PFAS in cosmetics is the latest frontier for advocacy groups who have pressured regulatory agencies to ignore the scientific evidence and set regulations at unnecessarily low levels. Since the FDA has limited authority over cosmetics, these groups have turned to the states, where they have successfully lobbied seven states to ban PFAS in cosmetics.
This marks the 15th article I have written for the ACSH on PFAS, the “forever chemicals.” My first article, written in 2021, Love May Be Forever, But Chemicals Are Not, came when few people had heard of PFAS. I bemoaned the fact that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other advocacy groups had started a campaign to scare people, writing: “What began as a miracle of modern chemistry is now a national crisis.”
Unfortunately, in 2019, the EPA fed into this narrative with its action plan to address PFAS. Part of this action plan included labeling all PFAS (there are more than 4,000 PFAS compounds) as hazardous waste, determining that PFAS “may present an imminent and substantial danger to the public health and welfare” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), known generically as “Superfund.” By doing this, the EPA significantly expanded the interpretation of “may present harm” beyond what would appear to be Congress’ initial intent, enabling the EPA to broadly regulate PFAS with no basis in science.
PFAS should be regulated based on the guiding principle of toxicology, “The Dose Makes the Poison.” Unfortunately, the EPA has ignored this principle in setting regulations for PFAS in drinking water, cherry-picking human studies that show the desired results and ignoring studies that don’t fit their narrative. The EPA claims that PFAS cause health effects related to reproduction, increased risk of some cancers, and immune system disorders. However, an examination of these studies shows correlation, not a causation.
PFAS and Cosmetics
Cosmetics use PFAS to control product consistency, texture, durability, and water, weather, and sweat resistance. They increase skin penetration of lotions and creams, aid in detangling hair, and increase oil resistance. Unlike food and drugs, the FDA has limited authority over cosmetics. The FDA is not required to approve cosmetics or cosmetic ingredients before a product is marketed. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that
- The cosmetic is safe under customary conditions of use
- Is properly labeled
- Does not contain any poisonous or deleterious substances.
In 2022, Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, requiring the FDA to assess the use and scientific safety evidence of PFAS in cosmetic products and to publish their results no later than December 2025. Although the FDA has not yet published its results, I believe the results are not likely to show any health problems from PFAS in cosmetics.
Denmark’s Environmental Protection Agency carried out a significant risk assessment on PFAS in cosmetics. They used established risk assessment procedures involving measuring levels of PFAS in selected cosmetics and comparing them to “safe levels” calculated by the scientists. They concluded:
“All in all, based on highly conservative scenarios and the no-effect values used by the regulatory authorities within the EU, it is assessed that the measured concentrations of PFCA in cosmetic products themselves do not pose a risk to consumers. However, in the most conservative scenario a risk cannot be completely ruled out if several cosmetic products containing PFAS are used at the same time - this very conservative scenario is, however, not considered to be particularly realistic.”
One strength of federalism, our form of government, is that regulatory power is shared with the States. California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington are not waiting for the FDA’s safety assessment and have already banned PFAS in cosmetics. Numerous other states are considering similar bans. As written in the National Law Review,
“With multiple state bans going into effect as early as January 1, 2025, the intentional use of any and all PFAS in cosmetics, regardless of possible toxicity issues or lack thereof, is rapidly coming to an end, and manufacturers are being forced to reformulate.” [emphasis added]
PFAS follows a trend where evidence-based science takes a back seat to organizations that can run a successful campaign identifying and demonizing substances, the latest being all food additives. In terms of cosmetics, the cosmetics industry is already reformulating their products, removing PFAS. History tells us that the reformulated products are not likely to be any safer than those containing PFAS and will likely be the next target of advocacy groups.
The PFAS battle is far from over. The Trump Administration has already withdrawn one of EPA’s proposed PFAS regulations. Some media outlets incorrectly reported that the EPA’s final drinking water rule on PFAS, finalized in April 2024, was withdrawn; it was not. It would not be surprising if the Trump Administration began rewriting the PFAS drinking water regulation because of its significant cost and perceived lack of clear public health benefits. However, the watchword for any administration should be evidence-based science.
The uproar over PFAS in cosmetics reveals a troubling pattern: organizations target chemicals before science can weigh in, compelling regulators—and, increasingly, states—to act on emotion rather than evidence. As history has taught us, abrupt bans and rushed reformulations rarely result in better safety outcomes. True public health policy demands a rigorous, unbiased look at the science—not the loudest voices in the room.
