Most of us said goodbye to 2025 in the traditional way – with a glass of champagne (and possibly other alcoholic beverages). Ironically, it is the threatened legislative status of alcohol that may be called the greatest absurdity of the past year.
How else can we describe the fact that ethanol is permitted for human consumption (with no legislative plans to restrict it in that regard), while at the same time there have been attempts to withdraw it as a raw material used externally across multiple industries? Not to mention its crucial importance as a biocidal substance.
Industry solidarity proved effective. Following the A.I.S.E. initiative “Hands Up For Ethanol 11/2025”, more than 800 industry organizations from 27 EU countries joined forces, and the deadline for submitting the CLH dossier was extended. The industry gained time until December 2026 to demonstrate that a CMR classification for ethanol (based on oral consumption) should not apply to cosmetic use.
Let us recall: the reprotoxic and carcinogenic properties of ethanol manifest in cases of chronic oral consumption, especially when alcohol is consumed during pregnancy, posing risks to the unborn child.
Ethanol (C₂H₅OH) has a unique combination of properties that cannot be replaced without compromise:
-
strong antimicrobial/biocidal efficacy,
-
a versatile polar organic solvent widely used in industry, miscible with water, capable of dissolving numerous organic compounds (including fragrances) and active substances,
-
cost-effectiveness,
-
high purity,
-
natural origin,
-
no negative environmental impact.
This set of characteristics cannot be replicated without complications or reduced quality and safety. Why should industrial use be restricted, while the real public health issue – alcohol abuse – seems largely ignored in this debate?
Isn’t that illogical? Or is the biocidal sector nostalgic for its pandemic-era revenues and now attempting to build its own… monopoly around ethanol?
New Year’s Eve manicures in Poland in 2025 were certainly free of TPO, which has been banned in the EU since 1 September 2025. The lack of a transition period to sell off existing stocks challenged long-standing market practices for professional-use products.
Was the rush really necessary? Especially considering that within just a few months of the GIS announcement (including a misleading updated version), salon owners had very limited time to adjust.
Diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (TPO), used as a photoinitiator in hybrid nail polish bottles, is already “trapped” in a viscous liquid applied to the nail plate and cured under UV light. It is used in very small quantities and does not penetrate the skin.
Since systemic exposure during treatment is practically nonexistent, its reprotoxic properties cannot manifest. In safety assessment terms: no systemic exposure means no health risk.
So why was sell-through of existing stock not allowed? In the UK, hybrid polishes containing TPO may legally be used in salons until 15 February 2027 (end of market availability).
In our opinion, last year clearly demonstrated the crucial role of consortia formed to defend the use of cosmetic ingredients at the EU level. It is crucial to ensure that the scope of substance use is properly defined during the approval process. A few examples illustrate this:
1. Last year also brought an unexpected turn of events regarding the safety assessment of Tea Tree Oil (CAS 68647-73-4, INCI: Tea Tree Oil) in cosmetics. There were concerns that due to its planned classification as a CMR substance with reprotoxic effects category 1B (Repr. 1B), its use could be banned.
Ultimately, SCCS (SCCS/1681/25) assessed Tea Tree Oil and considered its use safe in four defended product categories – up to the following maximum concentrations: 2.0% in shampoos; 1.0% in shower gels; 1.0% in facial cleansers; 0.1% in face creams.
However, strangely, the SCCS opinion does not mention important cosmetic categories such as nail care products and foot creams, or more generally cosmetics intended to combat unpleasant body odour resulting from microbial activity on our skin. Until now, the oil has been a key active ingredient in these categories. The question is what truly lies behind such selective category choices, despite the overall positive SCCS opinion? Could it be that another sector seeks to limit cosmetic effectiveness in order to increase its own dominance in those segments?
2. Restrictions for Arbutin under Regulation (EU) 2024/996 entered into force in 2025. At the stage of shaping the restrictions, no one noticed problematic wording; only market practice revealed difficulties in implementation. The unfortunate reference to just one product category (face cream) again creates additional questions and unnecessary interpretative gaps.
I can use arbutin in a cream, but not in a facial serum, foam, or mask? Does it always have to be in a specific physicochemical form (emulsion)? And what about rinse-off facial hygiene products, where exposure is often significantly lower – is that a greater health risk?
A face cream is only a fraction of possible applications, and at the same time the lack of a precise legal definition of “face cream” in cosmetic legislation creates more problems than benefits for the industry and does not translate into greater consumer safety.
Microplastics
October 2025 brought considerable uncertainty related to the new IFUD labelling obligation and microbead registration, leading many companies to withdraw commonly used polymer thickeners, which in fact lose their microplastic properties during cosmetic manufacturing processes.
However, due to unvalidated instrumental methods, many question marks remain as to how to turn theory into practice. Fortunately, based on the latest technical guidance on classification and labelling, microplastics requiring our attention seem to be a marginal issue in specific cosmetic categories.
Are the absurdities behind us?
2026 will of course bring further “entry into force” dates: preparation for upcoming legal changes and reformulation of recipes to meet requirements.
One major change will concern restrictions on the purity of silicone polymers. This is another challenge for the industry and the elimination of cyclic silicones: D4, D5 and D6 not only from rinse-off products, but also from leave-on products. However, when reading Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/1328, we find another absurdity…
Since 31 January 2020, a ban on ≥0.1% D4 and D5 in rinse-off cosmetics has applied, and from 6 June 2027 the same ban will extend to leave-on cosmetics. At the same time, these same cyclic silicones may still (without time limitation) be conditionally used, and in higher quantities, in marine coatings, even though they have direct contact with seawater. It appears that REACH regulates the legal status of the product and its use, rather than the actual environmental burden on aquatic environments, which were supposedly the primary concern.
Additionally, although the ban for D4 and D5 in leave-on cosmetics will apply from 6 June 2027, it is already causing chaos because raw materials are expected to comply earlier – by 6 June 2026. Raw material suppliers reassure that materials will still be available, and from our experience not everyone “takes the restrictions to heart,” still offering silicone polymers exceeding purity limits without clearly explaining until when and whether they will adapt to the new law. Meanwhile, it is the cosmetic manufacturer who bears responsibility for the final product. If they place the raw material on the EU market first, they assume importer/distributor obligations, and if they accumulate excessive stock, after June 2027 they will no longer be able to use it.
Silver
Undoubtedly, 2026 will belong to silver-related regulations and may already claim a podium place in the competition for the year’s absurdity. From 1 May 2026, a ban will apply (following the publication of Omnibus VIII on 13 January 2026 and reinforcement through the 22nd ATP to CLP) to specific particle sizes of silver:
➡️ banned in sizes from 1 to 100 nm and in solid form above 1 mm;
➡️ allowed particle sizes > 100 nm < 1 mm in two product categories:
Annex III entry 379: toothpastes and mouthwashes at a maximum concentration of 0.05%;
Annex IV entry 142 as a colorant (in lip products and eye shadows at 0.2%).
There is no room in these regulations for other categories such as nail polishes or face/body highlighters, despite the absence of health risk!
Moreover, the SCCS opinion published a month earlier (17 December 2025) confirms that silver is safe in specified sizes and concentrations across a much broader range of categories than those permitted from May 2026. Does this mean that by May 2026 certain products must be removed from shelves, stored, and then reintroduced once legal changes reflecting the SCCS opinion are adopted? 🤔 We have not yet encountered such a situation in practice…
The absurdity is further highlighted by the fact that we may still consume silver balls, flakes, and powders used in food (food additive E174) without limits, and pierce silver jewellery through the skin… Life is brutal…
Aluminium
In the unflattering competition for the 2026 absurdity podium, aluminium regulations also have strong chances due to the entry into force of Omnibus II. At this stage they appear so complex that an official new guidance document will be prepared to interpret them… what a relief… The only question is whether these guidelines will help or create even more confusion. And traditionally – when will they be published? Aluminium-containing cosmetics are not new products; they must somehow be adapted to upcoming changes.
Regulatory chaos is so significant that it sometimes undermines the willingness to produce. Ignoring risk and focusing solely on hazard leads to unnecessary bans and rigid frameworks that leave no room for development or competitiveness.
Let us hope 2026 will be a better year in this respect.
All absurdities and concerns can be submitted to the European Commission’s platform open to every citizen – we encourage you to share your input (also anonymously).
Link: Communication on better regulation
If you feel that the above updates passed you by and they are important to your business – explore CosmetoSAFE Assist (software for R&D departments).
With its latest updates, tracking ingredient changes and forecasting product portfolio adjustments becomes simple!
Choose our software to formulate in line with current legislation, and monitoring ingredient-related regulatory changes will no longer be a problem. Book a CSA demo and manage your cosmetic product launches with peace of mind.
