A growing number of state legislatures are considering bans on cosmetics and other consumer products containing PFAS, a class of synthetic, potentially hazardous chemicals.
In Vermont, the state Senate approved legislation this week that would prohibit manufacturers and suppliers from selling or distributing any cosmetics or menstrual products containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, as well as a number of other chemicals, in the state.
Shampoo, makeup, deodorant, sunscreen, hair dyes, and other items are included, according to Republican state Sen. Terry Williams, a member of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare.
Many known toxic chemicals, such as PFAS, lead, and formaldehyde, are used in or found as contaminants in personal care products,” Williams said in reporting the bill to Senate colleagues.
Cosmetic restrictions were enacted in California, Colorado, and Maryland, and will take effect in 2025. Other legislation is being considered in Washington and Oregon, and bills have been introduced in Illinois, Rhode Island, and Georgia.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, studies have linked PFAS exposure to an increased risk of cancer, developmental delays in children, organ damage such as liver and thyroid damage, elevated cholesterol levels, and reduced immune functions, particularly in young children.
The proposed Vermont crackdown on PFAS, also known as forever chemicals due to their persistence in the environment, goes beyond cosmetics, as it has in Colorado and California. The bill, which must now be considered by the Vermont House, would extend the ban to apparel, including outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions, athletic turf, clothing, ski wax, and textiles that intentionally contain PFAS, such as upholstery, draperies, towels, and bedding. The bill has been referred to a House committee, and the chairwoman stated on Friday that she is unsure whether the panel will consider it this session. The legislation specifies various timetables for phaseouts.
“We must stop importing dangerous chemicals like PFAS into our state so that we can prevent the harms they are causing up and down the supply chain – from their production and use to their disposal,” said Lauren Hierl, executive director of Vermont Conservation Voters.
The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first federal limits on chemicals in drinking water in March, claiming that the protection would save thousands of lives and prevent serious illnesses such as cancer. The chemicals had been used in consumer products and industry since the 1940s, including nonstick pans, food packaging, and firefighting foam. Their use in the United States has largely been phased out, but some remain. There is also growing pressure to remove PFAS from food packaging.
A study published in 2021 by University of Notre Dame researchers discovered that more than half of the cosmetics sold in the United States and Canada contained a toxic industrial compound linked to serious health problems.
Researchers tested over 230 commonly used cosmetics and discovered that fluorine, an indicator of PFAS, was present in 56% of foundations and eye products, 48% of lip products, and 47% of mascaras.
According to the US Food and Drug Administration’s website, there have been few studies of the presence of PFAS in cosmetics, and the ones that have been published found the concentration to be very low.
According to the Personal Care Products Council, which represents the cosmetics industry, the Personal Care Products Council supported California legislation in 2020 to phase out certain ingredients, including 13 PFAS in cosmetics, and identical legislation in Maryland the following year. To avoid confusion, the group advocated for states to pass uniform laws.
The American Apparel & Footwear Association supports the bill passed unanimously in the Vermont Senate and appreciates that amendments were made to align with phase-out timelines in existing PFAS restrictions in California and New York, according to Chelsea Murtha, AAFAs director of sustainability.
The Outdoor Industry Association, based in Colorado, stated that it supports the Vermont bill in general, but that the current version more closely matches the California deadline.
We are also grateful for the exemption for outdoor apparel severe wet conditions until 2028, as our industry is working hard to transition to non-regrettable alternatives that do not jeopardize consumer safety or product quality, said association President Kent Ebersole in a statement.