SB 39 prohibits the manufacture, sale, delivery, holding, or offering for sale in California of cosmetics that intentionally contain specified hazardous ingredients. The bill phases in two lists of banned substances (an initial set effective January 1, 2025 and a second set effective January 1, 2027), places strict percentage limits on musk ketone by product type, and creates a narrow safe harbor for technically unavoidable trace impurities.
Separately, the bill imposes a detailed consumer warning label on vaginal suppositories that contain intentionally added boric acid starting January 1, 2027 and then bans those boric acid suppositories statewide on January 1, 2035 unless the product becomes regulated as a drug by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The measure will force reformulation, expanded testing, supply‑chain review, and prompt legal and regulatory questions about products that sit on the cosmetic/drug borderline.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 39 creates two lists of prohibited cosmetic ingredients with staggered effective dates (2025 and 2027), limits musk ketone by concentration and product class, and allows a narrow exception for unavoidable trace quantities. It requires a verbatim warning statement on vaginal suppositories containing boric acid beginning in 2027 and bans those products in 2035 unless FDA regulates them as drugs.
Who It Affects
Cosmetic and intimate‑care manufacturers, ingredient suppliers (notably PFAS and borate producers), importers and retailers selling personal‑care products in California, testing laboratories, and clinicians who advise patients about nonprescription vaginal therapies.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces market decisions with statutory ingredient restrictions and prescriptive labeling, raising compliance and testing obligations across supply chains. It also creates a regulatory cliff for a widely used off‑label treatment (boric acid suppositories), forcing manufacturers and healthcare providers to reassess product classification and patient access.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 39 operates on two tracks: a broad ingredient ban regime for cosmetics and a targeted, time‑phased approach to boric acid–containing vaginal suppositories. For cosmetics generally, the statute lists dozens of specific chemicals and chemical classes that a person or entity may not intentionally add to a cosmetic product offered for sale in California.
The bill staggers enforcement: one set of ingredients becomes prohibited as of January 1, 2025, and a larger set becomes prohibited as of January 1, 2027. The banned lists include phthalates, formaldehyde/formaldehyde‑releasing agents, mercury, certain parabens and aromatic amines, multiple PFAS compounds by name, and a long list of dyes, musks, and boron compounds among others.
The measure treats musk ketone differently by setting concentration ceilings tied to product types: a higher limit for fine fragrances, a lower limit for eau de toilette, zero tolerance for oral products, and a small ceiling for all other cosmetics. SB 39 also builds in a narrow compliance safe harbor: manufacturers that can show a listed ingredient is present only at a technically unavoidable trace quantity—stemming from impurities in ingredients, manufacturing, storage, or migration from packaging—will not be in violation.
The statute does not, however, set analytical detection thresholds or specify test methods; it instead leaves that to downstream implementation.On vaginal suppositories, the bill requires that any such product with intentionally added boric acid carry a detailed warning label beginning January 1, 2027; the statute supplies the exact language the label must include, covering contraindications (pregnancy, trying to conceive, nursing), symptoms that should prompt medical attention, a warning against use on broken skin, an instruction to discontinue if pregnant, and a note about potential condom incompatibility. If the product remains marketed as a cosmetic, the statute then prohibits manufacture and sale of boric acid vaginal suppositories statewide effective January 1, 2035.
There is an explicit exception: these labeling and phase‑out provisions do not apply if the product becomes regulated as a drug by FDA, creating a pathway where FDA regulation preserves market access under a different regulatory regime.Taken together, SB 39 imposes near‑term compliance deadlines, prescriptive labeling requirements, and a long lead time to exit the market for boric acid suppositories as cosmetics. It will force manufacturers to choose between reformulating to remove listed substances, investing in testing and supply‑chain controls to rely on the trace‑impurity exception, or pursuing FDA drug clearance/approval for products whose therapeutic claims or ingredients push them out of the cosmetic category.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill lists specific chemicals banned from cosmetics effective January 1, 2025 (including dibutyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate, formaldehyde, mercury, certain parabens, and named PFAS compounds).
A second group of ingredients—ranging from styrene and tricresyl phosphate to comprehensive lists of borates and boric acid—becomes prohibited in cosmetics on January 1, 2027.
SB 39 sets product‑specific limits for musk ketone: 1.4% in fine fragrances, 0.56% in eau de toilette, 0% in oral products, and 0.042% in all other products.
Starting January 1, 2027 manufacturers of vaginal suppositories with intentionally added boric acid must include a long, prescriptive warning statement supplied by the statute (including explicit 'DO NOT USE IF PREGNANT, TRYING TO CONCEIVE, OR NURSING').
If a vaginal suppository remains a cosmetic, the bill bans intentionally added boric acid in those products statewide beginning January 1, 2035, but exempts products that become FDA‑regulated drugs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Immediate‑phase ingredient prohibition list (effective Jan 1, 2025)
This section names a discrete set of chemicals that cannot be intentionally added to cosmetics after the listed effective date. The list covers multiple chemical classes (phthalates, formaldehyde/formaldehyde releasers, mercury, certain parabens and aromatic amines) and enumerates several PFAS congeners by name. Practically, manufacturers must ensure formulations and incoming raw materials are free of these intentionally added ingredients or risk noncompliance; importers and contract manufacturers will need documentation and testing to prove the absence of listed substances.
Second ingredient prohibition list (effective Jan 1, 2027)
This subsection imposes a broader ban two years later that reaches a long list of chemicals and entire groups (notably a comprehensive set of boron compounds and a range of dyes and musks). The inclusion of borates and boric acid here is consequential because these chemicals are commonly used in some intimate‑care formulations. Compliance for manufacturers will require reformulation plans, inventory controls to drain products before the effective date, and supplier certifications to remove these chemicals from ingredient streams.
Musk ketone: product‑class concentration ceilings
Rather than a blanket ban, the bill caps musk ketone concentrations at specific levels tied to product classification—fine fragrances, eau de toilette, oral products, and 'all other products'—with a strict zero tolerance for oral products. Companies must classify products correctly (and possibly change product marketing) because the permissible concentration depends on that classification. This creates a testing and labeling nexus: companies will need validated assays and documentation that the finished product complies with the relevant ceiling.
Technically unavoidable trace exception and definition alignment
SB 39 allows a defense if the listed ingredient exists only as a technically unavoidable trace quantity caused by impurities in ingredients, manufacturing, storage, or migration from packaging. The bill references an existing statutory definition of 'ingredient' for consistency. The exception is operationally helpful, but the statute does not define 'technically unavoidable' numerically or prescribe analytical methods, leaving enforcement and acceptable thresholds to implementation or litigation.
Boric acid in vaginal suppositories: labeling, phase‑out, and FDA exception
This provision requires a specific, statutory warning label on vaginal suppositories that intentionally include boric acid beginning in 2027, with language covering contraindications, adverse symptoms, and condom compatibility. It then bans such products entirely in 2035 unless the product becomes regulated by FDA as a drug. The dual pathway—label now, ban later unless reclassified—forces manufacturers to choose between consumer‑facing warnings and either removing boric acid or pursuing FDA regulation for continued market access.
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
- Consumers (especially users of intimate‑care products) — Reduced availability of cosmetics containing named toxicants and PFAS could lower exposure to substances linked to reproductive or other health concerns, particularly for users of products applied to mucous membranes.
- Environmental and public‑health advocates — The targeted PFAS and mercury prohibitions align with broader efforts to eliminate persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals from consumer goods.
- Manufacturers of alternative ingredients and formulators — Companies that already produce PFAS‑free, borate‑free, or non‑musk formulations gain competitive advantage as market demand shifts toward compliant products.
Who Bears the Cost
- Cosmetic and intimate‑care manufacturers — They must reformulate products, secure replacement ingredients, expand testing and documentation, and possibly withdraw products; intimate‑care brands face the added choice of pursuing costly FDA drug pathways for boric acid products.
- Ingredient suppliers and chemical manufacturers (PFAS, borates) — Loss of a California market for specified compounds will reduce demand and may force changes in production or international sales strategies.
- Retailers and importers — Businesses will need tighter vendor controls, inventory management to remove noncompliant stock, and possibly legal review of product lines sold in California.
- State regulators and testing laboratories — Implementation requires scientifically defensible test methods, routine compliance checks, and enforcement resources that may not be specified in the statute.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: SB 39 prioritizes chemical‑safety protections by removing and limiting certain ingredients from the marketplace, but doing so risks shrinking access to some widely used (though sometimes off‑label) intimate‑care remedies and creates regulatory uncertainty for products on the cosmetic/drug margin. Policymakers must weigh reduced exposure to harmful chemicals against potential unintended consequences for patient access, market fragmentation, and the operational burdens placed on manufacturers and regulators.
SB 39 leaves several implementation questions unresolved that could determine how disruptive the changes prove in practice. The 'technically unavoidable trace' safe harbor is useful in principle but vague in execution: the statute does not establish quantitative detection limits or approved analytical methods, so disputes will turn on laboratory practices, sampling protocols, and enforcement discretion.
Absent clear thresholds, companies face uncertainty about how much testing is enough and whether trace contamination from packaging or shared manufacturing lines will trigger recalls or penalties.
The bill also creates a regulatory bottleneck for products that straddle the cosmetic/drug boundary. Boric acid vaginal suppositories are commonly used off‑label for recurrent vaginal infections; banning them as cosmetics while offering an escape hatch if FDA regulates them shifts the burden to manufacturers to decide whether to pursue a drug pathway—an expensive and time‑consuming option that may not be economically viable for small brands.
That dynamic risks reduced access to a therapy some clinicians use, increased demand for compounded or black‑market preparations, or a consolidation of supply under large firms willing to pursue FDA oversight. Finally, the statute prescribes a long, detailed warning label but does not require accompanying consumer education or clinician outreach; mandatory label text alone may not mitigate risks associated with reduced availability or user confusion.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.