DE
What Regulatory Reassessments Really Reveal About Modern Skincare
In the cosmetics industry, ingredients that were considered standard for many years repeatedly and suddenly disappear from INCI lists. From the outside, this often appears to be a short-term trend or excessive caution.
From the perspective of development and manufacturing, however, these changes are almost never spontaneous. They are the result of a long-term, scientifically grounded and clearly structured regulatory process within the EU Cosmetics Regulation.
The decisive point:
The fate of cosmetic ingredients is not determined by marketing decisions, but by risk assessments, continuous re-evaluation, and realistically implementable regulatory transition pathways.
Why Are Cosmetic Ingredients Regulated or Phased Out in the EU?
A cosmetic ingredient does not disappear because it is generally considered “bad.” It disappears because the data situation, exposure, or legal classification has changed.
Common triggers include new toxicological findings:
- new metabolites, degradation products, or impurity profiles
- updated exposure assessments using more realistic usage models, for example due to more products, larger skin areas, or longer duration of use
Another central factor is a change in legal classification.
If a substance receives a CMR classification (carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to reproduction), its use in cosmetic products may be severely restricted or completely prohibited.
A clear example is Amending Regulation (EU) 2021/1902, through which several CMR substances were added to the prohibition annexes of the EU Cosmetics Regulation.
Equally relevant is the reassessment of use. An ingredient can have a completely different risk profile depending on the product type:
- rinse-off versus leave-on
- face, body, lips, or eye area
- children’s products or sunscreens
An important professional clarification:
These decisions do not retrospectively classify previously legally marketed products as unsafe. They define the conditions under which safety can continue to be ensured based on the current state of knowledge.
Why Does the EU Often Act Earlier Than Other Markets When It Comes to Cosmetic Ingredients?
The EU Cosmetics Regulation consistently follows a precautionary consumer protection approach. When uncertainties exist regarding long-term or cumulative exposure, the system does not necessarily wait for definitive human studies.
Particularly sensitive aspects that are assessed include:
- hormonal mechanisms of action and potential endocrine effects
- reproductive toxicological risks
- cumulative exposure from multiple products and application pathways
Typical of this approach are clearly defined transition periods that set clear directions while at the same time allowing the industry technically feasible adjustments.
A good example is Regulation (EU) 2024/996. It does not treat vitamin A derivatives as an acute health emergency, but instead defines harmonized limit values, labeling obligations, and realistic market transition periods.
Ban, Restriction, or Reformulation – What Does This Mean in Practice?
The term “removal” is too simplistic in practice. Within the EU Cosmetics Regulation, there are three typical regulatory scenarios.
Complete ban
The substance may no longer be used in cosmetic products.
This usually occurs in cases of an unfavorable legal classification with no justifiable exemptions.
Example:
Butylphenyl Methylpropional (Lilial), banned across the EU since March 2022.
Restriction
The substance remains permitted under clearly defined conditions:
- Concentration limits
- Restriction to specific product types
- Target group restrictions
- mandatory warning statements
Example:
Vitamin A derivatives with maximum concentration limits, labeling requirements, and transition periods.
Reformulation
The most common case in practice. The product remains on the market but is technically reformulated.
The decisive technical point:
The performance of a cosmetic product rarely depends on a single ingredient. A stable formulation is a system in which:
- efficacy, sensory properties, and stability arise from the interaction of multiple components
- critical functions are deliberately secured through redundancy
Regulatory Annexes Are Guidance, Not Blacklists
The annexes of the EU Cosmetics Regulation are often perceived as mere prohibition lists. From a development perspective, they are primarily strategic guardrails.
They indicate:
- which toxicological endpoints are weighted more heavily
- which exposure scenarios are considered critical
- where higher requirements for data quality are imposed
- the direction in which innovation is being steered
Regulation (EU) 2024/996 makes this logic clearly visible. It does not regulate vitamin A derivatives, alpha-arbutin, and arbutin through blanket bans, but through a differentiated and fine-tuned approach.
How Do Strong Development Teams Respond to Regulatory Changes?
Modern product development does not begin with the question of what should be communicated, but with a long-term perspective:
On what regulatory basis will this product still be marketable in 3, 5, or 8 years?
Core principles include:
- no dependency on a single critical ingredient
- alternative strategies from the outset, functional, sensory, and supply-chain related
- exposure-based assessment instead of a purely concentration-based logic
- early identification of regulatory sensitive points
A classic example is methylisothiazolinone, whose sensitization risk, as identified through SCCS assessments, led to its practical unsuitability in leave-on products.
Manufacturer’s Perspective: What Makes a Formulation Regulation-Proof?
Regulatory safety is not a retrospective check, but a development principle.
Key factors are:
- a sufficient safety margin relative to regulatory limits
- high-quality raw material documentation and clean impurity profiles
- modular formulation logic to allow for future adjustments
The EU Cosmetics Regulation operates with clearly defined market dates. Regulation (EU) 2024/996 specifies exactly from when products may no longer be placed on the market and from when they may no longer be sold. This is a critical factor for production planning and inventory management.
The Velvety Approach
At Velvety, development is not based on short-term ingredient hypes, but on technologically stable, scalable core structures.
Our formulations meet current regulatory requirements and are designed in a way that future regulatory tightening does not put the entire product at risk with the first update.
It does not slow down innovation.
It makes it predictable, reproducible, and viable in the market for the long term.
Conclusion
The disappearance of cosmetic ingredients is not a sign of uncertainty, but an expression of a system that continuously evaluates, refines, and adapts risks to real-world usage scenarios.
In the long term, the brands that succeed are those that understand this logic and do not build products around individual ingredients, but around regulation-proof, scientifically sound formulation systems.
If you are looking for a regulation-proof development or reformulation strategy for a specific product category, feel free to contact us via the contact form.
Planning new products under these regulatory conditions is one of the core competencies of our development team.
The world of cosmetics
Would you like to receive news about cosmetics by e-mail once a quarter?