30. 11. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 319/5 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive amending for the fourth time Directive 
76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic 
products (*) 
(87/C 319/02) 
On 25 March 1987, the Council of the European Communities, acting in pursuance of Article 
100 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, asked the Economic and 
Social Committee for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee instructed its Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and 
Consumer Affairs to prepare its work on the matter. The Section adopted its Opinion, based 
on the report drawn up by Mr Proumens, on 1 September 1987. 
At its 248th plenary session on 23 and 24 September 1987 (meeting of 23 September) the 
Committee adopted the following Opinion unanimously: 
1. General Comments 
1.1. The Committee very much welcomes the pro­
posal for a Council Directive. 
It is pleased to note that the main aim of this fourth 
amendment is to bring about the most comprehensive 
possible harmonization, whilst maintaining all of the 
provisions set out in the Directive and the subsequent 
amendments. The way in which this harmonization 
is to be brought about, is by making reasoned and 
appropriate use of the system set out in Part I of Annex 
III (list of substances which cosmetic products must not 
contain, except subject to the restrictions and con­
ditions laid down). 
The Committee notes with interest that the new pro­
visions not only make the Directive easier to under­
stand, but will also prevent technical barriers being 
created by differing national interpretations of a num­
ber of provisions. 
1.2. The Committee particularly stresses its desire 
to see the achievement of total harmonization. The 
existence of mandatory Directives, such as the Directive 
on cosmetic products, constitutes a clear basis for such 
harmonization, provided that some Member States do 
not introduce special administrative rules liable to undo 
part of this harmonization. 
1.3. The Committee is, however, surprised that 
Annex V (list of substances falling outside the Directive) 
is to be retained. 
With a view to achieving total harmonization, the Com­
mittee urges the Member States to act jointly to abolish 
this list of excluded substances, after having considered 
the case for either authorizing the use of the few sub­
stances still on the list, possibly subject to certain 
restrictions, or banning their use. 
(!) OJ No C 86, 1. 4. 1987, p. 3. The Committee calls upon the Commission to make 
every effort to bring about the abolition of this list by 
1 January 1992. 
1.4. The Directive and all the subsequent amend­
ments take account, in a fundamental way, of the need 
to protect consumers. All of the work on this matter 
has indeed been characterized by active cooperation 
with industry and the consumer associations, consumer 
protection being an ongoing objective of both the 
authorities and manufacturers. 
1.5. The Committee draws attention to the fact that 
changes in distribution patterns, in particular the 
greater importance of self-service shops and supermar­
kets, have obliged manufacturers to provide, with 
regard to products, a number of elements of infor­
mation which were less necessary when the products 
were sold by specialist shops. 
It should also be noted that there have been major 
changes in packaging. 
At the time when the Directive was devised in 1976 
many products were still marketed in an outer packag­
ing. This is no longer the case. 
The provisions of Article 6 are not, however, called 
into question and the amendments to the Article set 
out in the current draft Directive are justified. 
2. Specific Comments 
2.1. Article 1 (3) - second indent 
The deletion of the second paragraph of Article 5 
would appear to be premature. Although it is becoming 
increasingly less necessary to invoke the second para­
graph, its provisions are still useful in some cases. 
2.2. Article 1 (4) 
As regards the two key words in Article 6 of the 
Directive, namely « packaging » and « container », the 
Committee stresses the need for strict adherence to their 
use and the need to avoid synonyms which would only 
produce ambiguity. 
No C 319/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 11. 87 
The question of the use of the languages of the countries 
concerned is dealt with in Article 7(2) of the basic 
Directive, which remains in force. 
2.3. The Committee expresses its concern over the 
failure to mention special precautions to be taken in 
the case of cosmetic products for professional use, in 
particular by hairdressers. 
Some information on this matter, intended for all users, 
is admittedly set out in Annex III. 
Manufacturers should, however, be required to indicate 
— at all events in the case of some products — that it 
is advisable to wear gloves when applying them. 
Whilst some of these products do not give rise to special 
problems, it is evident that repeated application several 
times a day may cause problems of irritation and users 
should therefore be put in a position to avoid these 
problems. 
The Committee urges the Commission to consider with 
DG V the case for introducing measures in respect of 
the staff of hairdressing salons and beauty parlours to 
enable preventive action to be taken at the apprentice­
ship stage to identify those at risk with regard to 
allergies and other forms of sensitization. 
2.4. Article 1 (4) - paragraph (b) of new Article 6 
The wording of this paragraph needs to be made clearer 
(in particularly the English version). 
As regards the nominal contents, this can clearly only 
be indicated on the packaging. 
There is also to be a series of exempted packages and 
products on which the nominal contents does not have 
to be indicated, namely packages containing 5 g or 
5 ml or less, free samples, single application packs and 
products normally sold separately, in respect of which 
the weight is not important. 
The Committee fully supports the substance of this 
paragraph. 
2.5. Article 1 (4) - paragraph (c) of new Article 6 
The Committee holds the view that indication of the 
minimum durability of the product must continue to 
be mandatory, even if this provision is applicable to 
only a very small number of products. It does, however, 
Done at Brussels, 23 September 1987. represent an excellent consumer protection measure in 
those cases where it is necessary. 
The Committee also considers that the Commission 
should propose that the industry should establish com­
mon methods of analysis for determining minimum 
durability, even though it appears that some firms have 
themselves devised such methods and are using them. 
2.6. Article 1 (4) - paragraph (e) of new Article 6 
The quite considerable importance, for both the con­
sumer and the national authorities, of indicating the 
batch number or the reference for identifying the goods 
has been demonstrated. The need to indicate this infor­
mation twice (on the packaging and container) is, how­
ever, open to question, given the complicated industrial 
procedures involved. 
In view of the interests at stake, however, the proposal 
has to be supported. It must, nonetheless, be pointed 
out that the second paragraph is inconsistent as it is 
difficult, if not impossible, to verify this information 
when it is indicated in the form of a code or of a 
marking visible only under ultraviolet light. 
Consideration should therefore be given to deleting the 
second paragraph. 
2.7. Article 1 (4) - point 3 of new Article 6 
The main aim of this part of the Article is to prohibit 
misleading advertising based on unsubstantiated argu­
ments. 
It is, of course, right to retain this provision but it 
must not be possible for manufacturers or national 
authorities to create barriers by extending this pro­
vision. 
The Committee would also like consideration to be 
given to introducing more specific provisions for ensur­
ing that the best possible product information is pro­
vided. 
2.8. Article 1(6) and (7) 
The proposed amendments to Annex III and Annex IV 
will make the Directive more logical and simpler, an 
objective to which the Committee gives its whole­
hearted support. 
2.9. Article 3 
The Committee stresses the need for the Member States 
to comply with the current fourth amendment to the 
basic Directive within the time limit laid down in Arti­
cle 3. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT