Cosmetic products: perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The legislation will fundamentally reshape the cosmetic industry in California, particularly concerning the use of certain chemical compounds. By mandating that products free of intentionally added PFAS be standard, the law aims to reduce environmental contamination and improve overall public health outcomes. However, businesses that rely on these substances for manufacturing may experience significant operational adjustments. Provisions for exemptions based on potential environmental benefits mean that discussions will likely focus on the regulatory processes surrounding these exemptions and their adequacy in ensuring health protection.
Assembly Bill 1660 (AB1660) aims to amend Section 108981.5 of the Health and Safety Code regarding the regulation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetic products. Effective January 1, 2025, the bill prohibits the manufacture, sale, and distribution of cosmetics containing intentionally added PFAS unless a specific exemption is granted by the State Air Resources Board (ARB). This measure is put forth as a means to protect public health and the environment from the potential hazards associated with PFAS, which are linked to various health concerns and known for their persistence in the environment.
Sentiment regarding AB1660 appears mixed. Proponents, particularly among environmental and public health advocates, support the bill as a crucial step toward reducing chemical exposure and promoting a healthier ecosystem. Conversely, some industry stakeholders express concern over potential economic impacts, arguing that the prohibition may limit product innovation and availability. The potential for exemptions might create a regulatory burden, leading to further scrutiny and debate among lawmakers.
Notable points of contention revolve around the feasibility of the bill's implementation and its potential loopholes. Discussion regarding the exemption process raises questions about transparency and the rigorousness of scientific determinations made by the ARB. The qualifications for exemption, including the need for a demonstrated lack of harmful impacts and alignment with environmental goals, will likely be scrutinized. The balancing act between environmental protection and industry interests will continue to foster debate as the bill moves forward.