Health and environmental concerns spell curtains for some cosmetics

There are thousands of distinct compounds in the PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) group and all are synthetically manufactured chemicals that contain links between carbon and fluorine atoms. The carbon-fluorine bond is one of the strongest in organic chemistry and it gives PFAS some interesting properties. They repel both water and fats and tolerate heat, which means they are stain-resistant, grease-resistant and waterproof. This in turn makes them useful in a wide range of applications, including food packaging, non-stick cookware, electronics, refrigerants, stain-proof or waterproof textiles – and cosmetics.

But the strength of this bond also means PFAS don’t break down easily. Instead, they build up in the environment and accumulate in our bodies. For some PFAS compounds, evidence of health risks emerged as early as the 1980s, albeit not publicly, associating high levels of exposure with certain cancers, birth defects and thyroid or immune malfunction. Research to determine the health impacts of lower exposures – such as through regular use of PFAS-containing beauty and personal care products – is continuing, but their persistence in the environment has prompted regulators in the US and Europe to propose bans on their use.

This has led our Environmental Protection Authority to propose a blanket ban on their use in all cosmetics, with a phase-out in locally manufactured or imported products by the end of 2025. Shaun Presow, the EPA’s manager of hazardous substances reassessments, says the proposal reflects the agency’s responsibility to act in a precautionary manner.

The proposed ban is part of several changes to the EPA’s group standard for cosmetics – its process for approving substances under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Public submissions have been assessed and a final decision is due out early next year.

“We know it’s going to happen,” says Martha Van Arts, general manager of Cosmetics New Zealand, which represents brands, manufacturers, ingredients suppliers and importers. “We’re supportive of a ban. But we don’t want to be ahead of Europe, which is globally considered the best regulatory framework for cosmetics.”

Most of Cosmetics NZ’s 148 members are local, small to medium enterprises. Only a few multinationals are on its membership list, though global brands make up almost 90% of products sold here.

The local industry generates more than $150 million in exports and the market is worth about $1.5 billion in total retail-value sales. New Zealand-made brands account for as much as 25% of market share in some product types. None of the domestic makers use PFAS, says Van Arts.

In its submission on the proposed ban, Cosmetics NZ emphasises the European Union is still working through a similar proposal and this country is a small market at the end of most major brands’ logistics chains. The implementation of a ban here should therefore have a longer time frame, except for specific PFAS with confirmed health risks.

Presow agrees NZ-made cosmetics are most likely already PFAS-free. But some imported products will contain PFAS, possibly more than one. A 2021 study screened hundreds of global brands and products sold in the US and Canada for fluorine, as a proxy for the presence of PFAS. Categories with the highest percentage of high-fluorine products were foundations (63%), eye products (58%), mascaras (47%, particularly waterproof mascara), and lip products (55%, particularly liquid lipsticks). These were commonly advertised as “wear-resistant” to water and oils or “long-lasting”. Of 29 products investigated in more detail to identify specific PFAS, all contained detectable levels of at least four. One product contained 13 individual PFAS chemicals.