A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 11 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the No PFAS in Cosmetics Act. It amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ban the use of intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances in cosmetics. These are fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated methyl or methylene carbon atom. The ban applies to substances intentionally added by a manufacturer or supplier to an ingredient, raw material, product, or packaging, as well as intentional breakdown products of an added chemical. This new ban will apply beginning on January 1, 2027. Finally, the bill repeals section 3506 of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022.
Yes· 3 of 11
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Banning toxic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances reduces environmental pollution from chemical manufacturing and disposal.
- Scored +8
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Banning intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics significantly enhances consumer safety by removing harmful chemicals.
- Scored +7
Would children be better off under this?
Children benefit from enhanced safety standards and reduced toxic chemical exposure in everyday cosmetic products.
The opposite
- Scored -3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Cosmetic business owners face increased regulatory costs and the necessity to reformulate product lines.
- Scored -2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
The ban on PFAS in cosmetics places compliance and product reformulation burdens on cosmetic manufacturers and suppliers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a) amends the law to make any cosmetic adulterated if it contains an intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance. This is positive because it stops manufacturers and suppliers from putting these specific chemicals into cosmetics, ingredients, raw materials, products, or packaging on purpose.
-
Section 2(b) sets the rule to apply beginning on January 1, 2027. This gives a clear timeline for when these chemicals must be removed from cosmetics for the protection of the people.
-
Section 2(c) repeals section 3506 of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022. This removes the older provision and replaces it with the new ban created by this Act.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Section 2(a) bans the use of intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances that have a functional or technical effect on the product or packaging, or are intentional breakdown products. This could be viewed as a negative burden for manufacturers and suppliers who currently rely on these chemicals for their products or packaging, as they will have to change how they make them.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Children benefit from enhanced safety standards and reduced toxic chemical exposure in everyday cosmetic products. Would women be better off under this? — Women are statistically heavier users of cosmetics and will experience significant reductions in personal toxic chemical exposure. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Young adults who frequently use cosmetics benefit from the removal of potentially harmful PFAS chemicals. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Middle-aged individuals experience reduced health risks associated with cumulative exposure to toxic substances. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors benefit from general improvements in public health standards and chemical safety. Would men be better off under this? — Men also benefit from overall improvements in environmental and product safety standards. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural communities near manufacturing and waste sites benefit from reduced PFAS environmental contamination. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban populations benefit from decreased overall chemical pollution burdens. Would business owners be better off under this? — Cosmetic business owners face increased regulatory costs and the necessity to reformulate product lines.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Banning toxic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances reduces environmental pollution from chemical manufacturing and disposal.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Banning intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics significantly enhances consumer safety by removing harmful chemicals. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The ban on PFAS in cosmetics places compliance and product reformulation burdens on cosmetic manufacturers and suppliers.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill establishes a nationwide federal ban on specific chemical additives under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
- 10/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/6/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/1/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/3/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 7/27/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 7/6/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Yassamin AnsariDemocrat · Arizona
Judy ChuDemocrat · California
Greg CasarDemocrat · Texas
Maxine DexterDemocrat · Oregon
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Maxwell FrostDemocrat · Florida
Laura FriedmanDemocrat · California
Ted LieuDemocrat · California
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Emily RandallDemocrat · Washington
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida