How EEC Decision No. 114 Transforms Cosmetic Safety Assessment in the EAEU from July 2026
Note: As of 2025, 1 USD ≈ 100 RUB. Specific ruble figures in this article include approximate USD equivalents.
Five years ago, registering a face cream required little more than a microbiology report and a basic irritation test. By 2026, that era is over. Regulators now require safety evidence at the molecular level.
Technical Regulation TR CU 009/2011 has undergone a major overhaul, and the EAEU — Eurasian Economic Union — cosmetics industry has entered the era of computational toxicological assessment. On December 24, 2025, amendments introduced by EEC Council Decision No. 114 (dated November 29, 2024) came into force. Starting July 1, 2026, new toxicological requirements take full effect: safety assessments must be conducted either through alternative in vitro methods or via a computational approach based on the toxicological profiles of individual ingredients.
How Safety Assessment Worked Before
Prior to 2026, safety assessment in the EAEU relied primarily on testing the finished product. Annexes 8 and 9 of TR CU 009/2011 established a list of toxicological and clinical indicators to be verified in accredited laboratories.
The standard test battery covered acute dermal toxicity, skin and mucosal irritation, sensitizing potential, and microbiological parameters. This was effectively a «black box» approach: if the final mixture produced no acute reaction during testing, it was deemed safe — regardless of what individual ingredients it contained. No deep analysis of each component was required.
The weakness was predictable. A preservative, fragrance ingredient, or UV filter could accumulate in the body under regular use, yet standard acute testing would not detect this. Long-term effects of individual components went unexamined.
2025–2026 Regulatory Roadmap
The transition period contains several critical milestones affecting testing methods, labeling, packaging, and formulation requirements.
Table 1: 2025–2026 Roadmap of Changes
| Date | Area | Change |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 1, 2025 | Chestny ZNAK labeling | Registration of supply chain participants begins |
| May 1, 2025 | Chestny ZNAK labeling | Mandatory labeling for soaps and detergents |
| Jul 1, 2025 | Chestny ZNAK labeling | Expansion to deodorants, hair care, and shaving products |
| Oct 1, 2025 | Chestny ZNAK labeling | Decorative cosmetics and toothpastes included |
| Dec 24, 2025 | TR CU 009/2011 | Main amendments enter into force (Decision No. 114) |
| Apr 8, 2026 | Testing standards | Updated GOST lists for testing methods take effect (Decision No. 87) |
| Jul 1, 2026 | Toxicological assessment | Mandatory transition to in vitro or computational safety evaluation |
| Oct 28, 2026 | Substance lists | Updated annexes enter into force (Decision No. 74) |
Chestny ZNAK (the Russian national product traceability system) dominated 2025, turning it into a year of IT infrastructure buildout and lab method transfers. 2026 becomes the year of the «toxicological exam» for every formulation on the market.
What Changed in Safety Assessment
EEC Council Decision No. 114 introduced a fundamental change to TR CU 009/2011. From July 1, 2026, toxicological assessment must use either alternative in vitro methods or a computational method to determine the MoS — Margin of Safety. This effectively ends routine animal testing for most cosmetic categories.
The driving logic here goes beyond ethics. The European Union banned testing finished products on animals in 2004 and banned ingredient testing in 2013. Any product tested on animals to satisfy the old EAEU requirements was automatically barred from the EU market. Aligning with EU standards removes that barrier and opens export channels for EAEU manufacturers.
The Margin of Safety (MoS) and How It Is Calculated
The MoS indicates how much lower actual consumer exposure to an ingredient is compared to the dose that produces no adverse effects. The base formula:
MoS = NOAEL / SED
For practical calculation of the SED (Systemic Exposure Dose):
SED = (A × C/100 × DAp) / BW
Where:
A (Amount) — daily quantity of product applied, in grams. Standardized values: face cream 1.54 g/day, body lotion 7.82 g/day, shampoo 10.46 g/day (for rinse-off products, actual systemic exposure is adjusted to approximately 0.1 g).
C (Concentration) — percentage of the ingredient in the formula.
DAp (Dermal Absorption) — skin absorption percentage. When no measured data exists, a default of 50% or 100% is applied (worst-case scenario). This frequently makes a product look «unsafe on paper,» which is why manufacturers commission OECD 428 absorption tests to demonstrate the real figure.
BW (Body Weight) — standardized at 60 kg.
NOAEL — No Observed Adverse Effect Level — the maximum dose (mg/kg/day) showing no adverse effects in studies. Retrieved from toxicological databases: ECHA, CIR, or SCCS opinions.
A product is considered safe when MoS ≥ 100. The coefficient of 100 combines two uncertainty factors: inter-species (humans may be 10× more sensitive than the test animal) and intra-species (individual human sensitivity varies up to 10×). 10 × 10 = 100.
Example — Preservative X at 1% in a face cream:
Daily product amount: 1.54 g → ingredient X content: 15.4 mg. With no absorption data, a conservative 50% is applied.
SED = (15.4 × 0.5) / 60 = 0.128 mg/kg/day
NOAEL for ingredient X from database: 20 mg/kg/day.
MoS = 20 / 0.128 = 156
Result: 156 > 100 → the ingredient is safe.
Had absorption been set at 100%, SED would double to 0.256 and MoS would drop to 78 — the product would fail. This shows exactly how much weight accurate absorption data carries.
Structure of the Cosmetic Product Safety Report (CPSR)
Following the EU model, the CPSR — Cosmetic Product Safety Report consists of two parts.
Part A: Product Safety Information
Quantitative and qualitative composition. The exact concentration of every substance is required. A common trap: if a formula contains 5% chamomile extract, but the raw material specification shows that extract is 90% water and 9% glycerin, the MoS calculation must use the actual active concentration — 0.05% in the finished product.
Impurities and trace substances. Polyacrylamides may contain residual acrylamide monomer (a Group 1B carcinogen); ethoxylated surfactants such as SLES may carry 1,4-dioxane. The safety assessor must demand supplier certificates specifying impurity levels.
Physicochemical stability and packaging compatibility. Accelerated aging test results (typically 40 °C for 3–6 months) and proof that no phthalates, monomers, or bisphenol A migrate from plastic packaging.
Microbiological purity. Limits: 100 CFU/g for children’s products and products intended for the eye area; 1,000 CFU/g for all other categories. Pathogens must be absent. Water-containing products require an ISO 11930 challenge test.
Part B: Safety Assessment
Toxicological profile of each ingredient, MoS calculations for ingredients with systemic exposure, and the assessor’s expert conclusion.
In Vitro Testing Methods
Starting July 1, 2026, in vitro methods move from «recommended» to mandatory. Until recently, the absence of validated interstate standards was a practical obstacle. By 2025, that gap has been closed.
Skin irritation is regulated by GOST 34639-2020, harmonized with OECD TG 439. The method uses Reconstructed human Epidermis (RhE) models — EpiDerm, EPISKIN, SkinEthic — grown from human keratinocytes with a functional lipid barrier. After a 15–60 minute exposure, the tissue is rinsed and incubated. An MTT test then measures mitochondrial activity: living cells reduce yellow MTT dye to violet formazan crystals, quantified by spectrophotometry. Cell viability above 50% of the control → «non-irritating.» At or below 50% → irritating (GHS Category 2).
Eye irritation falls under GOST 34638-2020, harmonized with OECD TG 492B and TG 491. A tiered testing strategy is typically applied:
HET-CAM — the hen’s egg chorioallantoic membrane test. Bleeding, vascular lysis, and protein coagulation are recorded over five minutes. Useful for screening mild surfactants and children’s shampoos.
RhCE — Reconstructed human Cornea-like Epithelium (e.g., EpiOcular). Same MTT principle; viability above 60% is required for a «non-irritating» classification.
STE (Short Time Exposure), OECD TG 491 — a monolayer corneal cell culture exposed for five minutes. Fast and low-cost; effective for solvents and simple mixtures.
Sensitization (allergenic potential) replaces the murine LLNA test with three in vitro assays, each modeling a different stage of the allergic response:
DPRA (Direct Peptide Reactivity Assay) — assesses binding to skin proteins (chemical phase).
KeratinoSens — measures keratinocyte activation (cellular phase).
h-CLAT — assesses dendritic cell activation.
Confirming the absence of allergenic potential typically requires a negative result in at least two of the three assays.
Table 2: Safety Assessment Methods Before and After July 1, 2026
| Parameter | Before 2026 | From July 1, 2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Ingredient assessment | Check against Annexes 2–6 lists | Full toxicological profile for each component |
| Skin irritation | Rabbit test (permitted) | RhE models per GOST 34639-2020 or calculation |
| Eye irritation | Draize rabbit test | HET-CAM, RhCE, STE or a combination |
| Sensitization | Murine LLNA test | DPRA, KeratinoSens, h-CLAT |
| MoS calculation | Not required | Mandatory for ingredients with systemic exposure |
Priority Control Areas
Nanomaterials
Particles in the 1–100 nm range — nano-titanium dioxide, nano-zinc oxide — require SRC — State Registration Certificate (государственная регистрация).
New rules applying from 2026:
The descriptor (nano) is mandatory in the INCI — International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients — listing. Example: Titanium Dioxide (nano).
The nano-form requires its own toxicological data. Safety data for micro-sized titanium dioxide does not extend to its nano-form.
Certain nano-forms are banned in sprays and aerosols due to inhalation toxicity risk (alveolar penetration).
The SRC application must include particle size distribution data and nanoparticle surface coating specifications.
CMR Substances
Substances classified as Carcinogenic, Mutagenic, or Reprotoxic (Categories 1A, 1B, and 2 under GHS/CLP) are prohibited in cosmetics. Harmonization with EU lists has produced a wave of bans.
Table 3: CMR Substances Banned in Cosmetics
| Substance | Function | Reason for Ban |
|---|---|---|
| Zinc Pyrithione | Anti-dandruff | Repr. 1B (reproductive toxicity) |
| Butylphenyl Methylpropional (Lilial) | Fragrance (lily of the valley note) | Repr. 1B (fertility effects) |
| Diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)phosphine oxide (TPO) | Photoinitiator in gel lacquers | Repr. 1B |
| Benzophenone | UV filter | Carc. 1B |
Trace CMR contamination in raw materials deserves particular attention. The safety assessor must demand supplier certificates with exact impurity levels and calculate MoS for each impurity.
Expanded Allergen Disclosure
The EU has expanded its list of fragrance allergens requiring labeling from 26 to 82 entries. New additions include peppermint oil, cinnamon oil, vanillin, lavender oil, and other natural components. The EAEU is following the same harmonization path, and analogous changes are expected within the next few years.
The practical consequence: products marketed as «natural» or «free from synthetic fragrances» may soon require lengthy allergen warnings on pack, since essential oils are the primary source of these components. Brands would do well to account for this in artwork development now.
Updated Substance Lists
EEC Council Decision No. 74 (September 12, 2025) has updated the regulation’s annexes: the list of prohibited substances has been extended, approved colorant, preservative, and UV filter lists revised, and annex footnotes amended. Decision No. 74 enters into force October 28, 2026. Products placed on the market before that date may remain in circulation until their expiry date.
Who Signs the Safety Assessment
The EU concept of the Safety Assessor now applies in the EAEU as well, with qualification requirements aligned to Article 10 of EU Regulation 1223/2009. This means a degree in pharmacy, toxicology, medicine, or an equivalent discipline — a minimum three-year higher education program. A two-month «cosmetic chemistry» certificate does not qualify a person to sign a CPSR — Cosmetic Product Safety Report.
A qualified assessor must understand pathophysiology, toxicokinetics, chemistry, and the applicable regulatory framework. By 2026, a shortage of such specialists is expected. Russia is launching professional retraining programs, but the pool of certified assessors remains small. Companies already active in the EU market will typically have existing CPSRs that can serve as a foundation for EAEU dossiers. Others will need to hire or contract a specialist.
If a product causes consumer harm and it emerges that the assessor disregarded toxicity data or made a calculation error, the consequences for the brand can be severe.
Transitional Provisions
EEC Board Decision No. 24 (March 4, 2025) established the transition timeline:
Declarations of conformity issued before December 24, 2025, remain valid until their stated expiry date.
SRCs — State Registration Certificates issued before December 24, 2025, remain valid for 60 months (five years) from the date the amendments entered into force — that is, until December 24, 2030.
MoS calculations and in vitro requirements become mandatory on July 1, 2026.
Updated testing GOSTs (EEC Board Decision No. 87, October 7, 2025) enter into force on April 8, 2026.
Product Categories Requiring State Registration
Under Annex 12 to TR CU 009/2011, an SRC is required for: children’s cosmetics of any type; self-tanning and skin-lightening products; intimate cosmetics; products containing nanomaterials; hair dyes, bleaches, and permanent wave products; depilatories and chemical peels; temporary tattoo cosmetics; fluoride toothpastes (fluoride content above 0.15%); tooth-whitening products (hydrogen peroxide 0.1–6.0%).
All other categories use a declaration of conformity under schemes 3d, 4d, or 6d.
Action Plan for Manufacturers
1. Portfolio and formulation audit. Check all formulations against current TR CU 009/2011 annexes for banned CMR substances. Compile a product list with declaration and SRC numbers and expiry dates. Identify documents expiring in 2026–2027.
2. Raw material dossiers from suppliers. Request impurity profiles (heavy metals, monomers), toxicological data (NOAEL, in vitro results), nanomaterial data (particle size), and IFRA certificates for fragrances. Data older than ten years may not be accepted.
3. Select an in vitro laboratory. Find accredited partners proficient in GOST 34639-2020 (RhE), GOST 34638-2020 (eye models), and ISO 11930 challenge testing. Stop scheduling animal tests for new formulations.
4. Build a PIF — Product Information File — for each SKU. The PIF must be available to regulatory authorities within 72 hours of a request and retained for ten years after the last batch is produced.
5. Update packaging artwork. Account for the anticipated expansion of the allergen list (following EU precedent), add the (nano) descriptor to any nanomaterial INCI entries, and revise warning statements to reflect the amended regulation.
6. Appoint a qualified safety assessor. Contract an external toxicologist or arrange qualifying training for an in-house specialist. Gathering all data for a PIF typically takes six to twelve months.
What the New Rules Cost — and What They Open Up
The new requirements raise market entry costs. A full toxicological assessment for a single product ranges from ₽50,000 to ₽200,000 (~$500 to ~$2,000), depending on formulation complexity. OECD 428 absorption tests — needed when default DAp assumptions make a formula look unsafe on paper — add to that figure.
For companies already active in the EU market, the transition is substantially easier: existing CPSRs serve as a ready foundation for EAEU dossiers. Harmonized requirements reduce the barrier to export.
For domestic manufacturers, especially small and mid-sized businesses, the shift will be harder. They are being asked to invest in capabilities that were not previously required. The result, however, is a higher baseline product quality across the market — and protection for compliant producers against competitors cutting corners on safety documentation.
What Works in the New Rules — and What Doesn’t
The 2026 overhaul brings the EAEU into alignment with the global cosmetic safety framework that has been standard in Europe for over a decade. Companies with existing EU-compliant dossiers face minimal extra burden and gain full regulatory equivalence for export. The ban on animal testing removes a longstanding conflict: products previously tested on animals to satisfy EAEU requirements were barred from the EU — now both markets can be served from a single safety assessment. And the shift to ingredient-level toxicological analysis (rather than finished-product testing alone) means that chronic accumulation risks, which acute tests miss entirely, are finally captured in the official assessment.
The drawbacks fall disproportionately on smaller domestic producers. A full assessment at ₽50,000–₽200,000 (~$500–$2,000) per product is manageable for a multinational but burdensome for a regional brand with dozens of SKUs. The shortage of qualified safety assessors compounds the problem: the right specialists are scarce, and demand for their services will spike in 2025–2026. OECD 428 dermal absorption tests — the key tool for rescuing formulas that look unsafe under worst-case default assumptions — cost additional time and money that small producers may struggle to absorb.
The decision about how to approach the transition depends heavily on existing infrastructure. Companies that start building their PIF — Product Information File — archives and engaging qualified assessors now will be in a materially better position when the July 2026 deadline arrives.
Sources: EEC Council Decision No. 114 of November 29, 2024 (amendments to TR CU 009/2011); EEC Board Decision No. 24 of March 4, 2025 (transitional provisions); EEC Council Decision No. 74 of September 12, 2025 (updated substance annexes); EEC Board Decision No. 87 of October 7, 2025 (updated testing standards); Technical Regulation of the Customs Union TR CU 009/2011 «On the Safety of Perfumery and Cosmetic Products» (EEC Commission Decision No. 799, September 23, 2011); EU Regulation (EC) No. 1223/2009 on cosmetic products; GOST 34639-2020 «Methods for Testing the Effects of Chemical Products on the Human Body. Skin Irritation In Vitro»; GOST 34638-2020 «Methods for Testing the Effects of Chemical Products on the Human Body. Eye Irritation In Vitro»; ISO 11930 «Cosmetics — Microbiology — Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Protection of a Cosmetic Product.»
Other articles on Regulatory Affairs →