Omnibus on chemicals (simplification on chemical classification, fertilising products and cosmetics)

Key points

The EESC:

• welcomes the sixth Simplification Omnibus, which introduces targeted changes to EU chemical, cosmetic and fertilising product regulations to reduce compliance burdens, improve clarity and support innovation without compromising safety. The EESC accepts the general thrust of the Commission proposals and welcomes their aim of ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment, while urging that this be pursued in full consideration of the One Health approach;
• underlines that it is important for a consumer to be able to quickly contact a supplier when immediate contact is necessary. Contact by telephone is the best means to achieve this, as facilitates the easy exchange of information when required. Digital contacts do not always provide information in a suitable manner;
• notes that some websites can be quite complex and difficult to navigate. Suppliers must provide easy access and a user-friendly digital contact;
• stresses that updating labels without undue delay in the event of a change regarding the classification or labelling of a substance or mixture is unsatisfactory in terms of public health and the environment. A fixed period of 12 months to update the label is necessary. If an extension of the fixed period is required, then the Commission needs to be provided with adequate evidence to justify such an extension;
• emphasises that good-quality labelling is an important part of protecting public health and the environment. Labels should be printed in red or black on a white background to ensure easy readability. In exceptional circumstances this may vary, but the underlying requirement must be easy readability and clear and legible words adequately spaced;
• recommends that a derogation for carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic substances (CMR) whose hazard statements refer to oral or inhalation routes of exposure should be allowed except where it can be demonstrated that children and other vulnerable groups are at particular risk;
• underlines that economic aspects should only be taken into account where excessive economic costs apply or where the alternative product is totally economically unviable when deciding whether a substance is to be considered a suitable alternative to a CMR substance in a cosmetic product. In particular, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) should receive support to invest in alternative products. Public health is too important for economic considerations to be over emphasised as a determining factor when looking at suitable alternatives to CMR substances in such products;
• stresses the need for the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) to quickly assess endocrine disruptors as they can interfere with the body’s natural hormones. Children, in particular, are at risk because endocrine disruptors might cause disruptions during key developmental moments in their life.