An increasing number of state legislatures are considering banning cosmetics and other consumer goods containing the PFAS chemical family.

This week, the Vermont state Senate gave its final approval to a bill that would ban the sale and distribution of menstrual products and cosmetics in the state that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, among other chemicals.

According to Republican state senator and chair of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare, Terry Williams, the products include shampoo, makeup, deodorant, sunscreen, hair dyes, and more.

Williams stated in presenting the bill to Senate colleagues that "many known toxic chemicals are used in or found as contaminants in personal care products, including PFAS, lead, and formaldehyde."

Similar restrictions on cosmetics were passed in California, Colorado, and Maryland and will take effect in 2025. Bills have also been introduced in Illinois, Rhode Island, and Georgia, and additional proposals are being considered in Washington and Oregon.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reports that studies have connected PFAS exposure to increased cancer risk, developmental delays in children, harm to organs like the thyroid and liver, elevated cholesterol levels, and weakened immune systems, particularly in young children.

The proposed Vermont crackdown on PFAS, also known as "forever chemicals" due to their tenacity in the environment, goes beyond cosmetics, similar to the crackdowns in Colorado and California. The bill, which must now be considered by the Vermont House, would expand the ban to include textiles, including upholstery, draperies, towels, and bedding, as well as outdoor clothing for extremely wet conditions, athletic turf, clothing, and ski wax. The bill has been referred to a House committee, and on Friday, the panel's chairwoman expressed uncertainty about whether the panel would consider it this session. The legislation specifies a number of phaseout timelines.

The executive director of Vermont Conservation Voters, Lauren Hierl, said in a statement that "we must stop importing hazardous chemicals like PFAS into our state" in order to stop the harm that these substances are causing up and down the supply chain, from their production and use to their disposal.

The Environmental Protection Agency proposed the first federal limits on the chemicals in drinking water in March, claiming that the safeguards would prevent thousands of deaths and serious illnesses like cancer. Since the 1940s, chemicals have been utilized in both consumer goods and industry, including firefighting foam, nonstick pans, and food packaging. Although their use has largely been phased out in the United States, some still do. Increasing pressure is being applied to get PFAS out of food packaging.

In 2021, researchers from the University of Notre Dame found that more than half of the cosmetics sold in the United States and Canada contained a toxic industrial compound linked to serious health conditions.

Researchers tested more than 230 widely used cosmetics and discovered that fluorine, a sign of PFAS, was present in 56% of foundations and eye products, 48% of lip products, and 47% of mascaras.

There have been few studies on the presence of PFAS in cosmetics, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the ones that have been published have found that the concentration is extremely low.

The Personal Care Products Council, which speaks for the cosmetics industry, claims that in 2020 it will back legislation in California to phase out 13 PFAS in cosmetics, as well as legislation with a similar structure in Maryland the following year. To prevent confusion, the group demanded that states enact uniform laws.

The American Apparel & Footwear Association, which supports bans on clothing containing the chemicals, applauds amendments made to the bill that were made to align phase-out timelines with the existing PFAS restrictions in California and New York, according to a statement from Chelsea Murtha, director of sustainability for AAFA. The bill was unanimously passed by the Vermont Senate.

The Vermont bill is generally supported by the Outdoor Industry Association, which is based in Colorado. It also points out that the current version more closely resembles California's deadline for compliance.

As our industry works diligently to move toward regrettable alternatives that will not compromise consumer safety or the quality of the product, we are grateful for the exemption for outdoor apparel in severe wet conditions until 2028, said association president Kent Ebersole in a statement.