Which cosmetic ingredients are banned in California and Washington, and from when?

The Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (AB 2762, 2020) added Health & Safety Code §108980. It bars any person from manufacturing, selling, delivering, holding or offering for sale a cosmetic containing a listed intentionally added ingredient.

The law gives no sell-through period for existing stock. AB 496 (2023) extended the list from 2027. AB 60 and SB 39 amended it again in 2025.

AB 2771 (2022) separately bans all intentionally added PFAS from 1 January 2025 (§108981.5). PFAS means any fluorinated organic chemical with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom (§108982).

SB 236 (2025), the C.U.R.L. Act, added §§108985–108985.7 for hair relaxers. It lets the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) test products and request test results. Penalties start at $10,000 per violation, but DTSC’s duties depend on funding.

Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (HB 1047, 2023; chapter 70A.560 RCW) bans manufacture, knowing sale, offer for sale and distribution of affected cosmetics. Ecology applies it to online sales into the state and to products used in salons.

In-state retailers could sell existing stock until 1 January 2026. Drug active ingredients regulated by FDA are outside the law, but the other ingredients of a drug-cosmetic must comply.

The Department of Ecology adopted chapter 173-339 WAC on 28 August 2025, effective 28 September 2025. The statute allowed up to 10 releasers to be restricted from 2026. Ecology chose one date, 1 January 2027, for all 25.

Manufacturers face civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, or $10,000 per repeat violation (RCW 70A.560.030).

Two further workstreams are pending, not adopted. Ecology’s lead rulemaking estimates adoption in fall 2028. Safer Products for Washington is reviewing cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes in cosmetics and BTEX in nail products.

California’s bans apply to intentionally added ingredients. §108980(d) exempts technically unavoidable traces from impurities, the manufacturing process, storage or packaging migration. The product must be made through processes intended to comply.

The trace exemption covers the lists in §108980(a) and (b). The statute sets no numeric trace threshold.

“Ingredient” follows the FDA definition in 21 CFR 700.3(e), any single chemical entity or mixture used as a component in making the product, and excludes incidental ingredients under 21 CFR 701.3(l). That rule covers substances present at insignificant levels with no technical or functional effect in the finished product, such as carry-over from another ingredient, and certain processing aids.

For PFAS, “intentionally added” means added for a functional or technical effect, or an intentional breakdown product of an added chemical (§108982(c)).

Chapter 70A.560 RCW does not define “intentionally added”. From 1 January 2027, WAC 173-339-020 defines it, for the chemicals restricted by that chapter, as a chemical serving an intended function in the product or in one of its ingredients.

For fragrance ortho-phthalates, the Safer Products rules already define “intentionally added” as a chemical serving an intended function in the final product or in its manufacturing (WAC 173-337-025). Ecology presumes that an ortho-phthalate detected but not listed in the ingredients was added as a fragrance solvent or fixative. The manufacturer can rebut this with a statement and credible evidence (WAC 173-337-111(1)(c)).

Ecology says this captures fragrance fixatives and preservatives added to raw materials, even when they are not on the label. A preservative carried over from a raw material may therefore be treated differently in the two states.

For formaldehyde, Ecology may infer intentional addition from ingredient lists or product testing. A manufacturer can rebut this with a certified statement and credible evidence (WAC 173-339-110(2)(c)).

Lead works differently: the 1 ppm threshold applies whatever the source. Ecology’s interim policy, revised on 31 August 2026, sets conditions under which it will not enforce strict 1 ppm compliance.

Two California laws require reporting to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). They do not ban ingredients.

Under the California Safe Cosmetics Act (Health & Safety Code §111792), manufacturers report products containing chemicals identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity. Fragrance and flavour components are included.

Manufacturers with annual cosmetic sales under $1 million are exempt from that duty (§111792(d)). The data feed CDPH’s public California Safe Cosmetics Product Database.

SB 312 (2020) added §111792.6. Since 1 January 2022, manufacturers must also disclose fragrance and flavour ingredients that appear on designated hazard lists.

They must also disclose EU Annex III fragrance allergens at or above 0.01% (100 ppm) in rinse-off and 0.001% (10 ppm) in leave-on products.

Designated lists include Proposition 65, EU CMR categories 1A and 1B, IARC groups 1, 2A and 2B, and EU SVHC endocrine disruptor entries. When a designated list is revised, a newly listed ingredient must be disclosed within six months after the revised list is adopted or takes effect, whichever is later.

MoCRA preempts state rules on registration and listing, GMP, records, recalls, adverse event reporting and safety substantiation (FD&C Act §614, 21 U.S.C. §364j(a)).

Section 364j(b) says nothing in it prevents a State from prohibiting the use, or limiting the amount, of an ingredient in a cosmetic product. California’s and Washington’s bans therefore stay in force alongside MoCRA.

It also preserves State ingredient-reporting requirements in effect when MoCRA was enacted on 29 December 2022. California’s CSCP and SB 312 reporting both predate that date.

Other states have similar laws. The ones below were checked against official legislative sources.

Most work for 2027 is formulation and supply-chain work, so it needs to start well before the deadline.