HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

California Bill Could Target PFAS In Cosmetics, Intentionally Used Or Not

Executive Summary

AB 2771, introduced in February, would ban the manufacture or sale of cosmetic products containing PFAS beginning on 1 January 2025, and it does not specify intentionally added PFAS versus those present as contaminants.

You may also be interested in...



Industry Pushes For Revised PFAS Definition In California Bill Seeking Cosmetic Ban

The Personal Care Products Council and other industry groups suggest they will support AB 2771 if amendments are made to promote international harmonization, among other changes. Already they advocated successfully for the bill’s scope to be limited to intentionally added PFAS, not “the mere presence of trace levels of fluorine in the product.”

Washington State Could Outdo California With Toxic-Free Cosmetics Legislation

Under SB 5703, which passed the Senate on 14 February, Washington state would ban sales of cosmetic products containing PFAS, phthalates, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing agents beginning in 2025. The proposal goes beyond California’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act enacted in 2020, which confined its blacklist to substances the EU has banned from use in cosmetics.

Not So Clean Beauty? False Advertising Lawsuits Allege PFAs In CoverGirl, BareMinerals Products

Coty’s and Shiseido’s respective CoverGirl and BareMinerals, both self-proclaimed creators of the clean beauty movement, deceive consumers with their toxic-free, good-for-the-planet advertising into buying PFAS-laced cosmetic products, plaintiffs allege in recent complaints. Plaintiffs against Coty point to the company’s Sustainability Report as further evidence that its promises and practices don’t line up.

Related Content

Topics

Latest News
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS152275

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel