New York’s Beauty Justice Act: Cosmetics industry challenges safety concerns

The New York State Senate, US, is planning to ban several chemicals commonly used in cosmetics through the Beauty Justice Act due to their potential harm to consumers. However, the Personal Care Product Council (PCPC) argues that such a ban would damage smaller businesses and that most of the chemicals are safe for cosmetics.

Taking effect in January 2029, the ban touches a range of heavy metals, including but not limited to nickel and lead, phthalates, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, formaldehyde substances, benzophenone, benzene, carbon black, dihydroxyacetone (DHA), asbestos, and talc. 

The Act suggests that thousands of chemicals are used in cosmetics and personal care products, and some of those are associated with allergies, asthma, hormone disruption, infertility, neurodevelopmental issues, and cancer.

Personal Care Insights speaks with Karin Ross, executive VP of Government Affairs at the PCPC, who expresses concerns about the bill.

“The bill unnecessarily bans ingredients, creating a tougher standard than for the food we eat and the water we consume. It disregards scientific assessments and puts New York out of step with global and US regulatory frameworks,” she says.

Small business concerns

If the bill passes as written, it will force trusted brands off the market, leaving New Yorkers with fewer options while irreparably harming the industry’s small businesses and entrepreneurs, warns PCPC.

Ross explains: “The act would ban safe and commonly used ingredients that serve key functions, like preservatives that help maintain the shelf life of many cosmetics and personal care products. As a result, some of consumers’ favorite brands may need to cease sales in New York, leaving consumers with limited options for essential products, such as shampoo, lotion, shaving products, and makeup.”

Ross says the bill would impose tougher safety standards on cosmetics than food and water.“The bill’s long-term impact will be felt hardest by small businesses and entrepreneurs, including barbers, cosmetologists, and salon owners who sell or use the products as part of a service they provide.”

Ross argues that if the bill passes, businesses will need to remove products containing the ingredients from their shelves, and beauty professionals will need to identify substitutes or find alternative means of procuring the banned products.

“The consequences of the ban to professionals who rely on the products as a source of income are significant and burdensome, considering the ban would provide no meaningful health benefit to New Yorkers,” she notes.

Personal Care Insights previously spoke with Clariant about natural preservative options for cosmetics. The company told us about its compound formulated with 100% renewable sorbitan caprylate — a naturally derived preservative booster from sorbitol (a sugar alcohol) and caprylic acid (a fatty acid from plants like palm oil).

Determining safety levels

We asked Ross if there is a risk that the chemicals in question are harmful to consumers and if such a ban could have a positive impact that might encourage the industry to improve formulas.

“It’s important to note that commonly used ingredients, including preservatives, targeted by the legislation, have consistently been deemed safe at certain use and cumulative exposure levels. Ingredients such as DHA have undergone safety assessments by cosmetic chemists and been approved by the US FDA for external use in personal care products,” she explains.

The FDA has approved DHA only for external applications in cosmetics. However, it has not approved DHA in certain tanning products, such as mists, which have a high risk of coming in contact with the eyes and lips. Therefore, tanning mists are no longer classified as external applications and may harm consumers, the FDA says.

However, Ross says lawmakers and the public need to understand a critical distinction about chemical safety levels.The PCPC warns the bill would disrupt the entire supply chain of personal care products.

“It’s not the substance but the amount of exposure that determines safety,” she says. “For example, water can be harmful in excess. This bill overlooks that nuance and disregards how science evaluates real-world risk and exposure levels.”

Supply chain disruption

Ross further argues that the ban would significantly disrupt the entire supply chain of cosmetics and personal care products.

Notably, a business not headquartered in New York but selling cosmetics and personal care products in the state would also be affected by the bill’s compliance requirements while also needing to comply with federal and global manufacturing requirements.

“Cosmetics and personal care products are essential to New Yorkers’ daily routines and well-being across every demographic. We will continue to work with New York state legislators to consider amendments to harmonize the bills with recently enacted laws, moving a step closer to global regulatory alignment,” Ross concludes.

Exposure to personal care and cosmetic products typically begins in infancy, with products such as baby shampoo, lotion, and diaper cream, and continues throughout a person’s lifespan.

According to the Environmental Working Group, women use 12 personal care products daily on average, exposing themselves to 168 different chemical ingredients. Men use six, exposing themselves to 85 unique chemicals.