On April 29, the European Parliament adopted the Omnibus VI package with a majority of 540 votes. 60 MEPs voted against, 45 abstained.
Omnibus VI, referred to as the Chemical Omnibus, is a legislative package prepared by the European Commission. It concerns three regulations: the classification and labeling of chemicals (CLP), cosmetics rules, and fertilizers. The package is part of the broader Competitiveness Compass strategy, which aims to reduce administrative burdens on business by 25 percent, and by 35 percent for small and medium-sized enterprises. The European Commission estimated annual savings for the chemical industry at no less than 363 million euros.
The proposal emerged in response to data from the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic). Between 2022 and 2025, production capacity in the European chemical sector fell by 9 percent. Companies reported excessive bureaucracy and unclear labeling procedures. In March 2024, Cefic Director General Marco Mensink, speaking before the European Parliament’s Internal Market Committee, cited the example of BASF, which spent 1.2 million euros per year just on managing label variants for a single product.
Digitalization of labels
The amendment to the CLP regulation introduces a „digital-by-default” approach. This means that part of the information previously printed on labels can be provided electronically – via a QR code or the manufacturer’s website. Only hazard pictograms (GHS), warning statements and basic hazard indication phrases remain on the physical label. Other data, including H phrases (hazard statements) and P phrases (precautionary statements), can be moved to digital format.
The rules specify exemptions for packaging below 10 ml. For such containers – for example, vials of laboratory reagents – only a QR code and product identification number are required. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) calculated in its November 2025 position paper that the change would save 87 tonnes of paper and heat-shrink film annually in the in-vitro diagnostics sector alone.
In practice, for a warehouse worker at a chemical distributor, this means having to scan QR codes before each use of a substance. In a 5,000-square-metre warehouse storing 12,000 different products, the receiving procedure lengthens by an average of 14 seconds per unit, according to a simulation carried out by a European logistics company for public consultation. During the first week of implementation, workers plugged in their scanners for charging an average of three times a day. After a month, the procedure returned to normal.
Carcinogenic substances
The most controversy was stirred by changes concerning CMR substances – carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction. The basic principle remains unchanged: substances classified as CMR category 1A or 1B are banned in cosmetics. Omnibus VI changes the timeline for withdrawing such substances from the market.
Before the reform, manufacturers had 18 months to reformulate a product or remove it from sale from the date a new classification was published. The new rules extend this period to around 2.5 years (30 months). In addition, a company may submit a request for an individual extension – in justified cases, up to 6 years. The window for submitting such a request is 12 months from the classification date.
In practice, this means that a shampoo containing a preservative classified as potentially carcinogenic in January 2026 can remain on store shelves until mid-2028. If the manufacturer can prove that reformulation requires testing product stability over a summer and winter cycle, the deadline can be extended to 2032.
The European Parliament rejected a more radical Commission proposal that would have completely lifted the ban on CMR substances depending on the route of exposure. That would have meant allowing formaldehyde (classified as CMR 1B) in mouthwashes on the assumption that the substance is not swallowed. MEPs on the Environment Committee (ENVI) pushed through an amendment maintaining the ban regardless of application.
Industry and NGO reactions
Representatives of the Federation of Cosmetic Enterprises (FEBEA) described the adopted compromise as perfectly balanced, arguing that a substance deemed hazardous when swallowed – such as ethanol – poses no risk in external use as an ingredient in perfumes or soap. This position was presented in an official communication of April 30, 2026.
– Leaving cosmetics containing carcinogenic substances on the market for several years is absurd – said Danish MEP Per Clausen of the Left group during a plenary debate on April 28, 2026.
– We are exposing consumers to unnecessary risk solely to give industry more time – he said.
The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) published an analysis concerning not only consumers but also workers. Cosmetics factories employ 207,000 people across the Union. Packing lines, raw material warehouses, quality control departments – in each of these places workers may be exposed to CMR substances during the extended phase-out period. ETUC specifically pointed to the hairdressing sector: 1.2 million hairdressers in the EU, 87 percent of whom are women of childbearing age. Hair dyes containing CMR 1B substances will remain on the market for up to 30 months longer than under the previous rules.
Politicians from the Greens/EFA group criticised the fact that although the worst proposals were rejected, granting industry an extra year to sell hazardous products was a defeat for public health protection. In an official statement after the vote, they indicated that the victory consisted only in avoiding total deregulation.
Fertilisers and REACH
The third pillar of Omnibus VI concerns the fertiliser sector. The reform simplifies registration procedures for new fertiliser components, including biostimulants. Previously, a manufacturer wishing to introduce an innovative organic fertiliser with a new bacterial strain had to go through the full REACH procedure – lasting on average 3–4 years and costing around 1.5 million euros per substance. Omnibus VI introduces a simplified procedure based on a chemical safety assessment proportional to risk.
In practice, a biostimulant manufacturer can submit an application for authorisation under a procedure lasting 9 months. Costs fall to around 120,000 euros, mainly for toxicology studies and phytotoxicity tests. The European Biostimulants Industry Council (EBIC) estimated that the reform could increase the number of new products on the market by 40 percent in the first two years of the regulation’s application.
Critics point to a regulatory gap. The simplified procedure does not require long-term studies of impact on soil microbiomes. The Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) published a study in March 2026 on a sample of 12 bacterial strains authorised under a previous simplified procedure (concerning biopesticides). In three cases, after 18 months of application on experimental fields, a 23 percent decrease in microbial diversity was observed compared to control fields.
Waiver application procedure
In the cosmetics sector, the key change is the extension and harmonisation of the process for submitting requests to extend the withdrawal deadline. Each application goes to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki. ECHA has 90 days to assess whether the manufacturer has provided sufficient evidence that reformulation is not technically feasible within the standard 30-month period.
In the first half of 2025, before Omnibus VI was adopted, ECHA received 47 extension requests – all under the old procedure. The average processing time was 134 days, 44 days longer than the statutory 90 days. In 19 cases (40 percent), applications were rejected due to lack of stability study documentation.
In the justification of one decision concerning an Italian mascara manufacturer, the agency stated:
– The applicant did not submit protocols for accelerated ageing studies at 40°C nor freeze-thaw cycle studies. A mere statement of „process complexity” is insufficient.
The new rules do not change ECHA’s substantive assessment standards. They only extend the maximum possible extension period – from 3 to 6 years – and harmonise the documentation submission procedure. Manufacturers gain an additional 6 months to collect studies compared to the current rules.
Costs for small companies
Small and medium-sized enterprises are subject to a 35 percent reduction in administrative burdens, directly stemming from the Competitiveness Compass strategy. In practice, for a company employing 15 people and introducing 5 new chemical mixtures per year, this means a reduction in labelling-related costs from around 48,000 euros to 31,000 euros per year, according to calculations by a European association of small chemical producers.
At the same time, however, for the same companies the procedure for applying for an extension of the CMR substance withdrawal deadline remains costly. Preparing documentation for stability studies, testing alternative preservatives and analysing worker risk costs an average of 85,000 euros – an amount that 40 percent of small cosmetics companies cannot afford without external financing, according to a 2025 survey by a European consultancy agency.
An anonymous source from the regulatory department of one such company told Industry Alarm that extended transition periods in theory give more time, but in practice mean having to freeze funds for research for two years instead of one and a half. For a company with liquidity of 200,000 euros, the difference is crucial.
European Chemicals Agency
ECHA will receive an additional 127 posts to handle extension applications and implement the digital labelling system, according to the draft 2027 budget presented by the Commission in March 2026. The agency will also launch a central platform for registering QR codes for each chemical product placed on the market.
The system is to operate as a single window – the manufacturer registers the product, assigns a unique identifier, generates a QR code and uploads all required information in XML format. The platform is modelled on the IUCLID system, which has been used for REACH registration since 2008. According to ECHA estimates, data migration for 45,000 existing substances and mixtures will take at least 18 months from the regulation’s entry into force.
The Omnibus VI package does not contain direct provisions on PFAS – so-called forever chemicals. However, the change to the CLP regulation indirectly affects how they are labelled. PFAS are classified under REACH and CLP on an ongoing basis as toxicological data accumulates. In 2025, ECHA published 187 new classifications for various compounds in this group. For each of them, from 2026 onwards a standard 30-month withdrawal period for cosmetics will apply, rather than 18 months.
This means that a sunscreen containing one of the newly classified PFAS can remain on shelves until the end of 2028, whereas under the previous rules it would have had to disappear by mid-2027. For the consumer, the difference is practically invisible, because the substance itself does not change the product’s appearance, smell or consistency. For the manufacturer, it is an extra year to sell stocks produced before classification.
Timeline and next steps
The package will now go to interinstitutional negotiations (trilogue) between the European Parliament, the Council of the EU and the European Commission. The final shape of the rules will depend on how far the Council – representing member state governments – is willing to go in the direction set by Parliament.
In its February 2026 position, the Council came out in favour of a version closer to the Commission’s original proposal, including the possibility of completely lifting the ban on CMR substances depending on the route of exposure. Nine member states, including Poland, Hungary and Italy, signed a document supporting the most flexible approach. Germany, France and the Netherlands supported an intermediate position – extending transition periods but without lifting the ban. Sweden and Denmark demanded retaining the 18-month period.
Informal consultations between the Council presidency and the chair of the ENVI Committee will begin in mid-May 2026. The first trilogue is scheduled for the end of June 2026. If negotiations are prolonged, the package may not enter into force before the first quarter of 2027, meaning that transition periods for CMR substances classified in 2026 could begin with a delay of up to 9 months relative to the original schedule.
Transposition into national law
After the trilogue concludes and the regulation is published in the Official Journal of the EU, the CLP rules will apply directly in all member states without the need for transposition. The changes to cosmetics and fertiliser rules are also in the form of regulations, meaning uniform application from the date of entry into force.
Member states retain the possibility of introducing their own stricter rules on CMR substances in cosmetics, provided they do not conflict with the principle of free movement of goods. France announced in April 2026 that it would maintain a national ban on CMR substances with an 18-month withdrawal period, regardless of EU rules. In response, the European Commission launched an infringement proceeding, pointing to the risk of fragmentation of the internal market.
Fot. Freepik
