The European Parliament’s ENVI Committee adopted its report in the Chemicals Omnibus file on 15 April.

The Chemicals Omnibus simplification proposal was published by the Commission on 8 July 2025.

Discussions on the text are heated with the attention centered around the proposed amendments to the Cosmetics Regulation (Regulation (EU) 1223/2009 on cosmetic products).

The Council’s Negotiation mandate adopted at the end of 2025 shows a particular reluctance towards the Commission’s proposal (see our previous blog post) and a firm rejection towards any facilitation of the use in cosmetics of certain substances that have suspected or identified hazardous properties as carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances (‘CMRs’), distinguishing between routes of exposure.

A middle ground between the current wording of the Cosmetics Regulation and the Commission’s proposal

The adopted compromise text was put forward by the EPP, the ECR, Renew and S&D, in a revival of the traditional central coalition.

MEPs from the ENVI Committee have sided with the Council, not supporting the Commission’s ambitious, and scientifically sound, initial proposal.

The text rather highlights that derogations on the use of CMR 1A or 1B substances should remain only exceptional, while no such limitation is stated in the current text of the Cosmetics Regulation. The amendment also foresees that the Commission retains a margin of appreciation when deciding whether to grant the derogation even when the conditions for such a derogation are met. This wording is closer (although more precise) to the current one of the Cosmetics Regulation.

The position on the other hand, in line with the Council’s approach, reverts to a full and automatic ban on all CMRs, entirely rejecting the Commission’s intention to integrate adaptations depending on the route of exposure concerned by the classification (i.e. with a simplified use of substances that are classified as CMR by the oral and inhalation routes). The future of the Commission’s attempt at pragmatism seems in this sense largely compromised.

Limited flexibilities are nonetheless maintained for the use of CMRs, including an extra 12 months granted to companies to use those substances where a derogation has been requested.

The Committee’s proposed amendments also address the case of Natural Complex Substances, i.e. substances extracted from plants or plant parts that are not chemically modified and which contain more than one constituent amongst which at least one is classified as CMR. While the Commission’s proposal introduces a new regime for NCS, the amendments maintain the essence of such a proposal while strengthening the conditions for such derogations notably in relation to the involvement of the SCCS.

Under the proposed amendment, the Commission would have the obligation to ask for an opinion of the SCCS without delay while this choice was left to the discretion of the institution initially. The SCCS in such case would have 12 months to deliver an opinion, which can be extended by 6 months.

The compromise text also substantially amends the Commission’s proposal to grant delays for the placing on the market of cosmetics containing CMRs in the absence of derogations:

  • Where no derogation request is submitted, placing on the market can occur within 6 months (subsequent making available on the market can continue until 15 months);
  • Where a derogation request was submitted but got rejected, placing on the market can occur within 3 months (making available on the market can continue until 12 months);
  • Where a derogation was submitted but got rejected on account of the existence of alternatives, placing on the market can occur within 24 months (making available on the market can continue until 48 months).

The adopted amendments finally modify the conditions of the identification of available alternatives, bringing further precision to the terms proposed by the Commission.

On nanomaterials, the compromise text reintroduces the notification obligation that the Commission intended to withdraw, as was the case of the Council.

Next steps

The two institutions’ positions show similar reluctances towards the Commission’s proposal particularly regarding CMRs. The file in this sense retains its exceptionality, being the only instance so far where the Member States and the main European Parliament groups have pushed strongly against proposed simplifications.

As a next step, the report will be subject to a vote in Plenary on 29 April. Should the text be adopted, it will constitute the European Parliament’s position in view of the organization of trilogue negotiations (e.g. exchanges with the Council and the Commission) in the next months.