The Truth - HIDDEN PFAS - California LAW SB 1237
For beauty brands, it’s time to adapt and innovate. Embrace the change and begin reformulating products to exclude PFAS. The demand for safer alternatives is stronger than ever, and companies that lead the charge on clean, non-toxic formulations will likely win the loyalty of today’s conscious consumers.
SAPPHO is so proud to count themselves as a fore runner with all this information and dedicated to going beyond the safety levels legislated. We purchase certifited PFAS free ingredients, then we test for fluorine, then organic fluorine if the levels of fluorine are over 30 ppm and eventually we hope to test ALL our products this way - for every batch however at the size we are now - we are not always able to test every batch and rely on consistent ordering of ingredients and packaging.
While California’s new law banning PFAS in cosmetics is a significant and necessary step in the right direction, it’s important to acknowledge that progress isn’t perfection—and there are still challenges ahead when it comes to fully addressing the presence of PFAS in beauty products. Though SB 1237 is an important regulatory win for beauty, its limitations deserve some attention, particularly regarding the difficulty of testing for PFAS compounds and the inability to fully pinpoint specific chemicals.
The Testing Challenge: Organic Fluorine, But Not Specific PFAS
One of the most significant hurdles in enforcing this ban is the complexity of testing for PFAS chemicals. PFAS refers to a broad group of over 15000 individual chemicals, each with distinct properties, yet they all share the same carbon-fluorine bond that makes them highly persistent in the environment and human body.
California’s new law requires testing for the presence of PFAS in cosmetics. However, the current state of PFAS testing is far from perfect. While organic fluorine testing can indicate the presence of fluorine-based chemicals (which is a signature of PFAS compounds), it cannot determine the specific types of PFAS present. This means that even if a product tests positive for fluorine, it’s impossible to know exactly which PFAS chemicals are involved.
Given that some PFAS are more toxic than others, this limitation raises concerns. For instance, certain types of PFAS—such as PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid)—are among the most harmful and have been linked to severe health risks like cancer, reproductive issues, and developmental harm. However, newer and less-studied variants of PFAS may still pose threats, even if they are not as well-documented in current studies.
Why This Isn’t Enough: The Risk of "Invisible" PFAS
Because the test results cannot pinpoint the specific PFAS compound, there's the risk of missing dangerous variants or underestimating the risks posed by a product. Some PFAS compounds are used in cosmetics for very specific functions (like water resistance or durability), and even if a product contains a compound that is less toxic than others, it may still contribute to long-term chemical accumulation in the body or the environment.
This testing gap means that while California’s law is a big step forward, it may not catch every harmful PFAS compound—and consumers could still be exposed to chemicals with unknown long-term effects.
The Lack of Comprehensive Industry Reform
Another limitation of SB 1237 is that it only addresses the presence of PFAS in cosmetics sold in California. It does not mandate a comprehensive overhaul of the way beauty brands source, formulate, and test products across their entire supply chain. Many companies may still use PFAS in other product categories, or they might replace one PFAS compound with another that has similar risks. This makes it critical for the law to expand its reach over time—not only in terms of the products covered but also in how it defines and regulates "safe" alternatives.
The Need for Stronger Testing Standards and More Transparency
While SB 1237’s reporting requirements are a step in the right direction, they do not go far enough in promoting full ingredient transparency. Testing results will still be difficult to interpret for the average consumer. To ensure that beauty brands are truly being held accountable, more specific testing methodologies and transparency standards need to be put in place—ones that can definitively identify each individual PFAS compound and disclose its presence, even in trace amounts.