The European Union is gearing up to relax the rules around what sort of cancer-causing chemicals are allowed in cosmetics, in a red-tape slashing exercise that consumer groups warn could put people’s health at risk.

In a draft proposal and accompanying document obtained by POLITICO, the European Commission proposes simplifying a set of EU chemical laws spanning cosmetics, fertilizer and chemical classification regulations in a “chemicals omnibus” bill.

Along with tweaking rules around carcinogens in cosmetics, it would also simplify laws on advertising and labeling hazardous chemicals, requiring producers to put less precise information in ads and on the front of certain packaging.

The proposal, which aims to create a “more predictable and less burdensome regulatory landscape,” is part of the EU’s broader simplification drive aimed at reducing “undue burden” on companies to help Europe’s businesses and boost the economy.

The draft bill includes tweaks to the Cosmetic Products Regulation (CPR), a law governing the safety of cosmetic products.

Under the CPR, substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic — i.e. capable of changing genetic material — or toxic for reproduction are broadly banned in cosmetics with some exceptions in specific circumstances.

The proposed revision will keep to that principle and derogations from the ban will still have to be assessed and found safe by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety.

But there are new caveats.

If a substance only has those properties when inhaled or digested, for example — but not if it comes into contact with the human skin — it shouldn’t be automatically banned from use in cosmetics.

Also, companies will no longer have to prove compliance with food safety requirements to receive a derogation for a substance. Food and cosmetics are “distinct products,” the Commission argues, and just because a product contains an inedible substance doesn’t mean that same chemical won’t be safe when used in a cosmetic formula to be applied on human skin.

‘A concerning direction’

But the tweaks have not found favor among environmental and consumer groups.

“The simplification proposal is taking a concerning direction for consumer protection by extending the use of cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics,” said Pelle Moos, senior advisor for the European Consumer Organisation, in an emailed statement.

“Not only does this clash with consumers’ legitimate expectations to use safe products but also with the Commission’s commitment to maintain high standards of protection.”

He called on the Commission to “reconsider and safeguard public health and consumer safety.”

Cosmetics Europe’s director general John Chave declined to comment on the leaked document specifically, but stressed that the CPR “remains the international regulatory benchmark for safety” and that his industry “needs to ensure that our products are safe” as a “sacrosanct” principle.

Still, he added, the current process allowing companies to get exemptions for chemicals from the automatic CPR ban “does not always allow the industry to demonstrate safety, for example because of vague criteria, or unrealistic deadlines.”

“This can stop us from using substances which have been scientifically assessed as perfectly safe for use in cosmetics.”

The omnibus would also simplify rules on how to classify, label and package chemicals under the Classification, Labelling and Packaging Regulation — which only entered into force in December.

As previously reported by POLITICO, the proposal suggests loosening formatting, labeling and advertising requirements for hazardous chemicals.

Originally, for example, the rules stipulated that any advertisement for hazardous substances must indicate the necessary hazard symbols and statements, on top of the statement: “Always follow the information on the product label,” for adverts to the general public.

That would all be replaced by a simple sentence for adverts to the general public: “Always read the label and product information before use.”

ClientEarth legal expert Julian Schenten said the Commission’s plans to revise its chemical classification, labeling and packing rules put “business interests ahead of people’s health and environmental safety.”

Part of the Commission’s justification for doing away with certain labeling rules lies in reducing paper use for environmental reasons, which Schenten described as “absurd.”

“Let’s be clear: cutting paperwork does not make toxic products any safer,” he added.

“The reduction of administrative burden on companies should lead to societal gains in terms of wealth creation, employment and innovation,” argues the Commission in the draft document. “At the same time, the proposal seeks to ensure a high level of protection of human health and of the environment.”

The chemicals omnibus — alongside an “action plan” for Europe’s struggling chemicals industry — is now expected July 8.