Cosmetic Hazardous Ingredient Right to Know Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schakowsky, Janice D. [D-IL-9]
- Committees
- Energy and Commerce Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 16, 2025
Bottom line
The bill mandates extensive online and on-label disclosure of cosmetic ingredients, particularly hazardous ones, aiming to provide consumers with more comprehensive information for informed choices.
What it actually does
This bill significantly increases transparency for cosmetic ingredients by requiring brand owners to disclose full ingredient lists, including fragrance and flavor components, on their websites in an electronically readable format. It also mandates that product packaging include full ingredient lists and, if certain hazardous chemicals are present, a statement directing consumers to the brand owner's website for health impact information. The bill further directs the FDA to create and maintain a master list of these hazardous ingredients.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that consumers have a fundamental right to know what chemicals are in the products they use, especially given potential health concerns associated with certain ingredients. They contend that current regulations are insufficient, allowing proprietary 'fragrance' and 'flavor' formulations to hide potentially harmful substances. This bill would empower consumers to make informed decisions, protect public health, and drive the industry towards safer formulations by increasing accountability.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill imposes an overly burdensome and costly compliance regime on cosmetic manufacturers, particularly small businesses, due to the extensive and dynamic nature of the hazardous ingredient lists and strict digital accessibility requirements. They may also raise concerns about the disclosure of proprietary fragrance and flavor formulations, which are often considered trade secrets, and suggest that a patchwork of state and federal regulations could create market inefficiencies and consumer confusion.
The bill is moderately complex due to its detailed lists and cross-references, requiring a diligent reader approximately 15-20 minutes to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2(a), amending 21 U.S.C. 321(i)
Clarification of Cosmetic Definition
This provision expands the definition of 'cosmetic' under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to explicitly include articles intended for 'professional use' in addition to consumer sale. This ensures that products used in settings like salons and spas are subject to the same regulatory standards as those sold directly to consumers.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this clarification ensures consistent safety and transparency standards across all segments of the cosmetic market, preventing a loophole where professional-use products might evade scrutiny despite direct human exposure.
Critics contend
Opponents might contend that this expansion increases the regulatory burden for manufacturers specializing in professional-use products, who may have different distribution channels and marketing strategies than consumer-facing brands.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances broader consumer protection (including those receiving professional services) with potential increased compliance costs for a specific segment of the cosmetic industry.
Section 2(b)(2), amending Section 602 of the FD&C Act
New Misbranding Conditions for Non-Disclosure
This provision establishes new conditions under which a cosmetic is considered 'misbranded.' Specifically, a cosmetic will be misbranded if it fails to disclose fragrance and flavor ingredient information as required by new sections 615 and 616, if its packaging or the brand owner's website fails to disclose any fragrance or flavor ingredient, or if the brand owner's website fails to link to relevant hazardous ingredient lists.
Section 2(b)(3), amending Section 614(b) of the FD&C Act
Preservation of State Authority for Greater Transparency
This provision clarifies that federal law does not preempt states from enacting or maintaining their own cosmetic ingredient regulations that are more stringent than federal requirements. States can prohibit or limit ingredients, continue existing reporting requirements, or implement new rules providing for greater transparency, disclosure, or protection.
New Section 615, added by Section 2(b)(4)
Mandatory Website Disclosure of All Ingredients
Beginning one year after enactment, brand owners must disclose a full listing of every ingredient in their cosmetics, including fragrance and flavor ingredients, on their websites. This information must be in descending order of predominance, include the functional purpose of fragrance/flavor ingredients, and link to any relevant hazardous ingredient lists. All disclosures must be in an 'electronically readable format' and updated within seven months of any changes to the hazardous ingredient lists.
New Section 616, added by Section 2(b)(4)
Product Label Disclosure of Ingredients and Hazard Information
Two years after enactment, cosmetic packaging or labeling must include a full listing of all ingredients, including fragrance and flavor, in descending order of predominance. If any ingredient from the extensive list of hazardous chemicals (defined in subsection (b)) is present, the label must also include a specific statement directing consumers to the brand owner's website for health impacts.
New Section 616(b), added by Section 2(b)(4)
Comprehensive List of Hazardous Chemicals for Disclosure
This subsection defines the specific 'ingredients specified' that trigger the product label disclosure statement and website linking requirements. It enumerates 22 categories of chemicals drawn from various federal (e.g., EPA, CDC), state (e.g., California Prop 65), and international (e.g., EU REACH, IARC) authoritative lists, including carcinogens, reproductive toxicants, neurotoxicants, PBT chemicals, and respiratory/skin sensitizers.
New Section 616(c), added by Section 2(b)(4)
FDA Master List of Hazardous Ingredients
This provision mandates the Secretary (FDA) to establish a master list of all chemicals appearing on the specified hazardous ingredient lists within six months of enactment. This master list must be posted on a publicly available FDA website, and the FDA must create an electronic distribution list for updates. The FDA is required to maintain and update this list as necessary, notifying subscribers within 30 days of updates and publishing semi-annual summaries of changes.
New Section 617, added by Section 2(b)(4)
Key Definitions for Cosmetic Regulation
This section defines critical terms for the new subchapter, including 'brand owner' (the entity bringing a cosmetic to market), 'electronically readable format' (specifying machine-readability, search engine access, no CAPTCHA, and WCAG conformity), 'flavor ingredient' and 'fragrance ingredient' (intentionally added for taste/odor), 'ingredient' (broadly covering breakdown products and components of mixtures), and 'professional use' (application by professionals or purchase from professional establishments).
The definition of 'ingredient' is broad, including not only intentionally added chemicals but also 'the breakdown products of an intentionally added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect in the cosmetic' and 'any individual component that the Secretary deems to be an ingredient.'
New Section 617(5)
Why it matters:While definitions are typically placed at the end of legislative text, the breadth of this particular definition is highly consequential for manufacturers, requiring them to account for more than just primary added substances. This is standard legislative practice for definitions, but its impact is significant.
Case for: Proponents argue that this broad definition ensures comprehensive disclosure, preventing manufacturers from omitting potentially harmful breakdown products or individual components of complex mixtures, thereby providing a more complete picture of a product's composition to consumers.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this could be an overly broad requirement, significantly increasing the complexity of ingredient analysis and disclosure for manufacturers, especially for trace breakdown products whose functional effects might be difficult to ascertain or quantify.
Estimated impact: This provision significantly expands the scope of what must be disclosed, potentially revealing more about the actual chemical composition and reactivity of cosmetic products.
The term 'electronically readable format' for website disclosures is defined with specific technical requirements: it must be machine-readable, not restricted from search engines, not require registration/personally identifiable information/CAPTCHA, and conform to the most current Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
New Section 617(2)
Why it matters:While it is standard to define technical terms, the specificity of these requirements goes beyond a simple definition and imposes concrete, potentially costly, IT obligations. This level of detail is necessary for effective implementation but can be easily overlooked.
Case for: Proponents argue that these stringent requirements ensure that the mandated online information is truly accessible to all users, including those with disabilities, and easily discoverable by search engines, maximizing the public benefit of the disclosure mandate.
Case against: Opponents might argue that these specific technical requirements impose a significant IT investment and ongoing maintenance burden on brand owners, particularly for smaller companies that may lack the resources to ensure full compliance with WCAG standards and other digital accessibility mandates.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures a high standard of digital accessibility and discoverability for ingredient information, making it genuinely useful to a broader public.
Brand owners are required to revise their website disclosures to reflect updates to any of the hazardous ingredient lists (specified in Section 616(b) or (c)) no later than 7 months after the update is formally noticed by the authoritative body.
New Section 615(b)
Why it matters:This is a detail of operational compliance rather than a primary policy statement, so its placement is typical. However, it represents a significant ongoing burden for industry.
Case for: Proponents argue that a 7-month window provides a reasonable and necessary timeframe for manufacturers to react to new scientific information and update their disclosures, ensuring that online information remains current and accurate for consumers.
Case against: Opponents might argue that 7 months could still be a challenging timeframe for companies with large product portfolios, complex supply chains, or those requiring reformulation, especially if updates to the underlying hazardous lists are frequent or require extensive re-evaluation.
Estimated impact: This provision creates an ongoing, dynamic compliance and monitoring burden for brand owners, requiring continuous resource allocation for data management and website updates.