AB 60 prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in California of cosmetic products that intentionally contain a long list of specified hazardous ingredients. The statute splits those restrictions into two phases: an initial group effective January 1, 2025, and a larger group effective January 1, 2027, and also sets product‑specific concentration limits for musk ketone.
The bill creates a limited safe harbor for technically unavoidable trace quantities, requires a detailed consumer warning on vaginal suppositories that contain boric acid beginning January 1, 2027, and phases out sale of boric acid vaginal suppositories entirely on January 1, 2035 unless the product becomes regulated as a drug by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Compliance will drive reformulation, new testing requirements, and label changes for many cosmetic product lines sold in California.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill outlaws cosmetic products with intentionally added chemicals listed in two groups (effective Jan 1, 2025, and Jan 1, 2027), caps musk ketone at product‑category specific concentrations, and sets a label requirement plus an eventual ban on boric acid vaginal suppositories unless FDA regulates them as drugs.
Who It Affects
Cosmetic formulators, fragrance houses, contract manufacturers, importers and retailers that sell into California, ingredient suppliers (notably PFAS and borates), testing laboratories, and makers of vaginal suppositories.
Why It Matters
AB 60 shifts the compliance burden to industry—requiring ingredient vetting, reformulation, concentration testing, and new labels—and creates market pressure that will affect national supply chains and product offerings because California is a large cosmetics market.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 60 is a product‑level prohibition statute: if a cosmetic contains any intentionally added ingredient on the bill’s lists, the product cannot be manufactured, sold, held, delivered, or offered for sale in California after the listed effective date. The statute divides banned ingredients into two groups with different start dates; the first group (including several phthalates, formaldehyde/formaldehyde‑donors, mercury, certain parabens, and a set of named PFAS) takes effect on January 1, 2025.
A second, broader group—covering additional solvents, dyes, musk compounds, and a long roster of boron‑containing substances—takes effect on January 1, 2027.
The bill treats musk ketone differently: rather than an outright ban, it sets maximum concentrations by product type — for example, a higher cap for fine fragrance and a strict zero‑percent allowance in oral products — and defines “oral products” as cosmetics intended for teeth or oral mucous membranes. That creates a testing requirement by product category: manufacturers will need to demonstrate product‑level compliance to the stated percentage thresholds.AB 60 includes a compliance safe harbor for “technically unavoidable” trace quantities when those traces arise from impurities in ingredients or from manufacturing, storage, or migration from packaging.
That exemption is limited to traces that result from processes intended to comply with the chapter; it does not authorize intentional use of a prohibited chemical. For vaginal suppositories that intentionally contain boric acid, the statute requires a specific consumer warning on the label beginning January 1, 2027, and then prohibits sale of those products altogether as of January 1, 2035 — unless the product is regulated as a drug by the FDA, in which case the statute’s labeling and ban provisions do not apply.Operationally, the law will force manufacturers and retailers to audit formulations, check upstream suppliers for listed CAS numbers, adapt labeling and packaging to accommodate warnings or concentration statements, and expand testing and documentation.
Because the statute names chemicals by CAS number and by chemical family (e.g., PFAS, borates), compliance teams must reconcile supplier declarations, certificates of analysis, and analytical testing to ensure products sold in California meet the bans and concentration limits.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Effective dates are explicit: the first list of ingredients is prohibited beginning January 1, 2025; the second, broader list begins January 1, 2027.
Musk ketone is not banned outright but is capped at 1.4% in fine fragrances, 0.56% in eau de toilette, 0% in oral cosmetics, and 0.042% in all other products.
The statute allows a defense for ‘technically unavoidable trace quantities’ that result from ingredient impurities, manufacturing, storage, or migration from packaging, but only when manufacturing processes were designed to comply with the chapter.
Starting January 1, 2027, vaginal suppositories that intentionally contain boric acid must carry a prescribed warning statement on the label; those products are banned from sale in California on January 1, 2035 unless the FDA regulates them as drugs.
The banned‑ingredient lists specifically name multiple PFAS (including PFOS and PFOA) and an extensive set of boron substances (boric acid, borates, perborates, and numerous borate salts and esters).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Immediate‑phase list (effective Jan 1, 2025): phthalates, formaldehyde donors, mercury, select parabens, PFAS
This provision names the first tranche of prohibited ingredients and ties the prohibition to the concept of an ingredient being “intentionally added.” Practical consequences: formulators who use multifunctional chemicals, preservative systems, or contaminated raw materials must verify CAS numbers and supplier declarations. The inclusion of named PFAS (such as PFOS and PFOA) and CAS numbers means compliance cannot rely solely on generic supplier statements; analytical screening and supplier traceability will be necessary to show a product sold in California is free of these intentionally added chemicals.
Second‑phase list (effective Jan 1, 2027): solvents, dyes, musk compounds, and boron substances
The second list extends the ban to a wider range of compounds, notably a long set of boron substances (boric acid, borates, perborates, and various salts/esters) and several colorants and musk chemicals. The broad sweep of boron‑related entries captures both single ingredients and families or salt forms, which increases the likelihood that an ingredient catalogued under a different commercial name will nonetheless fall within the ban. Manufacturers that use borate‑based buffering agents or specialty esters will need to determine whether those ingredients are explicitly listed or fall within listed classes.
Musk ketone concentration caps by product category
Rather than banning musk ketone entirely, the bill sets numeric concentration ceilings tied to product types (fine fragrance, eau de toilette, oral products, and a residual category for all other products). Compliance requires product‑level analytical testing and a compliance decision at formulation time: a fragrance house must either ensure final blend concentrations meet the caps or redesign the fragrance. The zero‑percent rule for oral products effectively prohibits any intentional use of musk ketone in products applied to the mouth or oral mucosa.
Technically unavoidable trace exemption and cross‑reference to ingredient definition
The statute carves out an explicit safe harbor for technically unavoidable trace quantities that arise from impurities, manufacture, storage, or migration from packaging, provided the product was made through processes intended to comply with the chapter. It also anchors the term “ingredient” to an existing statutory definition. In practice this creates a compliance pathway for residual contamination while requiring documentation: manufacturers should document process controls, supplier quality systems, and testing demonstrating traces are unavoidable rather than intentionally added.
Boric acid vaginal suppository labeling, phaseout, and FDA carve‑out
This section requires a prescribed health warning on labels of vaginal suppositories that intentionally contain boric acid beginning January 1, 2027, and bans sale of such products in California beginning January 1, 2035. The ban and labeling requirements do not apply if the product becomes regulated as a drug by the FDA, creating a conditional carve‑out tied to federal regulatory status. For manufacturers, this means an explicit two‑step compliance path: adjust labels immediately and prepare to reformulate or transition market channels by the 2035 deadline unless FDA drug status is obtained.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- California consumers concerned about chemical exposures — the statute removes or limits specified chemicals from cosmetics sold in the state, potentially reducing exposure to PFAS, certain phthalates, formaldehyde sources, and other listed hazards.
- Public health and environmental groups — the law enforces chemical exclusions that align with advocacy goals and creates a legal lever to restrict persistent or bioaccumulative substances (e.g., PFAS) in consumer products.
- Laboratories and compliance vendors — demand for analytical testing, supply‑chain audits, and reformulation consulting will rise as companies validate absence of listed chemicals and demonstrate compliance.
- Manufacturers who quickly reformulate — companies that create AB 60‑compliant alternatives can market products as legally allowable in California and may gain first‑mover advantages across other jurisdictions seeking similar restrictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Cosmetic formulators and brand owners — they must audit ingredient inventories, reformulate affected products, retest finished goods, and update labels, incurring R&D, testing, and regulatory costs.
- Fragrance houses and suppliers of proprietary blends — musk concentration caps and bans on specific solvents/dyes will force recipe changes or the development of compliant fragrance variants.
- Small importers and retailers — these actors must ensure products sourced from out‑of‑state comply with California‑specific bans, increasing compliance overhead and inventory segmentation.
- Analytical testing infrastructure — while benefiting from demand, testing laboratories will face intense pressure to deliver low‑limit detection methods and rapid turnarounds to support supplier certification.
- State agencies or local enforcement bodies — enforcement and complaint handling will require technical expertise and resources to interpret “intentionally added,” evaluate trace exemptions, and adjudicate noncompliance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: AB 60 prioritizes hazard elimination and consumer protection by removing certain chemicals from cosmetics, but doing so places heavy compliance, testing, and reformulation costs on manufacturers and suppliers—costs that can reduce product variety and raise prices. The statute’s attempt to balance those priorities (via a trace exemption, concentration caps, and a drug carve‑out) leaves unresolved how strictly ‘intentionally added’ will be interpreted and how regulators will treat borderline contamination, supplier declarations, and alternative ingredients.
AB 60 packs detailed chemical names and CAS numbers into a straightforward prohibition, but operationalizing the ban raises hard questions. First, the statute turns on the phrase “intentionally added” while simultaneously permitting technically unavoidable traces; distinguishing intentional use from contamination puts the burden on manufacturers to maintain traceability and testing.
Analytical methods have varying limits of detection for PFAS, musk compounds, and borates, and regulators and courts will need to decide what test results—below what limits and supported by what documentation—satisfy the safe harbor.
Second, the boric acid path illustrates an implementation dilemma: the law requires an immediate labeling regime (2027) then a phaseout (2035) unless the FDA treats the product as a drug. That conditionality creates regulatory uncertainty: obtaining FDA drug status requires data and time; meanwhile, manufacturers must decide whether to seek federal regulation, reformulate, or exit the market for California sales.
Finally, the law’s sweep across families of borates and PFAS could produce substitution risk: suppliers might replace listed chemicals with structurally similar but less‑studied analogues, shifting rather than eliminating hazard unless replacement chemicals are assessed for human and environmental safety.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.