibus VI chemicals package is progressing into the European Parliament and toward trilogue negotiations. Cosmetic industry groups say the legislative process has reached a “decisive stage” for resolving long-standing concerns about safety, innovation, and competitiveness. This is the last stage where major amendments are still possible.

The European Commission published its Omnibus VI proposal in July 2025 to streamline regulations for chemicals, cosmetics, and fertilizers. Subsequently, the EU Council adopted its position last month, backing strict controls on hazardous substances and tight timelines for reformulating cosmetic products.

However, the council’s position sparked backlash, as industry associations and coalitions warned that the modifications risk disrupting supply chains, discouraging investment in Europe, and limiting consumer access to trusted products.

Additionally, hazard-based risk assessments may require reformulations through a derogation process that has been touted as overly complicated and could unnecessarily waste resources.

Members of the personal care industry advocate for a risk-based system, but the EU is increasingly moving toward a hazard-based alternative.

The International Fragrance Association (IFRA) tells Personal Care Insights that abrupt product recalls, the current assessment of alternative ingredients, and misaligned timelines undermine the proposal’s initial purpose of simplification.

“Fragrance and cosmetic products are used by hundreds of millions of people every day, and consumers expect safety, quality, and confidence. They also expect Europe to protect what they value: trusted products and the innovative and creative companies behind them,” says Aurélie Perrichet, IFRA’s director for Europe.

“To meet these expectations, companies need fair and balanced rules. The Omnibus gives the European Parliament a real chance to deliver this.”

Industry groups warn that unworkable rules and short timelines could disrupt cosmetic and fragrance supply chains.Compliance contradicts circularity?

The first risk IFRA identifies if regulatory timelines and substitution requirements are not aligned with scientific and industrial realities, is a potential for abrupt product recalls. 

The EU Council’s position sets a deadline of January 1, 2028, for many labeling rules. The date is already a delay from the previously proposed timeline of July 1, 2026, for some elements and January 1, 2027, for others.

However, beauty industry associations have urged for longer transition periods of three to five years to avoid wasting resources when reformulating products to comply with the new regulations. 

“Sudden withdrawals from the market would lead to the destruction of finished goods and raw materials, directly contradicting the objectives of the circular economy,” an IFRA spokesperson tells us.

“This includes the waste of raw materials and even labels that can no longer be used, even when the product itself remains safe and compliant.”

Speaking on the council’s position timeline, an EU spokesperson previously told Personal Care Insights that the compliance timeframe should be manageable for the cosmetics industry, as its technological advancements offer reformulation resilience.

“Today’s chemical industry has a serious capacity to dispose of ‘waste’ without causing pollution, turning it into energy, for example. There are innovative technologies in use for that.”

IFRA maintains, however, that the cosmetics industry’s “innovative technologies” should be spent on improving its product offerings rather than on reformulations it considers unnecessary.

“Instead of investing in new, consumer-facing innovations, companies will be forced to redirect even more resources toward remaking products that have been recalled,” the IFRA spokesperson explains. 

“This weakens Europe’s position as a global center for fragrance creation and shifts innovation effort away from growth, sustainability, and consumer benefit.”

The European Parliament will now prepare its position ahead of a vote that will shape the final Omnibus VI text.Substituting substances

The proposed process cosmetics companies must follow to seek an exemption for using ingredients classified as hazardous is overly complex, and does not function as the commission initially intended, IFRA says.

Currently, the council’s position restricts or bans ingredients based on their hazardous properties, even when real-world exposure risks are low or not fully established.

If a substance is classified as hazardous due to specific properties, the industry would be required to submit a dossier that complies with a list of criteria to continue using the ingredient in cosmetics. One criterion is demonstrating that no suitable alternative ingredient exists.

However, IFRA argues that the set definition for a “suitable alternative” is so vague that it would be close to impossible to prove there is none.

“The current assessment of alternatives does not function as intended. If, post-reform, the system does not allow industry to demonstrate that a suitable alternative is both technically feasible and safe, then substitution will remain impossible to prove by design,” the spokesperson says. 

“This would reinforce a regulatory dead end, in which reformulation is mandated even when no viable alternative exists. The result is forced reformulation rather than risk-based decision-making.”

The European Parliament is expected to adopt its position in the coming months, after which the proposal will move to trilogue negotiations. The parliament, council, and commission must agree on a final text before it becomes EU law. 

“The commission has put forward a much-needed, science-based proposal that fixes a process that has never worked, keeps safety at the core of the system, and sets timelines that reflect real scientific and industrial realities,” says Perrichet.

“The task for members of the European Parliament now is to preserve this balance by ensuring that rules remain firmly grounded in science and workable in practice.”