Dies ist eine HTML Version eines Anhanges der Informationsfreiheitsanfrage 'DG GROW + Lobbying on endocrine-disrupting chemicals'.


 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs 
 
Consumer, Environmental and Health Technologies 
  
 Health Technology and Cosmetics 
Brussels,  
 
Meeting DG GROW/D4 and Cosmetics Europe 
 
27 SEPTEMBER 2017 
Participants:  
GROW D4: Salvatore D'Acunto (SDA), Petra Leroy Čadová (PLC), Ewa Paszkowska-Oudin 
(EPO), Roman Mokry (RM), Izabela Taborska (IT), Jean-Francois Roche (JFR) 
Cosmetics Europe (CE): John Chave, Diane Watson, Gerald Renner, Emma Trogen 
 
Agenda: 
1.  Microplastics 
  CE informed that only 1 representative was allowed to attend the Plastics Strategy 
Conference organised on 26/09 from their organisation. They will have a call on 29/09 
with a member of Vice-President Timmermans' cabinet and are also in regular contact 
with DG GROW's and ENV's respective chemicals units.  
  The evolution and increasing scope of the microplastics debate to include leave-on 
cosmetic products is worrying for the cosmetics sector. CE reiterated their position of 
favouring a REACH restriction (a proportionate measure) over a stand-alone 
regulation. They expressed interest to show more commitment from industry and 
asked if any more information could be put forward.  
  SDA explained that continued proof of progress could not cause any harm.  
 
2.  Omnibus act on CMR 
  CE confirmed that it is in favour of a draft COM Omnibus act on CMRs which is 
necessary to bring clarity and legal certainty for operators. 
  The examination of the long list of CMR substances covered by the proposal is 
still on-going and comments will be sent soon. 
  However there is a need for transition periods for D4, TPO, furfural and 
Formaldehyde which are still currently used, in particular by some SMEs and 3rd 
country operators. 
  SDA explained that granting transition periods for CMRs, in addition to the 18 
months provided by the annual adaptations of the CLP Regulation, would remain 
exceptional and need to be justified by specific technical constraints (lack of 
availability of preservatives, reformulation of fragrances). 
 
3.  CMR exposure route re CLP  (issue with Titanium Dioxide) 
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 
e-mail: xxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx 

  CE explained their view that the route of exposure should be taken into account when 
applying the CMR ban in cosmetics. CE explained that a parallel could be made with 
the REACH Regulation guidance, according to which an authorisation was made only 
for one exposure route. 
  CE reminded that they had sent a legal assessment on the subject which has been 
recently updated with comparisons to other legislations. 
 
4.  Lisbonisation  
  CE asked for an update on the PRAC alignment to the Lisbon Treaty. 
  SDA and IT gave an update on the latest developments (ENVI draft opinion). 
  Main changes of the ENVI committee were explained (delegated acts in place of 
PRAC, 5-year empowerment for delegated acts). 
  IT highlighted that other committees still have to give their opinions.  
 
5.  Endocrine Disruptors (EDs) 
  CE referred to the motion against the plant protection products regulation on EDs 
proposed by some MEPs in the ENVI committee. 
  CE enquired about the strategy on EDs announced by COM in July 2017 and about the 
scenarios envisaged if the plant protection products regulation is opposed. SDA 
explained that for the moment these points are still under discussion. 
  CE welcomed the presentations made by former SCCS members at the conference on 
EDs in the EP on the previous day.  
 
6.  Formaldehyde exemption nail hardeners  
  CE informed that industry was still against the prohibition of the use of Formaldehyde 
in nail hardeners as the SCCS opinion for that use was favourable and it considers that 
there are no suitable alternative substances. 
  CE acknowledged that there was a lack of support from Member State competent 
authorities to grant an exemption to the ban. 
  SDA confirmed COM intention to prohibit all uses of Formaldehyde in cosmetics as it 
does not fulfil all the criteria required for an exemption. 
 
7.  CE Science Conference 
  CE invited the unit to attend their up-coming science conference on 26-27 October.  
 
8.  AOB 
Animal testing generated for other legislative frameworks, e.g. zinc pyrithione 
  CE explained that a question was asked by the SCCS regarding the application of the 
animal testing ban in the context of discussions on the safety assessment of zinc 
pyrithione.  
  SDA replied that no line to take had yet been provided to the SCCS. 
 
Oral Parliamentary question on global ban on animal testing 
  CE wanted to raise attention to an EP written question on promoting a global animal 
testing ban. They also suggested that COM should not only be engaged in explaining 


the animal testing ban and its implications, but also in the promotion of EU solutions 
(in terms of alternative testing) internationally.  
  SDA replied that COM could support initiatives globally, but such promotion also 
requires a more active involvement.