European Parliament

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
17 May 2013
E-005553-13
Question for written answer
to the Commission
Rule 117
Constance Le Grip (PPE)

 Subject:  Changes to European legislation on allergens in perfumes
 Answer(s) 

Following the adoption in June 2012 by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety of its conclusions on allergens in cosmetic products, many concerns have been voiced by both perfume manufacturers and consumers of the products in question. This report comes on top of the numerous problems faced by perfumers in maintaining the quality and diversity of their products at a time when the opportunities open to them are becoming increasingly limited by ever more stringent regulation of the raw materials they use.

In a statement issued on 2 November 2012, the spokesperson for the then Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli, said that the Commission was still a long way from planning amendments to EU legislation, and that there could be no question of forcing certain large French perfume houses which had expressed their concerns to withdraw their best-known perfumes from the market.

Can the Commission state what action it plans to take in response to the conclusions of the Scientific Commission, and within what time frame?

Can the Commission state what progress has been made in holding consultations with manufacturers and stakeholders?

Does the Commission believe it will be possible to categorise certain perfumes as ‘cultural exceptions’ and to adopt specific legislation for them, or has this possibility not been examined at all?

Original language of question: FROJ C 41 E, 12/02/2014
Last updated: 28 May 2013Legal notice