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
2
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.
3