PFAS in our blood?
PFAS in cosmetics sounds like one of those niche topics. Find out why it isn’t:
In late 2025 the FDA reported that certain PFAS are intentionally added to some cosmetic products, including lipsticks, eyeshadows, moisturizers, nail products, blushers and cleansers. According to the agency they may be used for texture, smoothness, shine and durability. (1)
That does not mean PFAS is everywhere in cosmetics. In the same report the FDA found 51 PFAS across 1,744 cosmetic formulations, representing about 0.41% of the products in the dataset it reviewed. So yes, it is a relatively small share of the market. But it is still relevant, especially in products used regularly and close to the eyes, lips or skin. (2)
The good news is that this share could shrink further. France’s PFAS decree has been in force since 1 January 2026 and includes cosmetics among the restricted product categories. At the same time, ECHA’s broader PFAS restriction process is still moving forward at EU level. So while the topic may be getting smaller in some parts of the market, it is still very much worth paying attention to.
Why PFAS are used and where they show up most
Because they work and performance sells! PFAS can help cosmetics resist water and oil, spread more evenly, last longer and feel smoother. OECD notes that in cosmetics PFAS have been used as skin and hair conditioning agents, emulsifiers, stabilizers, oil- and water-resistant agents, lubricants, bulking agents and surfactants. In other words, they are not there by accident. (4)
That is why the products most often discussed in this context are usually the ones marketed around wear, finish and resistance: waterproof mascaras, long-wear foundations, transfer-resistant lip products, and similar “stays put” categories. That does not mean every waterproof product contains PFAS, but it is one reason these categories come up again and again in both regulatory and consumer discussions. (1)
The alternatives
One of the more interesting findings from the OECD’s 2024 work is that non-fluorinated alternatives are already widely available across the cosmetics sector. The report is careful: it says there is still limited information on like-for-like replacement in some cases and not every alternative is mapped perfectly. But the overall direction is clear enough to matter: PFAS-free cosmetic formulation is not science fiction.
Once alternatives exist companies are under pressure by the question why PFAS are still being used in the products at all. That is exactly why cosmetics has become such an important category in the PFAS debate. It is close to the body, close to daily routines and increasingly hard to defend as an “essential use” case. (6)
Can I still use my waterproof mascara and lipstick?
Yes. The concern is about the bigger picture. PFAS are persistent. Some accumulate in the environment and some can remain in the human body for long periods. FDA said in December 2025 that it found insufficient data to determine the safety of PFAS in cosmetic products, which is a careful but important statement. It does not say cosmetics have proven dangerous across the board. It does say the evidence base is not strong enough to close the case and move on.
There is also a practical issue that goes beyond a single face cream or mascara: cosmetics are one more route in a much larger PFAS exposure picture. Food and drinking water are often considered more significant overall exposure pathways, but personal care products can still contribute, especially when used regularly over long periods. That is one reason regulators are increasingly looking at intentionally added PFAS in consumer products even when those products are not the largest exposure source on their own. (5)
What you can do as a consumer is to make conscious choices with a few sensible steps: check ingredient lists for fluorinated compounds, [KL1] e.g. ingredients beginning with “perfluoro-” or “polyfluoro-”, be cautious with products sold primarily on extreme water resistance or long wear and watch for brand-level PFAS-free commitments where available. FDA also notes that its report focused on intentionally added PFAS, which is an important distinction because contamination and packaging-related sources are separate questions. (1)
The bigger lesson, though, is that consumers can make better choices, but regulators, manufacturers and water treatment systems still carry the heavier responsibility.
Which is where…
… instrAction comes in!
We look at PFAS from the water side of the story. Cosmetics are one example of how these substances show up in daily life. But no matter whether PFAS comes from industrial processing, consumer products, firefighting foams or waste streams, the pattern is familiar: once it enters water systems, the problem becomes much bigger than the original product.
That is why upstream action matters. Better product design matters. Better regulation matters. And so does effective PFAS removal from water before exposure keeps adding up further downstream. Contact us if you want to know more!
(1) https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas-cosmetics?
(2) https://www.fda.gov/media/190319/download?attachment=&utm
(3) https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/loda/id/JORFTEXT000053201526/?
(4) https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-and-alternatives-in-cosmetics-report-on-commercial-availability-and-current-uses_baa236f5-en.html?
(5) https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2026/01/fda-reports-over-50-pfas-ingredients-intentionally-added-1700-personal?
(6) https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/02/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-and-alternatives-in-cosmetics-report-on-commercial-availability-and-current-uses_dcdcacbc/baa236f5-en.pdf?
