Q.01

What does Washington's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act ban?

Washington's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act (Chapter 70A.560 RCW) bans the manufacture, knowing sale, offer for sale, or distribution for sale or use in the state of any cosmetic product that contains certain restricted chemicals. Nine chemicals or chemical classes have been banned since January 1, 2025, and 25 named formaldehyde releasers are banned from January 1, 2027.

Banned from January 1, 2025 (RCW 70A.560.020(1) and (2))

Chemical or classWhat is banned
Ortho-phthalatesIntentionally added [1]
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances)Intentionally added [2]
Formaldehyde (CAS 50-00-0)Intentionally added [3]
Methylene glycol (CAS 463-57-0)Intentionally added [4]
Mercury and mercury compoundsIntentionally added [5]
Triclosan (CAS 3380-34-5)Intentionally added [6]
m-Phenylenediamine and its saltsIntentionally added [7]
o-Phenylenediamine and its saltsIntentionally added [8]
Lead and lead compoundsIntentionally added, or present at 1 ppm or above, "or as otherwise determined by the department through rule making" [9]

The CAS numbers and the lead wording come from the statute.

Lead interim policy: Ecology marks the lead entry with a footnote pointing to an interim policy for manufacturers who cannot meet 1 ppm. According to the Ecology compliance page, the policy offers two options:

  • Option 1: up to 2 ppm for cosmetics generally, and up to 5 ppm for color cosmetics and clay masks.
  • Option 2: 5-10 ppm for color cosmetics and clay masks, with batch monitoring. Manufacturers using it must submit lead data when asked.

Lead rulemaking under Chapter 173-339 WAC is also listed on that page.

Formaldehyde releasers, banned when intentionally added from January 1, 2027

The statute bans "chemicals determined by the department to release formaldehyde". Ecology's rule (WAC 173-339-110) lists 25 of them:

  1. DMDM hydantoin [10]
  2. Diazolidinyl urea [11]
  3. Imidazolidinyl urea [12]
  4. Quaternium-15 [13]
  5. Tosylamide/formaldehyde resin (PTSAF) [14]
  6. Bronopol [15]
  7. Sodium hydroxymethylglycinate [16]
  8. Polyoxymethylene urea [17]
  9. Polyoxymethylene melamine [18]
  10. Bronidox [19]
  11. 7-Ethylbicyclo-oxazolidine [20]
  12. Benzylhemiformal [21]
  13. DMHF [22]
  14. Dimethylol glycol [23]
  15. Dimethylol urea [24]
  16. Dimethyl oxazolidine [25]
  17. MDM hydantoin [26]
  18. Methenamine [27]
  19. Methylal [28]
  20. Paraformaldehyde [29]
  21. Polyoxymethylene [30]
  22. Tetramethylolglycoluril [31]
  23. Timonacic, only when used in heat-activated hair straighteners [32]
  24. Tris-hydroxymethylnitromethane [33]
  25. Urea, polymer with formaldehyde, isobutylated [34]

Scope and exceptions

  • Cosmetic product: the statute uses the meaning of "cosmetic" in RCW 69.04.011. Ecology's examples include shampoo, lotion, body wash, deodorant, nail polish and makeup. The ban covers online and in-store sales into Washington. Ecology also lists soaps and over-the-counter products such as vitamins as not regulated.
  • Drugs: prescription drugs approved by the FDA are not cosmetic products under the Act (RCW 70A.560.020(7)(a)). In a cosmetic that also contains drug ingredients, the FDA-regulated drug ingredients themselves are exempt. The listed chemicals are still banned in the rest of that product (RCW 70A.560.020(7)(b)).
  • Retailer sell-through: an in-state retailer holding stock on the date a restriction takes effect "may exhaust its existing stock" until January 1, 2026 (RCW 70A.560.020(3)). Under WAC 173-339, the sell-through for the formaldehyde releasers runs to January 1, 2028.

Approach: I used Washington Ecology's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act restricted chemical list, then checked it against the statute (RCW 70A.560.020) and the rule (Chapter 173-339 WAC) on the Washington Legislature site, and Ecology's manufacturer and distributor compliance page. The WAC and Ecology page details come from summaries of those pages, not word-for-word reads of the full text.

Q.02

How do California's cosmetics restrictions compare?

California bans more named ingredients than Washington, but it bans them by naming individual substances (taken from the EU's Annex II prohibited list), while Washington mostly bans whole chemical classes. California's ingredient ban is in Health and Safety Code (HSC) Chapter 14, §108980. It banned 24 intentionally added ingredients from January 1, 2025, adds 41 more from January 1, 2027, and a 2025 law adds four nitro musks plus concentration limits on musk ketone from the same 2027 date. A separate law bans intentionally added PFAS as a whole class.

What California bans

DateCalifornia ingredientsSource
Jan 1, 2025Dibutyl phthalate; DEHP; formaldehyde; paraformaldehyde; methylene glycol; quaternium-15; mercury (CAS 7439-97-6); isobutylparaben; isopropylparaben; m- and o-phenylenediamine and their salts; 13 named PFOS/PFOA/PFNA/PFDA-type substances and saltsHSC §108980(a), as set out in the Assembly analysis of AB 60
Jan 1, 2025All intentionally added PFAS (defined as fluorinated organic chemicals with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom)AB 2771 (Chapter 804, Statutes of 2022), per the Senate analysis. That analysis covers the June 2022 version; I couldn't open the enacted text.
Jan 1, 202741 more ingredients (AB 496, 2023). Examples: lily aldehyde, acetaldehyde, cyclotetrasiloxane, styrene, vinyl acetate, malachite green, boric acid and 15 other boron substances (perborates and borates), and several basic and disperse dyesHSC §108980(b), per the AB 60 analysis
Jan 1, 2027Musk ambrette, musk tibetene, musk moskene and musk xylene are banned. Musk ketone is capped at 1.4% in fine fragrance, 0.56% in eau de toilette and 0.042% in all other products, with oral products exempt.AB 60, which the Governor's office lists as signed on October 7, 2025

How it compares with Washington

  • Phthalates: Washington bans all ortho-phthalates. California names only DBP and DEHP.
  • PFAS: both states ban intentionally added PFAS as a class from 2025. California also lists 13 specific PFAS in §108980(a).
  • Formaldehyde and releasers: both have banned formaldehyde and methylene glycol since 2025. California also banned paraformaldehyde and quaternium-15 from 2025; Washington only catches both through its 25 formaldehyde releasers from 2027. Washington's releaser list (DMDM hydantoin, bronopol and the rest) has no general counterpart in California.
  • Lead: Washington bans lead at 1 ppm or above. California's ban lists in the committee analyses contain no lead entry. Lead and lead compounds are on California's Safe Cosmetics Program reportable list, which is a reporting duty, not a ban [35].
  • Triclosan: banned in Washington; not on California's ban lists. It is on California's reportable list [36].
  • Mercury: Washington bans mercury and mercury compounds. California's ban lists only elemental mercury (CAS 7439-97-6).
  • Ingredients only California bans: isobutylparaben, isopropylparaben, the 41 AB 496 ingredients and the nitro musks.
  • Phenylenediamines: both states ban m- and o-phenylenediamine and their salts.
  • Trace contamination: California has a general safe harbour for "technically unavoidable trace quantity" from impurities, manufacturing, storage or packaging migration (HSC §108980(c), per the SB 236 analysis). Washington instead sets numeric lead limits.
  • Scope: California defines a cosmetic product as an article "for retail sale or professional use" applied to the body for cleansing, beautifying and similar purposes (HSC §108982(a)).
  • Enforcement: the SB 236 analysis says Chapter 14 sits in the "orphan codes", with no agency designated, no compliance program and no guidance. SB 236, the C.U.R.L. Act (signed October 16, 2025 per the author's release), puts hair relaxers alone under Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) enforcement:
    • The bill as amended in June 2025 covers nine of the banned ingredients.
    • Manufacturers must register by July 1, 2030.
    • Minimum penalties are $10,000.
  • Reporting: separately, the California Safe Cosmetics Act (HSC §111792) requires manufacturers to report to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) any products containing carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. CDPH's reportable list includes formaldehyde/methylene glycol, DEHP, DBP, o-phenylenediamine and mercury compounds [37][38][39][40][41].

Approach: I checked California's Safe Cosmetics Program reportable ingredients list (CDPH). The ban itself is not in the datasets I can search, and the California Legislature's code site blocked access. So I took the HSC §108980 lists from the official Assembly and Senate committee analyses (the AB 60 analysis is dated March 2025) and confirmed enactment from the Governor's and the author's official pages.

Q.03