01 开场：欧盟化妆品法规的“活字典”
2026年9月17~19日，中国（国际）香料香精化妆品行业年会暨精品博览会（CAME）在南京举行。欧洲化妆品协会（Cosmetics Europe）技术法规事务总监Gerald Renner博士受邀出席，于9月17日上午在“全球化妆品监管动态和技术发展趋势交流会”上带来主题分享《欧盟法规更新——近期动态及对未来的展望》。
Renner博士深耕欧盟化妆品法规近三十年：他1967年出生于奥地利，在格拉茨工业大学完成工程化学训练后专攻生物化学工程并获博士学位，1996年加入当时名为Colipa、即今日欧洲化妆品协会（Cosmetics Europe）的科学部门；自2001年起担任技术法规事务总监，2010年起负责欧洲化妆品协会在国际法规调和事务上的工作，2023年起兼任布鲁塞尔自由大学客座教授。多年来，他处理欧盟化妆品法规及其技术调整的各类监管问题，解释化妆品与其他欧盟立法的界限，并长期推动国际化妆品立法趋同、消除贸易壁垒、参与ISO国际标准制定——也包括向欧洲会员提供关于中国化妆品新法规的指导。
2026年恰逢欧盟化妆品统一立法五十周年。在这场演讲与专访中，Renner博士带来一个让出口企业安心、也需重新聚焦的判断：欧盟化妆品法规将进入一个“稳定期”，而监管压力正转移到包装、环境宣称与执法——下一场监管博弈，不在化妆品法规本身。
02 演讲回顾：欧盟化妆品法规50年——“稳定”为何成为主旋律
（一）1976年的“监管甜点”，为何五十年不换。Renner博士的演讲从回望开始：2026年是欧盟化妆品统一立法五十周年——1976年7月27日通过的指令76/768/EEC，如今已演进为EC 1223/2009法规。为什么这套框架能延续半个世纪？答案在化妆品的本质：它是典型的快消品——任何时刻都有数十万款产品同时在市，生命周期短、配方不断调整创新，行业从跨国巨头到微型企业高度多样，单价低、销量大、每日高频使用，上市速度至关重要，任何上市前审批步骤都会在数千款产品上成倍放大。但它又切实关乎公共健康：清洁与手部卫生、口腔护理预防感染与疾病，防晒预防皮肤癌，而美还与幸福感、自尊与社会参与相连。因此，化妆品“值得严肃监管，但需要适合其本质的监管”。
1976年，欧盟找到了这个“监管甜点”：宽泛而明确的化妆品定义（包括“保护”、“保持良好状态”的功能）；以风险评估为基础的消费者安全；对行业提出安全、质量与功效（Safety、Quality、Efficacy）的严格详细要求；重点成分的动态管理（正面/负面清单）；用“产品通报”取代“注册”（告知当局而非获得授权）；执行依靠行业安全责任、技术档案义务与成员国市售监管。此后1993年第六修正案（INCI成分标签、产品信息档案PIF、合格安全评估师、首次宣布动物实验禁令）、2003年第七修正案（动物实验与上市禁令时间表、CMR危害导向禁令、26种香精致敏原标注、强制化妆品警戒）、2009年重铸为法规（单一CPNP通报、CMR安全豁免机制、纳米定义与“nano”标注）——每次里程碑都在回答同一个问题：“基础监管方法要不要改？”而答案始终是：它有效。稳定不是停滞：稳定的监管原则加上动态成分管理，同时实现了高水平的消费者安全与快速创新。
（二）Green Deal的插曲：一次被叫停的修订。转折发生在2020至2025年。欧盟“绿色新政”（Green Deal）以“无毒环境”为理念，在化学品政策层面宣布对化妆品法规进行定向修订——这一修订由横向政治议程驱动，而非源于化妆品框架自身的实践问题，45年来首次动摇了这套立法的基本架构，本质上是试图把风险导向的化妆品法规推向危害导向逻辑，却没有一个被证实的食品安全问题作为依据。这场修订最终“没有发生”：2022年宣布、多次推迟、最终搁置。影响评估显示，修订将给化妆品行业带来极高成本而无消费者安全增益；经济与地缘气候也已改变，竞争力、韧性、行政负担被推到欧洲议程首位；德拉吉报告更确认“监管复杂性本身已成为欧洲产业的问题”。
（三）当下：评估与简化法案，法规进入“稳定期”。绿政之后，欧盟回归“从内部反思”：对化妆品法规自2013年以来的执行情况开展全面评估（有效性、效率、相关性、一致性、欧盟附加值）。Renner博士强调，这不是一次修订，不预设任何需要改变的前提；最终评估报告预计2027年初发布，而初步迹象显示——无需修订。与此同时，欧盟委员会2025年7月提出的《简化综合法案》（Omnibus，预计2026年12月发布），将针对程序性瓶颈进行简化，明确不降低安全要求。对行业影响最大的是CMR物质管理规则更新：默认禁令保持不变，但豁免标准被简化并明确——物质在化妆品中使用安全、且无合适替代物即可申请豁免；“合适替代物”的定义与判定标准（比CMR物质更安全、功能相似且功效相当、供应量充足稳定）首次写入法律文本；禁令首次引入过渡期，企业将有充分时间调整配方；含分类组分的天然复合物不会自动纳入CMR禁令，但需经SCCS安全意见。此外，Omnibus还涉及正面清单新增物质的正式流程、纳米材料通报简化、线上销售需在网站提供强制标签信息（批次号与有效期除外）等调整。
（四）成分端：SCCS与动态管理，全球50+司法辖区的参照系。成分管理仍是这套框架的“发动机”：关切或行业请求→数据征集→SCCS意见→委员会与成员国风险管理→附件修订并设定过渡期，这一循环自1976年以来已完成50余次附件修订，欧盟附件与SCCS意见被全球50多个司法辖区采用或转化。当前的高优先级议题包括：内分泌干扰物（2018年确定的28种候选物质持续系统审查，未来凡被分类为人类内分泌干扰物的物质预计将系统转交SCCS审查）；CMR管线（茶树油、香精成分如对伞花烃、佳乐麝香、香芹酮、香叶醇等面临分类审议，滑石粉被提议分类，乙醇可能因杀菌剂法规触发路径特定分类，氟化钠由法国拟议分类）；汞类防腐剂（硫柳汞、苯汞盐）因欧盟淘汰汞政策将删除批准；CBD、前列腺素类似物的SCCS意见已先后于2026年出台。至于备受关注的PFAS，REACH提案拟禁止在所有消费品中使用PFAS，法律提案预计2026年第四季度发布——Renner博士的评估是：对化妆品的影响应当小（详见专访Q4）。
（五）横向立法：真正的“新战场”。Renner博士特别提醒：绿政在可持续领域“确实交付了”几项立法，监管压力已经转移到化妆品法规之外的横向规则——它们现在直接塑造化妆品企业的日常运营。一是《包装和包装废弃物法规》（PPWR）：首批要求2026年8月12日起适用，2030年1月1日前所有包装须按“可回收设计”标准实现可回收，再生塑料含量（PET2030年30%、2040年50%；其他塑料10%、25%），重量体积最小化并对组合包装、电商与运输包装设50%空位上限，禁止住宿行业一次性化妆品包装，要求重复使用与再填充，建立统一材质与分拣标签、全链经营者义务、欧盟符合性声明与覆盖全部废物成本的EPR。二是《赋能消费者绿色转型指令》（环境宣称指令，EU 2024/825，2026年9月27日起适用）：禁止无实证卓越表现的通用宣称（如“环保”“气候中和”），不得仅基于碳抵消作宣称，不得以单一环节获益宣称整体产品环保，环境宣称与可持续标签须经第三方验证。三是《可持续产品生态设计法规》（ESPR）：2026年7月起大型企业须年度披露未售出丢弃商品数量、原因与预防措施——对化妆品目前是报告义务而非销毁禁令；2030年后还可能引入最低可持续门槛（水耗、可生物降解性、原料采购等）。
（六）地平线之后：执法，下一场博弈。最后，Renner博士把目光投向更远处：《欧洲产品法》（European Product Act）提案预计2026年第三季度出台，将横向重构产品规则的制定与执行。背景是电商已彻底改变产品触达消费者的方式——美妆与个人护理线上销售占比已超40%，不合规与假冒商品正直接来自第三国卖家，而当局依赖被动通知机制、难以识别责任人。对化妆品最重要的是其中的市场监督支柱：在线平台问责、与海关协调、针对惯犯的执法工具。同时，数字产品护照（DPP）将作为产品信息的数字载体逐步落地——不过按他的判断，2030年之前化妆品不会迎来具体的DPP要求（详见专访Q3）。
03 一点观察：中国出口企业读到的三句话
第一，稳定，是当下最大的确定性。评估“无需大改”、Omnibus只动程序不动监管哲学、数年内预期无不再有重大修订——这对出口企业是重大利好：化妆品法规的合规路线图可以按稳定框架长期规划，安全评估、产品信息档案、CPNP通报等“基本功”的要求不会频繁变动。但“稳定”不等于“不变”，横向立法正在以更快节奏改写游戏规则，合规资源需要重新分配。
第二，战场已转移：包装、宣称与生态设计。PPWR首批要求2026年8月12日已适用、环境宣称指令2026年9月27日已适用、ESPR未售商品报告义务2026年7月已生效——这三部横向立法全部是“现在进行时”。对企业而言，只盯化妆品法规的时代结束了：包装设计、再生含量、宣称措辞、可持续发展数据披露，正在成为与成分安全同等重要的合规科目。
第三，执法与电商：下一场博弈的主场。欧洲产品法与DPP指向同一个方向：欧盟正把监管重心转向线上渠道的问责与产品信息的数字化。对出口企业，这意味着在线销售的标签信息展示、供应链数据留痕、数字合规能力将提前成为竞争力——现在开始布局数据与流程，正是为2030年后的规则做准备。
04 CAME专访：六个问题
CAME期间，中国香妆国际事务部陈柯如（Jasmine）对Gerald Renner博士进行了专访。以下为对话实录：
Q1｜横向立法影响下，企业如何分配合规资源
提问：欧盟化妆品法规评估初步结论显示不需要大改，但PPWR、ESPR、环境宣称指令这些横向立法正在大量影响化妆品企业，企业应该如何分配合规资源，平衡化妆品专项法规与跨行业环境类法规？
Question：Preliminary conclusions from the EU Cosmetics Regulation review indicate no major revision is required. Nevertheless, horizontal legislations including PPWR, ESPR and the Green Claims Directive are exerting substantial impacts on cosmetics companies. How should enterprises allocate compliance resources to balance cosmetics-specific regulations and cross-sector environmental legislations?
Gerald Renner：The Cosmetics Regulation is of course still the center and most important legislative text for cosmetic companies. The fact that this regulation will now be stable and not undergo significant changes for the foreseeable future is helping compliance in the sense that you do not need to change your compliance all the time. At the same time there are a number of new pieces of legislation that have emerged around us, i.e. not in the center of our usual regulatory focus. These pieces of legislation are new like the PPWR, ESPR, or the Empowering Consumer Directive (green claims). Parts of these new pieces of legislation are already applicable, like the new labeling requirements under the Empowering Consumer Directive Empowering Consumer Directive or the reporting requirements on unsold goods under the ESPR.
These requirements are not expected to change any time in the near future so we should consider them like the Cosmetics Regulation as stable and companies should simply incorporate compliance with these requirements in their normal routine compliance activities. Other requirements, in particular in the PPWR, such as harmonized labeling for sorting, design for recycling or minimum recycled content are requirements which will be introduced over the coming years. For those requirements, where detailed compliance actions cannot implement yet, because the implementing legislation is not yet published.
This does not mean that companies cannot do anything and just need to wait passively until the final moment when the European Commission will publish its implementing acts. Already now companies can do a lot in order to prepare and be ready for future compliance. Mainly this means obtaining relevant data throughout the supply chain which later on will be useful for the actual demonstration of compliance when the detailed implementing acts are published. For the even longer-term regulatory requirements under the ESPR, including also the future Digital Product Passport (DPP), I think companies cannot really prepare in any detail for future compliance. We do not expect any specific requirements for cosmetics to be published before 2030. So, what companies can do now is simply to keep monitoring the policy debates the regulatory discussions in Europe.
中文翻译：化妆品法规当然仍是化妆品企业最核心、最重要的法律文本。该法规未来可预见的一段时间内保持稳定、不发生重大变化，这本身有助于合规——企业不必不断调整合规工作。与此同时，我们周围涌现出一批新的立法，它们并不处于我们惯常的法规关注中心。这些新立法包括PPWR、ESPR，以及《赋能消费者绿色转型指令》（环境宣称指令）。其中部分要求已经适用，例如《赋能消费者绿色转型指令》下的新标签要求，以及ESPR下关于未售出商品的报告要求。
这些要求预计短期内不会改变，因此我们应当像看待化妆品法规一样，将其视为稳定要求，企业只需把对这些要求的合规纳入日常例行合规工作。另一些要求，尤其是PPWR中的协调分拣标签、可回收设计、最低再生含量等，将在未来几年陆续引入。对于这些要求，由于实施立法尚未公布，企业暂时无法开展具体的合规动作。
但这并不意味着企业无事可做、只能被动等待欧盟委员会发布实施法案。企业现在就可以做大量准备：核心是在整个供应链中获取相关数据，待详细实施法案发布后，这些数据将用于实际的合规证明。对于ESPR下更长期的监管要求，包括未来的数字产品护照（DPP），我认为企业目前无法做任何细节层面的合规准备。我们预计2030年之前不会出台针对化妆品的具体要求。因此，企业现在能做的，就是持续跟踪欧洲的政策辩论与监管讨论。
Q2｜CMR“合适替代物”标准入法，实操带来哪些变化
提问：Omnibus VI简化法案会更新CMR物质管理规则，其中“合适替代物”的判定标准被写入法律，对于行业，这个新标准在实操层面会带来哪些实际变化？
Question：The Omnibus VI Simplification Act will update the rules governing CMR substances, and the criteria for “suitable alternatives” will be enshrined in law. What practical on-the-ground changes will this new standard bring to the industry?
Gerald Renner：The clarification and administrative simplification that the chemical omnibus provides for the management of CMR substances will be very helpful for the industry. The CMR ban was originally introduced in 2003 without any possibility of getting an exemption for use of a CMR substance in cosmetics, even when such use could be demonstrated to be safe.
In 2009, a derogation mechanism was introduced that theoretically allowed to request derogation from the CMR ban under certain circumstances with the most important criterion being that the use of the CMR substance in cosmetics can be demonstrated as safe. However, the whole derogation process was so complicated that in practice not a single derogation request actually passed.
Very importantly as well, the previous way of addressing CMR substances did not foresee any transition time for CMR bans. This means companies who did not very closely follow the regulatory developments on ingredients are often surprised with an immediate applicable ban on substances and find themselves with no possibility to reformulate or change their products in time.
Also, one criterion to obtain derogation from the CMR bands was the need to prove that there is no suitable alternative that could be used in cosmetics to replace the CMR substance. However, this concept of suitable alternative was not defined in the cosmetic regulation which made any decision on the availability or not of suitable alternatives very subjective.
Firstly, the criteria that a substance needs to meet in order to be considered for derogation have been simplified. It is necessary in the future for a substance to obtain derogation from the CMR band that it is safe for use in cosmetics and that there are no suitable alternatives. There are no other criteria that need to be fulfilled. Also, the Chemical Omnibus puts into the legal text of the Cosmetic Regulation clear definitions and criteria of what constitutes a suitable alternative for a CMR substance. Besides the requirement that the alternative is safer than the CMR substance, the alternative has to fulfill similar a function with a comparable level of efficacy as the CMR substance. Also, it has to be available in sufficient and secured amounts to fulfill the market demand. These criteria allow a much more objective assessment of whether or not a suitable alternative exists for a CMR substance. Lastly, the Chemical Omnibus also introduces transition times for the case when no derogation is granted for a CMR substance and the CMR substance is banned. This means that companies will have sufficient time to reformulate and replace the substance before the ban becomes applicable and thereby they can ensure continued product supply without any major interruption.
中文翻译：化学品综合法案（Chemical Omnibus）为CMR物质管理带来的澄清与行政简化，对行业将非常有帮助。CMR禁令最初于2003年引入，当时即使能证明某种CMR物质在化妆品中使用是安全的，也没有任何获得豁免的可能性。
2009年引入了豁免机制，理论上允许在特定情况下申请CMR禁令豁免，最重要的标准是能够证明该CMR物质在化妆品中的使用是安全的。然而，整个豁免流程过于复杂，实践中没有一例豁免申请真正通过。
同样重要的是，此前处理CMR物质的方式没有为CMR禁令预留任何过渡期。这意味着，没有密切跟踪成分监管动态的企业，常常会突然面临物质即时被禁，发现自己没有时间重新调整配方或更换产品。
此外，获得CMR禁令豁免的标准之一，是必须证明化妆品中没有可替代该CMR物质的“合适替代物”。但“合适替代物”这一概念此前在化妆品法规中并无定义，导致对是否存在合适替代物的判断非常主观。
首先，物质获得豁免需要考虑的标准被简化了。未来一种物质要从CMR禁令中获得豁免，只需要满足两个条件：在化妆品中使用是安全的，且不存在合适的替代物，不再需要满足其他标准。同时，化学品综合法案在化妆品法规的法律文本中，明确了“何种物质构成CMR物质的合适替代物”的定义与标准：除了替代物必须比CMR物质更安全之外，替代物还必须履行类似功能、具有与CMR物质相当的功效水平，并且供应量充足、供应稳定，能够满足市场需求。这些标准让“是否存在合适替代物”的评估客观得多。最后，化学品综合法案还为CMR物质未获豁免即被禁止的情形引入了过渡期。这意味着企业将有充足的时间在禁令生效前重新调整配方、替换物质，从而在不造成重大中断的情况下确保持续的产品供应。
Q3｜数字产品护照DPP：最大的落地难点与对非欧盟品牌的影响
提问：欧盟即将推进的European Product Act、数字产品护照DPP未来会应用到化妆品，从行业视角看，最大的落地难点是什么？对进口至欧盟的非欧盟品牌会带来什么影响？
Question：The upcoming European Product Act and Digital Product Passport (DPP) of the EU will be applied to cosmetics in the future. From an industry perspective, what are the biggest implementation challenges? What impacts will this have on non-EU brands imported into the EU?
Gerald Renner：The biggest implementation challenge regarding the digital product passport (DPP) is that up to now it only exists as a concept not as a detailed fleshed out legal requirement for cosmetics. Therefore, we know that there will be very specific data that needs to be incorporated into this digital product passport. We also know that part of this data will be compliance data and part of it will be environmental sustainability data. However, today we do not know yet what kind of electronic data platform will be used, nor what exactly will be the data that the cosmetics sector will need to include in the cosmetics digital product passport.
This means at this moment in time we cannot make any specific preparations for the DPP. On the positive side, we do not expect the DPP to be introduced for cosmetics before 2030. This means we still have a long way to go. In the interim, we are advocating towards the European Commission and the member states that any system that is developed for cosmetics DPP will be compatible with international digital solutions such as for instance the digital labeling that is being introduced in some parts of the world including in China or Korea.
中文翻译：数字产品护照（DPP）最大的落地挑战在于，截至目前它只是一个概念，还不是针对化妆品的、细化成文的法律要求。我们知道，未来会有非常具体的数据需要纳入这份数字产品护照；我们也知道，其中一部分是合规数据，另一部分是环境可持续数据。然而，今天我们还不知道将使用什么样的电子数据平台，也不知道化妆品行业具体需要在数字产品护照中包含哪些数据。
这意味着，现阶段我们无法为DPP做任何具体准备。积极的一面是，我们预计2030年之前DPP不会引入化妆品领域，我们还有很长的路要走。在此期间，我们正在向欧盟委员会和各成员国倡导：为化妆品DPP开发的任何系统，都应与国际数字解决方案兼容——例如中国、韩国等世界部分地区正在引入的数字标签。
Q4｜PFAS禁令：冲击会集中在哪里
提问：PFAS的禁令提案预计2026年第四季度出台，您评估禁令正式落地之后，对化妆品行业实际冲击会集中在哪类产品？企业现在应当提前做哪些准备？
Question：The PFAS ban proposal is expected to be released in Q4 2026. In your assessment, which product categories will bear the brunt of the ban once it enters into force? What preparatory work should companies carry out in advance?
Gerald Renner：In principle the PFAS ban in Europe should not create large problems for the cosmetic industry. Already in 2023, Cosmetic Europe issued a Recommendation that cosmetic companies should reformulate products and remove PFAS. Technically, this is possible because there are alternatives to PFAS that can be used in cosmetic products. We are confident therefore that the REACH restriction on PFAS when it is published in the future, probably with a transition time for its application, will not have an impact on the direct deliberate use of PFAS in cosmetics because companies will have gone through the reformulation already.
What is potentially an issue is the presence of unavoidable traces of PFAS in cosmetic products. For instance, it is known that recycled packaging may contain PFAS residues that could migrate into cosmetic products. These are very low levels. However, the REACH restriction also sets very low levels for the presence of PFAS in cosmetic products. It is important that the regulator makes clear distinction in the REACH restriction between deliberate use of PFAS and the unavoidable presence of traces of PFAS from sources that the cosmetic manufacturer cannot control. We are in discussion with the European Commission and have raised awareness about this potential problem.
中文翻译：原则上，欧洲的PFAS禁令不应给化妆品行业带来大问题。早在2023年，欧洲化妆品协会（Cosmetics Europe）就发布建议，要求化妆品企业重新调整配方、去除PFAS。技术上这是可行的，因为化妆品中有可用的PFAS替代物。因此我们有信心，未来REACH法规下的PFAS限制发布后（很可能附带过渡期），不会对化妆品中直接、有意使用PFAS产生影响，因为届时企业已经完成了配方调整。
真正潜在的问题，是化妆品中不可避免的PFAS痕量存在。例如，众所周知，再生包装可能含有PFAS残留，并可能迁移进入化妆品。这些含量非常低。然而，REACH限制也为化妆品中PFAS的存在设定了非常低的限值。重要的是，监管机构需要在REACH限制中明确区分“故意使用PFAS”与“化妆品生产商无法控制的来源导致的不可避免的PFAS痕量存在”。我们正在与欧盟委员会讨论，并已就这一潜在问题发出提醒。
Q5｜十二年见证：中国企业应对欧盟法规的进步
提问：您多次参加CAME，从欧盟法规专家视角，您观察到中国企业对欧盟复杂法规体系的理解和应对能力这几年有哪些进步？本届大会上您觉得最有价值的交流是什么？
Question：You have attended CAME many times. As an EU regulatory expert, what progress have you observed among Chinese enterprises in their understanding of and capacity to cope with the complex EU regulatory framework in recent years? What do you regard as the most valuable exchanges at this year's conference?
Gerald Renner：It is true I have been attending for 12 years and I have witnessed a significant and dramatic evolution of the Chinese cosmetic industry. When I talked to companies 10 years ago about the potential to go to the European market the answer was always “we are not ready for this”. When I asked the same question five years ago companies told me “we could probably do it, but the Chinese market is so big we don't need to go abroad”. This year the answer to the question has been very different namely “we are eager to export and want to learn about the EU regulatory system”. By discussing with companies and regulatory consultants at this year's CAME conference, it is clear that there is a high level of understanding of the EU Cosmetics Regulation. This is also helped by the degree of alignment that has been reached between the Chinese and the European Cosmetics legislation. I feel that the last 15 years of collaboration between China and Europe on regulatory topics have been positive for both European and Chinese manufacturers. It enables a fair exchange of trade between the two partners.
Where I see that Chinese companies are still struggling are the regulatory requirements such as the PPWR, the ESPR or the legislation around green claims. These are new pieces of legislation, and I can only say that it's not only the Chinese companies who struggle with them but also for European companies. It is a significant work to get to grips with all these new legal requirements.
It is impossible for me to say what has been the most valuable exchange for me this year. Coming to CAME means regulatory discussions, it means exchange of opinions and experience, it means learning new things and it means being impressed by new products and technologies. But for me the most valuable exchange is meeting old friends and making new friends.
中文翻译：确实，我已经参加了12年，见证了中国化妆品行业显著而剧烈的演变。十年前，当我与公司谈论进军欧洲市场的可能性时，答案总是“我们还没准备好”。五年前我问同样的问题，企业告诉我“我们大概能做，但中国市场太大了，我们不需要出海”。今年，这个问题的答案非常不同——“我们渴望出口，想学习欧盟监管体系”。通过与今年CAME会议上的企业和法规顾问交流，可以清楚地看到，业内对欧盟化妆品法规的理解已达到很高水平。这也要归功于中国与欧洲化妆品立法之间已达成的对齐程度。我感觉，过去15年中欧在监管议题上的合作，对欧洲和中国制造商都是积极的，它使双方能够进行公平的贸易往来。
我看到中国企业仍在吃力应对的，是PPWR、ESPR以及环境宣称相关的立法要求。这些是新的立法，我只能说，不仅是中国企业，欧洲企业同样在挣扎。要掌握所有这些新的法律要求，是一项艰巨的工作。
我很难说今年对我最有价值的交流是什么。来CAME意味着监管讨论，意味着意见与经验的交流，意味着学习新事物，也意味着被新产品和新技术打动。但对我来说，最有价值的交流，是见到老朋友、结交新朋友。
Q6｜CE与CAFFCI：下一步如何深化合作
提问：CE长期帮助企业应对欧盟法规，CAFFCI服务大量对欧出口企业。您认为下一步双方在欧盟法规培训、PPWR/ESPR/DPP等新法规预警、中小企业合规支持方面，有哪些具体合作计划？
Question：CE has long supported companies in complying with EU regulations, while CAFFCI serves a large number of enterprises exporting to Europe. What concrete cooperation plans do you envisage for both sides going forward in EU regulatory training, early-warning for new regulations such as PPWR/ESPR/DPP, and compliance support for SMEs?
Gerald Renner：CAFFCI and Cosmetics Europe not only share a number of member companies, but we also share a common objective which is to facilitate fair market access for our members in both China and the EU. For this reason, we work together since many years to make the regulations of the EU and China compatible so that companies are able to use the same package of safety, quality and efficacy information to support compliance in both regions. Over the years, we have developed a very close collaboration and have regular exchanges between our associations. We keep each other informed about the latest regulatory developments and we collaborate directly are in various topics. This has resulted in joint positions regarding topics such as fragrance allergen labeling, which we shared with our respective regulators and gained their support. The new regulatory requirements like PPWR or the future digital product passport will require that our two associations further intensify our collaboration. I don't know yet exactly how this will look like but if it is done in the spirit in which we work together today I know that it will be successful.
中文翻译：CAFFCI与欧洲化妆品协会（Cosmetics Europe）不仅共享许多会员企业，还拥有一个共同目标：为双方会员在中国和欧盟实现公平的市场准入。正因如此，我们多年来一直合作，推动欧盟与中国的法规相互兼容，使企业能够使用同一套安全、质量与功效信息来支持两地的合规。多年来，我们建立了非常密切的合作，两个协会之间定期交流。我们互相通报最新的监管动态，并在多个议题上直接协作。这促成了在香精致敏原标注等议题上的联合立场——我们将其分别提交给各自的监管机构，并获得了支持。PPWR等新监管要求，以及未来的数字产品护照，将要求两个协会进一步深化合作。我还不确定具体会以什么形式展开，但只要以我们今天合作的精神来推进，我知道它一定会成功。
05 结语：合规路线图进入“稳定期”，下一站是执行与准备
从50年前的“监管甜点”，到绿政插曲后的“从内部反思”，再到横向立法与执法时代的到来——Renner博士的分享，本质上给中国出口企业画了一张“欧盟法规路线图”：化妆品法规进入稳定期，基本功可以长期规划；包装、环境宣称、生态设计与数字合规成为新战场，需要现在就分配资源；而执法与电商，则是下一场博弈的主场。
中国香妆协会与欧洲化妆品协会（CE）的友好交流由来已久。双方保持着常态化的沟通机制，定期举行线上会议，在法规信息共享、行业标准对接与国际市场动态等方面密切协作。就在本届CAME开幕前不久的9月4日，双方刚刚召开2026年第三季度线上会议，CE总干事John Chave与本次分享嘉宾Gerald Renner博士等出席，并就年会期间的进一步交流作出安排。此次南京之行，正是这一长期合作的延续——从定期的线上会议到年会上的面对面交流，中欧两大行业组织的合作正走向常态化、机制化与纵深化。展望未来，随着PPWR、ESPR与数字产品护照等新法规不断落地，双方有望在法规预警、标准对接与中小企业合规支持等方面进一步深化协作，共同为中欧化妆品企业营造公平、可预期的市场环境。
正如他在专访中所说，中欧在监管议题上15年的合作，对双方制造商都是积极的，它使贸易得以公平进行；而PPWR与数字产品护照等新要求，将推动两个协会进一步深化合作。中国香妆协会将继续以CAME为平台，把欧盟法规动态、预警信息与合规支持带到行业面前。明年广州，我们期待更多这样的对话。