Washington has joined more than a dozen other states in seeking to crack down on toxic substances in cosmetics after a state-funded study there found lead, arsenic, and formaldehyde in makeup, lotion, and hair-straightening products made by CoverGirl and other brands.
The U.S. stalled out on chemical regulations after the 1970s, according to , an urban and environmental policy associate professor at Occidental College. And that has left a regulatory void, as lax federal oversight allows potentially toxic products that would be banned in Europe to be sold in American stores.
鈥淟ots of products on the market aren鈥檛 safe,鈥� Shamasunder said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 why states are helping create a solution 鈥� it鈥檚 a patchwork approach.鈥�
The potential exposure to toxicants in cosmetics is especially worrisome for women of color, because that Black women use more hair products than women of other racial groups and that Hispanic and Asian women have reported using more cosmetics in general than non-Hispanic Black and white women.
The is a second attempt at passing the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, after legislators approved a that was stripped of the ban on toxic ingredients in cosmetics. This year, lawmakers have additional context after a by the legislature and published by the state Department of Ecology in January found multiple products with concerning levels of hazardous chemicals, including lead and arsenic in dark-tint CoverGirl Clean Fresh Pressed Powder foundation. CoverGirl Continuous Color Lipstick and Markwins Beauty Brands鈥� Black Radiance Pressed Powder foundation were among other products from various brands containing lead, the report found.
Research teams asked Hispanic, Black, and multiracial women what beauty products they used. Researchers then tested 50 cosmetics purchased at Walmart, Target, and Dollar Tree, among other shops.
鈥淐ompanies are adding preservatives like formaldehyde to cosmetics products,鈥� said Iris Deng, a toxics researcher for the Washington State Department of Ecology. 鈥淟ead and arsenic are different stories. They鈥檙e detected as contaminants.鈥�
Markwins Beauty Brands did not respond to requests for comment.
鈥淣ominal traces of certain elements may sometimes be present in product formulations as a consequence of natural mineral origin, as permitted by applicable law,鈥� Miriam Mahlow, a spokesperson for CoverGirl parent company , said in an emailed statement.
The Washington report鈥檚 authors said European Union countries ban products like the dark-tint CoverGirl foundation. That鈥檚 because arsenic and lead have been linked to brain and nervous system damage and cancer. There is 鈥渘o known safe level of lead exposure,鈥� said Marissa Smith, Washington state鈥檚 senior regulatory toxicologist, and formaldehyde is also a carcinogen.
鈥淲hen we find these chemicals in products applied directly to our bodies, we know people are being exposed,鈥� Smith added. 鈥淭herefore, we can assume these exposures are contributing to health impacts.鈥�
Though most of the products鈥� lead content was low, Smith said, people are often exposed for years on end, considerably increasing the danger.
The Washington ecology department findings were not altogether surprising: Other testing bodies have picked up preservatives such as formaldehyde or, more often, formaldehyde-releasing agents such as quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, and diazolidinyl urea in hair-straightening products marketed especially to Black women. Formaldehyde is one of the chemicals used to embalm corpses before funerals.
In addition to Washington, at least 12 states 鈥� Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont 鈥� are considering policies to restrict or require disclosure of toxic chemicals in cosmetics and other personal care products.
States are acting because the federal government possesses limited authority, said , vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that researches what鈥檚 in household and consumer products.
鈥淭he FDA has had limited resources to pursue ingredient bans,鈥� Benesh added.
Congress has not given the Environmental Protection Agency widespread authority to regulate such products, even though contaminants and preservatives from cosmetics end up in the water supply. In 2021, a California man to ban toxic chemicals in cosmetics under the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the , said , a lawyer in Washington, D.C., because cosmetics are outside the scope of the act鈥檚 jurisdiction.
鈥淭he law is crystal clear on this,鈥� she said.
Bergeson said the regulation of chemicals is subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but the FDA color additives and because those products make the medical claim of decreasing the risk of skin cancer.
Minnesota, for example, fills in the regulatory gaps by testing for mercury, hydroquinone, and steroids in skin-lightening products. It also passed a law in 2013 banning formaldehyde in children鈥檚 products such as lotions and bubble baths.
California has passed several laws that regulate cosmetics ingredients and labeling, including the California Safe Cosmetics Act in 2005. A law adopted in 2022 bans intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as starting in 2025.
Last year, Colorado also in makeup and other products.
But consumer safety experts said that states should not have to fill in the void left by federal regulations, and that a smarter approach would entail the federal government subjecting cosmetics ingredients to an approval process.
In the meantime, states are fighting an uphill battle, because thousands of chemicals are available to manufacturers. As a result, a gap exists between what consumers need for protection and regulators鈥� ability to act, said , executive director of Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit that researches and advocates for environmental health.
鈥淭he federal systems are inadequate in that they do not require the safest chemicals to be used,鈥� Valeriano said. 鈥淚nstead, they allow hazardous chemicals in personal care products, such as PFAS, phthalates, or even formaldehyde.鈥�
Moreover, the federal government鈥檚 risk assessment system is flawed, she said, 鈥渂ecause it attempts to determine how much risk from toxic exposures is acceptable.鈥� In contrast, the approach that Washington state hopes to legislate would assess the hazards and ask whether the chemicals are necessary, or if there are safer alternatives 鈥� which is to say prevent toxic ingredients in cosmetics in the first place.
It鈥檚 a lot like the approach taken by the European Union.
鈥淲e put boundaries and restrictions around these chemicals,鈥� said Mike Rasenberg, hazard assessment director of the in Helsinki.
Rasenberg said that because research shows formaldehyde causes nasal cancer, the EU has , plus and , in beauty products. The EU鈥檚 27 countries also work together to test products for safety.
In Germany, more than 10,000 cosmetic products are examined annually, said Florian Kuhlmey, spokesperson for that country鈥檚 . And it doesn鈥檛 end there. This year, Germany will examine about 200 samples of children鈥檚 toothpaste for heavy metals and other elements banned in the EU for cosmetics, Kuhlmey added.
The legislation in Washington would move the state toward a more European approach to chemicals regulation. If approved, it would give retailers that sell products with banned ingredients until 2026 to sell existing stocks.
Meanwhile, customers can protect themselves by seeking out natural beauty products, Atlanta-area dermatologist Dr. Chynna Steele Johnson said.
鈥淟ots of products have formaldehyde-releasing agents,鈥� Steele Johnson said. 鈥淏ut it isn鈥檛 something customers can find on a label. My suggestion 鈥� and this goes for foods too 鈥� would be fewer ingredients are better.鈥�