The European Parliament and the Council are shaping their positions on the Chemicals Omnibus simplification proposal published by the Commission on 8 July 2025.
Discussions on the text are expected to be heated, with an important involvement of civil society groups.
Certain political groups and Member States have notably been very vocal at the local level against the proposed change of approach on the use of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (‘CMR’) substances in the composition of cosmetic products.
The Council has since issued its Negotiation mandate, which firmly limits the proposed simplification of the Cosmetics Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1223/2009 on cosmetic products), with more limited but noticeable adjustments to the CLP amendments proposed.
Reports from the press on the European Parliament’s side suggest a more reserved approach.
The issuance of the Council’s position follows the agreement between the co-legislators on the Commission’s Stop-the-Clock proposal postponing the application of certain elements of the CLP until 1 January 2028.
The Council’s position: a halt to the Commission’s proposed approach
The Council’s Negotiation mandate maintains the Commission’s proposal to promote digital labelling, although reinstating certain mandatory elements of information.
It adopts a much more restrictive view regarding proposed changes to the Cosmetics Regulation.
The Commission’s text aimed to bring about pragmatism in relation to the regulation of the presence of CMR substances in cosmetic products, by exempting from the immediate ban substances that are classified solely in the context of exposure by inhalation or ingestion (as opposed to dermal contact), as well as natural complex substances having a CMR component but not classified as CMR themselves.
While this choice could seem rather technical, vocal oppositions have been formed against the proposal in the public opinion.
This could explain the Council’s choice to entirely redact the proposed amendment, thus maintaining the ban on the presence of CMRs in cosmetic products in its current state.
The mandate further reintroduces the mandatory notification obligation for nanomaterials in cosmetic products, instead only alleviating time constraints by allowing companies to issue it “prior to” placing on the market instead of six months prior.
The European Parliament’s position: a reintroduction of pragmatism
Reports from the press suggest that the European Parliament on the other hand intends to represent a middle-ground between the Commission’s and the Council’s position on the topic of CMRs.
Reportedly, the Parliament’s position presented by the EPP and the ECR co-rapporteurs would maintain the ban on the use of CMRs in cosmetics, but would make it easier for companies to seek exemptions for CMRs of category 1 (known or presumed CMR). This entails that substances classified as CMR 1 via the oral or inhalation route of exposure could benefit from a derogation on the basis of a risk assessment (i.e. by obtaining a positive safety opinion from the SCCS), without need to demonstrate that no safer alternative exists.
What is next?
While the Negotiation mandate constitutes the Council’s position for now, it may well evolve in the future as trilogue negotiations progress. The reluctance of the Danish Presidency towards the proposal has reportedly had an important influence on the shaping of the mandate. One can thus wonder the extent to which the new Cyprus Presidency will maintain such a strong stance.
The draft report issued by the co-rapporteurs will be discussed by MEPs from the ITRE and ENVI Committees during the last week of January. MEPs will then have until 3 February to submit their amendments, with a vote in Committee scheduled on 17 March.
The overall positioning of the institution on the file remains highly uncertain, in a context where a new majority composed of the EPP and far right groups has risen in other simplification files (i.e. Omnibus I Sustainability). National specificities may also play great roles.
We are thus far from reaching the end of the story, as positions may still flip from one side to the other.