Beauty is one thing, but kidney disease, or liver and thyroid cancer are not worth it for most of us.
On February 19, 2025, the Village of Nyack, NY brought a PFAS lawsuit against a long list of defendants, including Teva Pharmaceuticals, which makes a long list of generic drugs; Professional Disposables, Inc., the maker of wet wipes; and The Estee’ Lauder Companies, Inc., a leading company in the beauty industry. The complaint in Village of Nyack v. Professional Disposables is short on defendant-specific allegations, but the risks of PFAS are now well known.
Toxic and accumulating
To clarify, the abbreviation “PFAS” stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) and PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) are two of the most well-known PFAS chemicals. They are man-made manufactured chemical compounds containing fluorine and carbon.
The NIH has linked this category of chemicals to:
- type 2 diabetes in women;
- delayed puberty in girls;
- adverse birth outcomes;
- liver damage;
- thyroid cancer;
- reduced immune function;
- breast cancer;
- renal disease; and
- lower bone mineral density.
Other studies have cited additional risks, but the danger is clear.
Widespread and indestructible
The carbon-fluorine characteristic of PFAS is one of the strongest bonds in chemistry and is the source of the unique chemical properties that have made PFAS so useful. They have now been used for eighty years in a wide range of industrial, commercial, and consumer products and activities such as nonstick cookware, industrial waste disposal, the pharmaceutical industry, cosmetics and beauty products, mining, plastic fabrication, and landfills and transfer stations.
The good news is that these chemicals are waterproof, which goes to the “smudgy mascara’’ issue. They are also fireproof, which was historically great for children’s pajamas and fighting jet fuel fires. Cookware with PFAS-laden coatings were, until 2024, marketed as a non-stick, non-fat and painless way to reduce America’s waistline.
But, in case you got past the NIH health warning, the other bad news is that these “forever chemicals” do not decay under normal biological or environmental conditions and have seeped into municipal water supplies. In Nyack’s case, the culprit is the Hackensack River, the village’s water source.
Where are the feds?
In the 118th Congress (2023-2024), Rep. Debbie Dingell introduced the “No PFAS in Cosmetics Act.” It was sent to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, where it ultimately died. The bill proposed to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to ban the use of intentionally added perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances in cosmetics, and for other purposes.
It was very similar to a bill of the same name, also introduced by Rep. Dingell and several other Representatives in 2021 (117th Congress.) The legislation would have required the FDA to ban the use of PFAS in cosmetic products within 270 days of the bill’s enactment. Sen. Susan Collins and Sen. Richard Blumenthal introduced the companion bill in the U.S. Senate.
That effort is now also long dead. Nothing about this story is particularly unusual. Bills are often introduced several times before they become law.
In 2025, however, the current administration ordered a “freeze” on regulatory actions until the end of May. The order directed the EPA and other agencies to:
- withdraw unpublished rules to be reviewed and approved by a department or agency head appointed by the President since taking office;
- consider postponing for 60 days (or more, as appropriate) the effective date for any rules that were published but have not yet taken effect; and
- consider re-opening the comment period on postponed rules.
There is very little reason to expect federal legislation or regulatory action to limit PFAS in cosmetics this year.
Some life in state legislatures
READ MORE PFAS HEALTH RISKS LEGAL NEWS
In the immortal words of Miracle Max, “Mostly dead is slightly alive.” State legislatures, in California and New York have enacted legislation to limit the use of PFAS in various products. Neither set of laws, however, deals with cosmetics. In South Carolina, some local authorities are continuing to monitor for dangerous levels of PFAS without formal regulations being in place.
Slightly alive perhaps, but these moves are hardly robust. Many of the manufacturers named in Village of Nyack are in national markets, for example.
PFAS lawsuits
The court system appears to be the only resource currently available to people who have been seriously injured by widespread PFAS contamination. As of March 3, 2025, there were 8,430 class action lawsuits alleging a variety of different harms resulting from PFAS exposure. The multidistrict litigation (MDL) grinds along slowly, but as it develops plaintiffs are likely to see settlement offers that may bring some relief.
Source link
