US Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act, which would ban the inclusion of PFAS chemicals in cosmetics products, such as make-up, moisturizer and perfume. The bill was co-sponsored by Senators Angus King (I-ME), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).
 
A similar bill will reportedly be be introduced in the House by Rep. Debbie Dingell (MI-12).
 
The legislation is being introduced following the June 15, 2021 publication of a new study in which researchers found high fluorine levels—indicating the probable presence of PFAS—in most tested waterproof mascaras, liquid lipsticks and foundations. Some of the products with the highest fluorine levels underwent further analysis and were all confirmed to contain at least four PFAS of concern. The majority of products with high fluorine, including those confirmed to have PFAS, had no PFAS listed on the label.
 
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of chemicals that includes PFOA, PFOS and GenX.  These chemicals can bioaccumulate in bodies over time and have been linked to cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, decreased fertility and hormone disruption. First developed in the 1940s, PFAS are traditionally found in food packaging, nonstick pans, clothing, furniture and firefighting foam.
 
“There is no reason for PFAS to be in cosmetics,” noted Blumenthal during a June 15, 2021 press conference along with Dingell; Arlene Blum PhD, executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute (GSPI); University of Notre Dame Professor Graham Peaslee, senior author of the study; and others.
 
“There is nothing safe and good about PFAS. In cosmetics, they add nothing,” asserted Blumenthal, noting that the bipartisan legislation being put forward “will save millions of people from putting poison on their faces.” 
 
“These chemicals are a menace hidden in plain sight,” said the Connecticut Senator.
 
The No PFAS in Cosmetics Act would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue a proposed rule banning the intentional addition of PFAS in cosmetics, as defined by the FDA, within 270 days of enactment, and require a final rule to be issued 90 days thereafter. 
 
Addressing the use of these “forever chemicals” in cosmetics is an important first step that will help reduce people’s exposure to PFAS in the near term, note advocates of removing these man-made materials from use.
 
“PFAS chemicals are not necessary for makeup. Given their large potential for harm, I believe they should not be used in any personal care products,” said Blum, who was a co-author of the study.
 
The Environmental Working Group applauded the introduction of the legislation.

“Toxic forever chemicals have no place in personal care products,” Scott Faber, SVP-government affairs for EWG, said in a statement. 
 
“We need to sound the alarm so consumers will be as outraged as we all should be that millions of people are poisoning themselves by putting these toxins on the skin,” noted Blumenthal, who is the head the Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Consumer Protection, Product Safety and Data Security.
 
“It is urgent that we address it immediately,” said Dingell during the Zoom event.
 
According to Dingell, while the study has helped awareness about the presence of PFAS in cosmetics, the lack of labeling is dangerous. Most PFAS were not disclosed on the ingredient labels, which makes it impossible for consumers to avoid PFAS-containing cosmetics by reading labels.
 
In the study, the research team screened 231 cosmetic products purchased in the US and Canada for fluorine. More than three-quarters of waterproof mascara, nearly two-thirds of foundations and liquid lipsticks, and more than half of eye and lip products had high fluorine concentrations.
 
All 29 products selected for targeted analysis contained detectable levels of at least four specific PFAS. This included PFAS that break down into other PFAS that are known to be highly toxic and environmentally harmful. Fluorotelomer methacrylates were also detected, indicating the breakdown of side-chain fluoropolymers which are marketed as a more “environmentally friendly” alternatives to individual PFAS, according to the study authors and advocates. 
 

Many of the products with PFAS were advertised as “wear-resistant” or “long-lasting.” 
 
Proponents of the ban asserted the it isn’t just the makeup wearer who is at risk. PFAS can trickle into drinking water when being manufactured, in the factories where cosmetics are being made, or when the user is washing their makeup down the drain.
 
Advocates noted that other industries have already moved away from PFAS, such as the carpet industry and fast-food packaging suppliers. 
 
“I challenge the cosmetic industry to do same,” said Tom Bruton, PhD, a senior scientist who leads the GSPI’s research and policy work on PFAS. “Look at the supply chain to assess and find safer alternatives…You will also be helping turn off the tap on PFAS pollution.”
 
Products Studied
 
Peaslee said that there have been studies conducted in Europe and Asia, but no study on PFAS in cosmetics in North America or Canada. In the study, Peaslee and his research team tested more than 200 cosmetics including concealers, foundations, eye and eyebrow products and various lip products. Products were purchased at retail locations in the US and online in Canada. 
 
According to the study, 56% of foundations and eye products, 48% of lip products and 47% of mascaras tested were found to contain high levels of fluorine, which is an PFAS indicator.
 
Peaslee said some use seems to be intentional as indicated by the higher levels in products that were waterproof, for example.
 
The study found high levels of fluorine in liquid lipsticks, waterproof mascaras and foundations often advertised as “long-lasting” and “wear-resistant.” For Peaslee, this is not entirely surprising, given PFAS are often used for their water-resistance and film-forming properties.
 
The 29 products with high fluorine concentrations were tested further and found to contain between four and 13 specific PFAS, only one of these items tested listed PFAS as an ingredient on the product label.
 
“This is a red flag,” Peaslee said. “Our measurements indicate widespread use of PFAS in these products—but it’s important to note that the full extent of use of fluorinated chemicals in cosmetics is hard to estimate due to lack of strict labeling requirements in both countries.”
 
Peaslee noted that cosmetics marketers may not know they have PFAS in their formulations. 
  
According to Blumenthal, the “multibillion companies” in the industry have a “moral responsibility” and the “means” to find out if their products contain PFAS.
 
“Aware and angry consumers are the most effective advocate,” Blumenthal said.
 
Peaslee’s method of detecting PFAS in a wide variety of materials has helped reduce the use of so-called “forever chemicals” in other consumer and industrial products.
 
Following a study from his lab in 2017, fast food chains that discovered their wrappers contained PFAS switched to alternative options. PFAS have been found in nonstick cookware, treated fabrics, and most recently, in the personal protective equipment used by firefighters. Use of PFAS in foam fire suppressants has been linked to contaminated drinking water systems, prompting the Department of Defense to switch to environmentally safer alternatives.
 
Studies have linked certain PFAS to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, hypertension, thyroid disease, low birth weight and immunotoxicity in children.