PFAS in Cosmetics: The Hidden Risk

Study reveals hidden PFAS in long-wear cosmetics, exposing health and environmental risks and calling for more transparent labels.

North American consumers routinely apply cosmetics containing persistent fluorinated chemicals, often without meaningful label information revealing their presence. Consequently, a recent study of United States and Canadian products shows extensive PFAS use across categories, with very limited transparency.

First, researchers evaluated 231 cosmetics, including foundations, mascaras, lipsticks, balms, and eye products, to screen total fluorine using PIGE technology.
As a result, more than half of these products showed high fluorine levels, while roughly one-third registered below detection.

Moreover, high-fluorine products clustered in foundations, mascaras, and lip products, especially those marketed as long-wear, waterproof, or otherwise wear-resistant formulations. Thus, marketing promises about durability signal underlying fluorinated chemistries enhancing film formation, spreadability, and resistance to water, oil, and smudging.

You can also read: Toray Industries Introduces Biodegradable Polyamide 4 Spherical Fine Particles.

From Fluorine Signal to Chemical Identity

Next, scientists selected twenty-nine mostly high-fluorine products for detailed analysis with LC-MS/MS and GC-MS, identifying specific per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Significantly, every analyzed product contained at least 4 PFAS, and several exceeded 10,000 nanograms per gram of formulation. In particular, dominant chemicals included fluorotelomer alcohols, fluorotelomer methacrylates, and fluorinated phosphate esters, which function as precursors forming perfluorocarboxylic acids.

Consequently, these precursor compounds may transform into persistent PFCAs that accumulate in ecosystems and contribute to long-term chronic human exposure.

Labels That Don’t Tell the Whole Story

Meanwhile, ingredient labels rarely revealed this extensive fluorinated chemistry, leaving consumers and downstream stakeholders unable to identify PFAS-containing products accurately. Specifically, only a small minority of screened and fully characterized products listed any PFAS-related ingredient terms, despite clear analytical evidence. Furthermore, manufacturers rely on generic descriptors such as methicone, acrylate, silicone, or treated minerals, without clarifying fluorinated treatments or modifications. Therefore, even technically informed readers struggle to distinguish between conventional ingredients and functionally similar materials incorporating PFAS-based coatings or copolymers.

Regulatory Blind Spots in the U.S. and Canada

At the regulatory level, cosmetic frameworks in the United States and Canada lag behind PFAS complexity, persistence, and scientific understanding.
Because companies may classify components as proprietary, incidental, or processing aids, they frequently avoid disclosing fluorinated substances within finished formulations. As a result, regulators and scientists encounter obstacles when mapping PFAS use, evaluating cumulative exposures, and designing risk-based management strategies.

Pathways of Exposure: From Face to Wastewater

Simultaneously, cosmetic PFAS create exposure pathways, including ingestion of lip products, dermal absorption around eyes and skin, and ocular contact.
During product removal, users wash PFAS-containing residues down household drains, introducing persistent chemicals into wastewater systems with limited treatment capabilities. Over time, these discharges add to environmental loading, complementing PFAS releases from textiles, food packaging, industrial processes, and other applications.

Rethinking the Role of PFAS in Cosmetics

Ultimately, the study indicates that fluorinated compounds play structural roles in performance cosmetics, especially those emphasizing durability, finish, and appearance. However, the combination of detection, elevated concentrations, poor labeling, and regulatory gaps questions whether PFAS remain necessary for nonessential applications. Accordingly, policymakers can strengthen oversight by requiring ingredient disclosure, closing loopholes, and prioritizing assessments of fluorinated chemistries and their impacts. In parallel, brands and formulators can accelerate development of fluorine-free alternatives delivering performance without relying on chemicals engineered for persistence. Overall, shifting away from PFAS-based cosmetics would better align product innovation with health protection, environmental stewardship, and informed consumer choice.