Which US states ban PFAS in cosmetics, and does it catch a lip balm?

Fourteen state PFAS laws for cosmetics with the date each bites, checked against the statutes, plus which lip ingredients are PFAS and what the trace exemptions allow.

Six states already ban cosmetics with intentionally added PFAS across the whole chemical class: California, Colorado, Minnesota and Washington from 1 January 2025, and Maine and Vermont from 1 January 2026. Maryland has banned 13 named PFAS since 2025, and Connecticut has required notice and a label since 1 July 2026. New Hampshire, Oregon and Rhode Island follow on 1 January 2027, then Connecticut, New Mexico and New Jersey in 2028 and Illinois in 2032. A lip balm is a cosmetic under every one of these laws. A plain wax, oil and butter balm contains no PFAS and has nothing to change. The laws catch lip glosses and lipsticks made with PTFE, perfluorononyl dimethicone and other fluorinated slip agents.

The fourteen state laws, with dates

The table is ordered by the date the cosmetics rule bites. "Class" means the law covers every PFAS under a structural definition. "Named list" means it covers only the substances it lists. The last column says whether the text has its own carve-out for a technically unavoidable trace, which is covered further down.

Two of those rows need a word. California already had a named list before AB 2771: Health and Safety Code 108980, from the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act of 2020, bans 13 specified PFAS from 1 January 2025. Section 108981(g) says so in as many words. AB 2771 then added 108981.5, which reaches the whole class from the same date, so the named list now matters only for its own trace clause. Maryland never took that second step. Its HB 643 bans 13 named PFAS and their salts and nothing else, so a lip gloss made with PTFE is not caught by HB 643.

The federal position has not changed. FDA's PFAS report of December 2025, written under section 3506 of MoCRA, says there are "currently no federal regulations that specifically address the use of PFAS in cosmetic products". MoCRA's preemption section leaves states free to ban ingredients, which is why this patchwork can exist alongside it. That boundary is set out on MoCRA duties beyond the label, and the label itself on labelling cosmetics in the US.

Where the circulating dates are wrong

The fullest published summary is a compliance consultancy's state table of March 2026. It is right on most rows, and it is the obvious place to start. But it is a secondary source, and five things in it, or in the way it gets repeated, do not match the text of the law.

• Rhode Island is 2027, not 2029. Section 23-18.18-4(a) applies "on and after January 1, 2027" to every "covered product", and cosmetics are on that list. The 2029 date in subsection (b) covers only artificial turf and outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions. The statement of legislative intent also speaks of banning PFAS uses "by January 1, 2029", but the operative subsection for cosmetics says 2027.
• Connecticut wants notice and a label, not one or the other. Public Act 24-59 has two separate prohibitions that both start on 1 July 2026. Subsection (b) bans sale without "prior notification in writing" to the department. Subsection (c) bans sale unless the product is "labeled in accordance with this subsection". Satisfying one does not satisfy the other.
• New Jersey is 12 January 2028. Chapter 202 was approved on 12 January 2026, "shall take effect immediately", and bans PFAS cosmetics "beginning two years after the effective date". The summary's own text says 12 January, but its quick reference table says 1 January.
• Maryland bans 13 substances, not PFAS. Calling HB 643 a ban on "intentionally added PFAS" overstates it. The statute lists CAS numbers.
• California's law is AB 2771. The summary's quick reference table gives California's legislation as HB 1047, which is Washington's bill.

Most of these are small, but the Rhode Island one cuts two years off your planning time. If you keep a PFAS ingredient in any product sold nationally, the second half of the timeline now starts on 1 January 2027 with three states at once, not one.

Does it catch a lip balm?

Yes, on scope. Every one of these laws defines a cosmetic in substantially the FDA's own words: an article "rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on" or otherwise applied to the body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness or altering the appearance. A lip balm sold as a cosmetic sits squarely inside that, and Colorado names lipstick outright.

On substance, a traditional balm is untouched. Beeswax, candelilla, shea, cocoa butter, castor oil, jojoba and tocopherol contain no fluorine at all. So do the synthetic emollients a balm maker is likely to buy: polyisobutene and the gloss polymers, the cosmetic esters, and ordinary dimethicone and phenyl trimethicone (see silicones in balms). The bans start to matter in three places: glosses and long-wear lip colour, SPF lip balms, and finished lip products you buy in and relabel.

SPF lip balms are treated differently by state

A lip balm with an SPF claim is an over-the-counter drug in the US, as set out under cosmetic versus drug claims and SPF in lip balm. The state laws split on whether that takes it out of a cosmetics PFAS ban. Most balm makers will never put a PFAS in an SPF stick. But a bought-in sunscreen base needs checking, and the split shows how differently the laws are drafted.

The safe reading for an SPF lip balm is that it is caught in Oregon and probably in the prescription-only states. Vermont's word "approved" is narrower than "regulated", so do not count on the Vermont exclusion either. The SPF stick formulas and their filters are on lip balm with SPF.

Which lip ingredients are PFAS

Every class-wide state law uses the same core test. California, Minnesota, Vermont, Oregon, New Mexico, New Jersey and Connecticut all define PFAS as fluorinated organic chemicals "containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom". A single CF₃ group is enough. FDA ran a similar exercise for its report: it cross-referenced 177 PFAS against MoCRA product listings and found 51 of them in 1,744 cosmetic formulations as at 30 August 2024. That is 0.41 percent of the 430,134 products listed. Lipsticks and lip glosses accounted for 62 of the 1,744, or 3.6 percent.

Three practical points come out of that table. First, the INCI name gives a PFAS away. Look for PTFE, or for "fluoro" anywhere in the name: perfluoro-, trifluoro-, tetrafluoro-, fluoroalcohol. The INCI names explainer covers how names are built, and the INCI list builder makes the check easy to run on your own formula. Second, a "low safety concern" from FDA does not take an ingredient out of a state ban. The state laws ban by structure, not by risk, so PTFE is caught in California and Vermont whatever FDA thinks of its toxicity. Third, the peptide row shows how PFAS can turn up in an "active". A trifluoroacetate salt carries a CF₃ group, which meets the one-fully-fluorinated-carbon test, so check the full INCI of any peptide you buy for a plumping or smoothing lip product.

One fluorine-containing ingredient is not on the list. Synthetic fluorphlogopite, the synthetic mica substrate in many pearl pigments, is an inorganic silicate with no carbon in it, so it cannot be a "fluorinated organic chemical". The substrate choice is covered under mica and pearl pigments.

Two states draw the line elsewhere

New Hampshire does not use the one-carbon test. RSA 149-M:64 adopts the federal TSCA reporting definition at 40 CFR 705.3. Under that definition a substance must contain one of three structures: R-(CF₂)-CF(R')R", R-CF₂OCF₂-R', or CF₃C(CF₃)R'R". PTFE and perfluorononyl dimethicone meet the first. A trifluoropropyl group (-CH₂CH₂CF₃) has a single fluorinated carbon and meets none of the three. Read as written, trifluoropropyl silicones are PFAS in Vermont but not in New Hampshire. Formulate to the wider test, because a product sold in both states has to pass the stricter one.

New Mexico goes further in the other direction. HB 212's list of exemptions from its bans includes "a product that contains fluoropolymers consisting of polymeric substances for which the backbone of the polymer is either a per- or polyfluorinated carbon-only backbone or a perfluorinated polyether backbone that is a solid at standard temperature and pressure". PTFE is exactly that: a carbon-only, fully fluorinated backbone, solid at room temperature. On the face of the text, a lip gloss whose only PFAS is PTFE is outside New Mexico's 2028 cosmetics ban. Perfluorononyl dimethicone is not, because its backbone is a siloxane, not carbon. Illinois has not exempted fluoropolymers, but 415 ILCS 170/45(c) tells its Environmental Protection Agency to report on them by 1 August 2027, five years before its ban starts.

What "intentionally added" means

Every class-wide law bans PFAS that are "intentionally added", and every definition comes back to function. California and Colorado use "intentionally added to a product" with "a functional or technical effect on the product". Minnesota says PFAS "deliberately added during the manufacture of a product where the continued presence of PFAS is desired in the final product". Maine and Rhode Island say PFAS added "to provide a specific characteristic, appearance or quality or to perform a specific function". Vermont and Oregon define "intentionally added" as a chemical that "serves an intended function in the product component".

For a maker that produces two clear consequences. A PFAS you put in on purpose is caught at any level, whether it is 0.5 percent PTFE for glide or a pigment you chose because it is fluorosilane treated. The definitions reach components, not just your own top-level ingredients, so a coated pigment or a pre-made base counts. A PFAS you did not put in and that does nothing in the product is outside the definition. That covers trace fluorinated residue from a raw material, or migration from a supplier's packaging. Three rules tighten the edges:

• Breakdown products count. California, Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and New Jersey include PFAS that are degradation or intentional breakdown products of an added chemical.
• Processing aids count in Rhode Island. PFAS used "as a processing agent, mold release agent or intermediate" is treated as intentional "where PFAS is detected in the final covered product". A fluorinated mould release on a lipstick mould is the obvious case for a small maker.
• Development use counts in New Jersey. Its definition includes PFAS "intentionally used during the development of a product".

The trace carve-outs, state by state

Vermont's carve-out is the one most often quoted, and four other states use similar wording. Section 2494b(b) says that a cosmetic "made through manufacturing processes intended to comply with this subchapter and containing a technically unavoidable trace quantity" of a listed chemical is not in violation "on account of the trace quantity where it is caused by impurities of: (1) natural or synthetic ingredients; (2) the manufacturing process; (3) storage; or (4) migration from packaging". Vermont needs it more than most, because its ban is worded "intentionally added in any amount".

The carve-out has a condition that is easy to skip past. In Vermont, Maryland, Connecticut and Rhode Island it protects only a product made through a process "intended to comply". That is a paperwork test as much as a chemistry one. If a state finds fluorine in your gloss, the defence is a file showing you asked every supplier, checked every INCI name, and chose your packaging knowingly. A maker who never asked has nothing to show that the process was intended to comply.

The carve-out is also not a concentration limit. None of the five states names a number of parts per million, so "trace" means trace in the ordinary sense, and "technically unavoidable" means you could not reasonably have avoided it. A fluorinated ingredient at a working level is never a trace, whatever the label calls it.

What a small maker should do

For a balm range with no fluorinated ingredients, the work is a one-off check plus a file. For a range that includes a gloss or long-wear lip colour, it is a reformulation decision with a fixed deadline. The steps below are in the order they are easiest to do.

Step 6 is what you will be asked for. Several of these laws let the regulator demand proof on short notice. In Minnesota, the commissioner may direct a manufacturer to provide test results "within 30 days". Rhode Island's director may demand a certificate "within thirty (30) days". New Hampshire requires a signed certificate of compliance on request, and Oregon a statement of compliance "within 10 days after receipt of a request". A maker who has done steps 1 to 3 can answer that in an afternoon. Oregon's civil penalties run to $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for each later one, and a violation is counted per product line. Illinois sets the same two figures for a person, other than a manufacturer covered by its section 35, who knowingly violates its ban.

Penalties are not the whole exposure. Vermont makes a violation of its cosmetics subchapter a violation of its consumer protection statute, so private parties have "the same rights and remedies" as under that act. A fluorinated lip gloss is therefore a litigation risk there as well as a regulatory one. It also undercuts any "clean" claim you print, which is its own problem, covered under chemical-free and clean beauty claims.

One adjacent date worth noting

Vermont's Act 131 adds three more chemicals to its cosmetics ban from 1 July 2027, and one of them is octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane, D4, "intentionally added in any amount". D4 is a cyclic silicone, not a PFAS, and it is the volatile ring the EU has already restricted. If a silky lip product uses a cyclomethicone blend, check whether it is D4 or D5 before mid-2027. The difference is set out on silicones in balms.

Where this page stops

It covers the cosmetics provisions only. Several of these laws also have product reporting duties, and those can apply to a product even where the ban has not started. New Mexico requires a manufacturer of a product with intentionally added PFAS to report by 1 January 2027, and Minnesota's reporting date was 1 January 2026. A balm with no PFAS has nothing to report under either.

It reads the statutes as enacted and does not cover agency rules. Minnesota, New Mexico and Maine can designate a "currently unavoidable use" by rule, and New Mexico's board must adopt rules on reporting exemptions. None of that is likely to rescue a cosmetic slip agent, but it can change the detail. It also does not cover the bills still pending. The same consultancy table lists proposals in New York and Massachusetts with possible 2029 dates, and neither is law.

Outside the US the picture is different again. New Zealand has its own PFAS ban for cosmetics, with import and manufacture allowed only until 31 December 2026, covered under New Zealand cosmetic labelling. If you sell into Europe as well, start from selling balms in the UK and EU.

Reviewed and updated 29 October 2026. Spotted an error? Tell us and we will fix and log it.