The Cosmetic Supply Chain Transparency Act of 2025 inserts a new FD&C Act subchapter that compels suppliers in the cosmetics supply chain to provide brand owners with detailed safety and composition information and creates enforceable recordkeeping obligations across the chain. It charges FDA with creating and maintaining a list of “nonfunctional constituents” (impurities or incidental chemicals) that firms must test for and disclose, and it authorizes enforcement including civil penalties.
This proposal is targeted at improving upstream visibility — from raw-material suppliers to fragrance houses and formulating labs — so companies selling finished cosmetics have the data they need to assess safety. It also preserves state authority to adopt stricter ingredient or disclosure rules, which keeps a role for state-level regulation alongside federal action.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires any supplier — including ingredient manufacturers, fragrance companies, and formulating laboratories — to provide brand owners, on request, safety data, composition statements, full fragrance/flavor component lists, certificates of analysis, and manufacturing flow charts. FDA must create and maintain a list of nonfunctional constituents known or reasonably expected to be present in cosmetics and identify where they occur; suppliers must test for listed constituents and provide certificates of analysis showing measured levels and analytical methods.
Who It Affects
Brand owners (companies that market cosmetics), ingredient and raw‑material manufacturers, fragrance and flavor houses, formulating labs, and retailers are directly affected; FDA will take on rulemaking and administrative duties. State regulators retain the ability to impose more stringent ingredient, disclosure, or reporting requirements.
Why It Matters
The bill moves obligations upstream into the supply chain and compels disclosure of information that many brand owners struggle to obtain today — including full fragrance formulations and nonfunctional contaminants. That changes compliance exposure for suppliers, shifts testing costs, and creates a federal framework that references international lists (EU, California, IARC) as benchmarks for hazards.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill adds a new subchapter to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act focused on supply‑chain transparency for cosmetics. It defines key actors (brand owner, supplier, formulating laboratory, flavor or fragrance company, manufacturer) and technical terms (ingredient, incidental component, nonfunctional constituent).
The statutory definitions are expansive: “ingredient” includes fragrance and flavor components, and “nonfunctional constituent” covers impurities, byproducts, and breakdown products that don’t serve a function in the finished product.
At the supplier‑to‑brand‑owner level the bill creates a mandatory information flow. When a brand owner asks, the supplier must provide a package of material safety and composition documentation — from functions and hazard descriptions to Certificates of Analysis, heavy‑metal test results, and full listings of fragrance and flavor components.
The disclosed finished‑product ingredient list must be in descending order by predominance, with a small‑component exception for ingredients under 1%.FDA gets two concrete new responsibilities. First, the agency must develop and maintain a list of nonfunctional constituents that are known or reasonably expected to appear in cosmetics or ingredients and that meet hazard criteria drawn from California, EU, EPA, IARC, and similar lists.
The bill directs FDA to identify the specific ingredients or categories where each listed constituent is likely to occur and to issue industry guidance on testing methods and detection limits. Second, FDA must manage a public petition and update process for adding constituents or external lists to its roster, including specified comment periods and timelines for initial publication.Operational rules tie the list to testing and disclosure: suppliers are required to test for constituents added to the FDA list within a defined implementation window after listing and to supply brand owners with analysis showing measured levels, methods used, detection limits, and heavy‑metal results.
The bill also requires all entities in a supply chain to keep records sufficient to trace manufacturers and suppliers and to provide that information to FDA upon request when a product is suspected to be adulterated or misbranded. Finally, the statute establishes civil liability for violations of the new disclosure, testing, and recordkeeping duties, and it expressly preserves state laws that impose more rigorous ingredient limits or disclosure regimes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Suppliers must respond to a brand‑owner request for safety and composition information within 90 days, including CAS numbers, safety data sheets, composition statements, manufacturing flow charts, and fragrance allergen statements.
FDA must publish a proposed initial list of nonfunctional constituents with a 60‑day public comment period and finalize that list no later than 18 months after enactment.
The law requires FDA to convene an advisory committee within 9 months composed equally of industry, nonprofit, scientific, and medical/public‑health representatives to advise on the initial list and analytical testing best practices.
After a nonfunctional constituent is added to FDA’s list, suppliers must conduct testing for that constituent within one year and provide brand owners a certificate of analysis that states measured levels, analytical methods, and detection limits.
Violations of the new supplier disclosure, testing, or recordkeeping rules carry civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for each day the violation continues.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — who is who and what counts
This section supplies the technical vocabulary the rest of the subchapter uses. It casts a wide net: brand owner means the entity bringing a product to market; supplier includes manufacturers, formulating labs, and fragrance companies; ingredient includes fragrance/flavor components; and nonfunctional constituent covers incidental chemicals, byproducts, and breakdown products. Practical implication: firms need to map their roles against these definitions to know whether they are a supplier or a brand owner, and whether a particular chemical is treated as an ingredient or an incidental/nonfunctional constituent for testing and disclosure purposes.
Mandatory supplier disclosures to brand owners
On a brand‑owner request, suppliers must provide a detailed packet of information within 90 days. The statute lists specific items — functions, hazard summaries, CAS numbers, safety data sheets, composition statements, fragrance allergen statements, IFRA conformity certificates, manufacturing flow charts, heavy‑metal test results, and more — and requires full component disclosure for fragrance and flavor formulations. Practically, suppliers that previously relied on partial formulas or trade‑secret protections will be forced to assemble and transmit technical dossiers if they want to continue selling into U.S. brands.
FDA list of nonfunctional constituents and rulemaking process
FDA must create and publish a list of nonfunctional constituents known or reasonably expected in cosmetics and identify where they occur. The statute prescribes an initial procedure (a proposed list with a 60‑day comment period and finalization within 18 months) and directs FDA to convene an advisory committee within 9 months whose membership is balanced among industry, nonprofits, scientists, and clinicians. The law also sets up an annual review cycle, a petition mechanism (FDA must publish the process within 24 months), and requirements for public comment and timetables when petitions are considered. These mechanics will drive FDA workload and set the pace for which contaminants move from potential concern to mandatory testing.
Testing obligations and certificates of analysis
Once FDA lists a nonfunctional constituent, suppliers must test for it within one year and deliver to brand owners a certificate of analysis before sale. The COA must include quantified levels, the analytical method used, detection limits, and heavy‑metal results. This provision ties regulatory listing to concrete laboratory requirements and forces suppliers to adopt—and document—analytical methods that meet FDA guidance on detection limits and best practices.
Supply‑chain traceability, recordkeeping, and information requests
If FDA has reason to suspect a cosmetic is adulterated or misbranded, it can request that the brand owner and any supply‑chain entity submit manufacturer and supplier names, places of business, and distribution recipients. The law requires all supply‑chain entities to maintain records sufficient to provide that information on request. In practice this creates a baseline traceability obligation across the chain and gives FDA the ability to chase upstream sources during investigations.
Civil penalties for noncompliance
The statute makes violations of the new disclosure, testing, and recordkeeping duties subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day per violation. The provision creates a significant enforcement stick; because penalties are daily, short lapses in response times or delayed testing could accumulate large liabilities absent clear enforcement guidance or mitigation mechanisms.
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
- Brand owners (cosmetic companies and retailers) — gain legally enforceable access to upstream safety, composition, and testing data they currently struggle to obtain, enabling more robust product safety assessments and faster incident response.
- Consumers and public‑health advocates — benefit from improved visibility into contaminants and allergens and from a federal mechanism that references established international hazard lists, which can lead to safer products and quicker recalls or corrections.
- State regulators and states with stricter rules (e.g., California) — preserve their ability to impose more stringent ingredient bans or reporting requirements, allowing continued local leadership on chemical safety standards.
Who Bears the Cost
- Ingredient suppliers, fragrance and flavor houses, and formulating laboratories — face new compliance workstreams: assembling dossiers, conducting additional analytical testing, and producing certificates of analysis that they must deliver to brand owners.
- Small upstream manufacturers and overseas suppliers — will likely incur the largest relative costs because they must establish testing capacity, adapt quality‑control systems, or contract laboratories; some may be squeezed out of supply chains if they cannot meet disclosure demands.
- FDA and its budget — will need to staff the advisory committee, develop and maintain the nonfunctional‑constituent list, issue guidance on testing and detection limits, manage petitions and public comment, and handle enforcement requests, creating administrative burdens that require funding or reprioritization.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between consumer and public‑health benefits from comprehensive upstream transparency (identifying contaminants and allergens) and the commercial and practical costs of forcing full disclosure and routine testing: the bill increases safety data access but risks exposing trade secrets, imposing significant testing and documentation costs on smaller suppliers, and creating enforcement uncertainty until FDA defines testing methods and confidentiality procedures.
The bill raises several implementation and policy challenges. First, it mandates disclosure of full fragrance and flavor formulations and detailed supplier documents without creating an explicit, statutory trade‑secret or confidentiality process for commercially sensitive information.
Agencies and courts have existing doctrines for confidential business information, but the statute does not specify how FDA should balance public‑health transparency against legitimate intellectual‑property claims, nor does it prescribe procedures for in‑camera review, redaction, or protective orders.
Second, the framework leans heavily on analytical testing and detection limits but leaves key technical parameters to FDA guidance. Enforcement risk will hinge on what FDA sets as acceptable detection limits and validated test methods; until FDA issues that guidance, suppliers face uncertainty.
The requirement to test for newly listed nonfunctional constituents within a one‑year window also assumes adequate laboratory capacity and validated methods exist for all listed analytes, which may not be true for complex matrices (e.g., fragrances) or for very low‑level contaminants. Finally, preserving state authority to go beyond federal standards—while politically pragmatic—creates the prospect of a patchwork of differing state requirements that suppliers servicing multistate markets must track and comply with alongside federal obligations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.