Last week, I wrote about toxic “forever chemicals,” per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals known as PFAS, in drinking water because the latest tests by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency showed more than 11 million additional people were found to have PFAS in their drinking water.
When I was figuring out which files to put the article in, I wondered if PFAS are put in cosmetics. Surely not, I thought, because so much is known about how harmful they are.
Low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system. Studies show exposure to PFAS can also increase the risk of cancer, harm fetal development, and reduce vaccine effectiveness.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99 percent of Americans, including newborn babies.
I was extremely surprised about what I learned when I looked up PFAS in cosmetics.
PFAS found in cosmetics
Certain PFAS are intentionally added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lipsticks, eyeshadows, moisturizers, rouges, nail polish and enamel, blushers, and cleansers, according to a Food and Drug Administration factsheet. These PFAS are used in cosmetics to condition and smooth the skin and hair, making them appear shiny, or to affect product consistency and texture.
In addition, the FDA said, some PFAS may also be present in cosmetics unintentionally as the result of raw material impurities, or due to the breakdown of intentionally added PFAS ingredients that form other types of PFAS.
FDA studying PFAS in cosmetics
Under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act or MoCRA of 2022, the FDA is required to:
- Assess the use of PFAS in cosmetic products and the scientific evidence regarding the safety of their use in cosmetic products, including any risks associated with their use. MoCRA further provides that FDA, as appropriate, consult with the National Center for Toxicological Research to assess safety of PFAS in cosmetics.
- Publish, on its website, a report summarizing the results of the safety assessment from the use of PFAS in cosmetic products, not later than December 29, 2025.
Few studies on PFAS in cosmetics
The FDA fact sheet says the few studies on the concentration of PFAS in cosmetics have been done. Levels ranging from parts per billion to hundreds of parts per million make their “detection and quantitation challenging.”
In addition, research is limited on whether PFAS in cosmetics are absorbed through the skin at levels that could be harmful to health.
How to avoid PFAS in cosmetics
Cosmetics consumers who want to avoid PFAS should read the label on cosmetic products, the FDA recommends. The label needs to list the ingredients with the ingredient that weighs the most listed first, and the ingredient that weighs the least listed last.
Some common PFAS ingredients found in cosmetics include perfluorohexylethyl triethoxysilane, polytetrafluoroethylene or PTFE, tetradecyl aminobutyroylvalylaminobutyric urea trifluoroacetate, trifluoropropyl cyclotetrasiloxane, and trifluoropropyl cyclopentasiloxane.
See the FDA’s fact sheet for a list of other PFAS that may be found in chemicals.
Final thoughts
This is really discouraging information. So much is known about PFAS and how toxic they are, it shows, once again, that the FDA’s regulation of cosmetics is seriously lacking. So many people wear cosmetics and through influencers and social the sale of skin care products is increasing.
Neither the FDA nor EPA are: (1) sufficiently well funded; (2) have enabling legisltation that truly makes it possible for them to regulate effectively. You can’t have any & all chemical compounds (PCBs, most pesticides, et al) be considered to be “innocent/safe” until proven guilty AND have EPA and the FDA mostly have to rely (insufficient funding) on “research” done by the corporations that will profit by sale/use of those pesticides, chemical compounds. For example, w/regards to foods, if a corporation presents a given compound as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) the agency pretty much has to accept that determination–and doesn’t have the funding to do its own research much of the time. There’s also been way too little research done on the synergistic effects of exposure to PCBS (ubiquitous), PFAS (also ubiquitous), TCDD (ubquitours, found in human breast milk all over the US in the ’90’s, other chlorinated hydrocarbons, etc. Those halogens are too often dangerous, some brominated chemical compounds also seem to be hazardous. All that & microplastics too, bisphenol-A, pthalates too-and who knows what the effect of being exposed to all of them does to children, babies, adults? Money for the research isn’t there. I’m glad you put these articles into your blog when you find them. Marion Nestle’s blog provides alot of good information re: food, including pet food.
You’re absolutely right about the FDA and EPA being underfunded and the laws and regulations being weak. That’s why it’s so infuriating that Republicans are now poised to get rid of regulations and make government smaller. It’s just the wrong thing.
But PFAS allowed in cosmetics? I just couldn’t believe it when I read the FDA fact sheet. It’s so wrong. The FDA is studying it. Talk about too little too late.
Yes, Marion Nestle is a great resource. I’ve interviewed her several times over the years and read her blog regularly and quote from it.