01 / WHATWhat PFAS are.
PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — are a class of thousands of synthetic chemicals, not a single ingredient. What they share is the carbon–fluorine bond, one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry. That makes them resistant to water, oil and heat, which is why they’ve been used in non-stick pans, rain jackets, food packaging and firefighting foam. It also means they resist breaking down, in use and in the environment. Hence the nickname “forever chemicals”.
In cosmetics, the FDA says certain PFAS are added to lipsticks, eyeshadows, moisturizers, nail polish, blushers and cleansers to condition and smooth skin and hair, add shine, or change texture. They aren’t common: the FDA found 51 PFAS in 1,744 product formulations, about 0.4% of the US products listed with it as of August 2024. Eyeshadows, leave-on face products, eyeliners, face powders and foundations made up about 56% of them. These are the ones you’re most likely to see on a label:
02 / LABELSpotting them on a label — and what you won’t see.
Health Canada’s advice is to look for ingredient names containing “perfluoro”. That catches many, but not all. Check for:
- “perfluoro” or “polyfluoro” anywhere in a name — perfluorodecalin, perfluorononyl dimethicone, methyl perfluorobutyl ether.
- PTFE or polytetrafluoroethylene — the most common one in US cosmetics.
- “fluoro” inside a longer name — trifluoropropyl cyclopentasiloxane, trifluoroacetyl tripeptide-2. These fluorinated silicones and peptides are PFAS too, even though they don’t say “perfluoro”.
Not every “fluor” is a PFAS. Sodium fluoride and stannous fluoride in toothpaste are simple fluoride salts, not forever chemicals.
A label has real limits here:
- It only lists what was added on purpose. The FDA notes PFAS can also end up in a product as impurities in raw materials, or when an added PFAS breaks down into another. Neither appears on the ingredient list.
- Packaging isn’t on it. PFAS in food packaging or containers never appear on an ingredient list, and most household products don’t have to list ingredients at all, as Health Canada points out.
- It doesn’t show how much. Ingredients are listed roughly by amount, but nothing tells you the concentration.
03 / WHYWhy regulators are acting.
The main driver is persistence. According to the EU’s chemicals agency (ECHA), PFAS released into the environment travel long distances and contaminate groundwater, surface water and soil, and cleaning up polluted sites is technically difficult and costly. If releases continue, they keep building up in drinking water and food.
On health, the evidence depends on which PFAS you mean:
- The best-studied ones are a real concern. The European Food Safety Authority set a tolerable weekly intake of 4.4 ng per kg of body weight for the sum of four PFAS (PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS and PFOS), based on effects on the immune system seen in young children. It concluded that parts of the European population exceed it. Diet, not cosmetics, was the source assessed: fish, fruit and eggs contributed most.
- For most others, data are thin. Canada’s 2025 State of PFAS report says animal studies of well-studied PFAS show effects on the liver, kidney, thyroid, immune system and development, but that toxicology and epidemiology data exist for only a limited number of PFAS. It reasons that the rest are likely to persist or break down into persistent PFAS.
- For cosmetic PFAS specifically, mostly unknown. The FDA’s December 2025 review of the 25 most-used cosmetic PFAS found five of low concern, one of potential concern, and couldn’t reach a conclusion for the other 19 (76%) because critical toxicity data were missing.
Proven harm for a few well-studied PFAS, very little data for most of the rest, and no doubt that they last. That gap is what regulators are trying to close.
04 / RULESCanada, the EU and the US.
Canada
Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada published the final State of PFAS report in March 2025. It concluded that the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers such as PTFE, is harmful to human health and the environment under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Fluoropolymers were left out because they may behave differently, and will be assessed separately. The report counts 3,648 cosmetics notified to Health Canada with one or more PFAS between 1993 and July 2024, about 78% of them leave-on products.
What follows is still mostly proposed. An order to add the class to the toxic substances list was published in draft in March 2025. Phase 1, consulted on until November 2025, would ban PFAS in firefighting foams; Phase 2, with consultation planned for 2027, covers consumer uses where alternatives exist — cosmetics included, along with food packaging and textiles. What’s already in force are bans on PFOS, PFOA and long-chain PFCAs, tightened by updated regulations published in December 2025.
European Union
Banned under the EU’s persistent organic pollutants rules from 4 July 2020, with a 0.025 mg/kg limit for unintentional traces.
Restricted under REACH in cosmetics, consumer mixtures, consumer clothing and paper food packaging.
A much broader proposal, from five countries in 2023, would restrict PFAS as a whole. In March 2026, ECHA’s risk committee adopted its final opinion supporting an EU-wide restriction, and its socio-economic committee backed one in draft with targeted exemptions. That committee is expected to finish by the end of 2026; the European Commission then proposes a restriction for EU countries to vote on. It isn’t law yet.
United States
There is no federal ban: the FDA says no federal regulation specifically addresses PFAS in cosmetics. States have moved instead. California’s AB 2771 has banned making or selling cosmetics with intentionally added PFAS since January 1, 2025. Minnesota’s Amara’s Law banned them from the same date in cosmetics and ten other product categories, and extends to almost all products with intentionally added PFAS from 2032. Both define PFAS broadly — any chemical with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom — which covers PTFE. The FDA counted 11 states with cosmetics laws taking effect between 2025 and 2028, as of May 2025.
05 / VERDICTThe bottom line.
Easy to avoid, worth avoiding where you can — no need to panic.
PFAS are in a small share of cosmetics, and the label usually shows them if you know the names: perfluoro-, polyfluoro-, PTFE and trifluoro-. We rate them Caution because they don’t break down, most have little safety data, and several jurisdictions now ban them. That’s not evidence that one lipstick will harm you. If you want to cut PFAS from your routine, swapping a product is simple; Health Canada says most everyday exposure comes from drinking water, air, house dust and food.
Health Canada’s advice is practical: read labels, contact the manufacturer if you’re unsure whether a product contains PFAS, and follow local advisories on drinking water and fish.
06 / SOURCESSources.
- US FDA — PFAS in cosmetics.
- US FDA — Report on the use of PFAS in cosmetic products and associated risks (December 2025).
- US FDA — FDA finds insufficient data to determine safety of PFAS in cosmetic products.
- ECCC and Health Canada — State of PFAS report (March 2025).
- ECCC and Health Canada — Risk management approach for PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers.
- Health Canada — Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
- Health Canada — PFAS and your health.
- Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025 (SOR/2025-270).
- Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/784 — PFOA under the POPs Regulation.
- Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/2462 — PFHxA restriction under REACH.
- ECHA — Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
- ECHA — ECHA supports PFAS restriction with targeted derogations (March 2026).
- EFSA CONTAM Panel, Risk to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances in food (EFSA J 2020).
- California AB 2771 (2022), Cosmetic products: safety.
- Minnesota Statutes §116.943 and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency — PFAS in products.
