WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 2117

AN ACT RELATING TO HEALTH AND SAFETY -- THE PERSONAL HYGIENE PRODUCT SAFETY AND TOXIC METAL REMOVAL ACT OF 2026

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Jonathon Acosta and 9 co-sponsors

Rhode Island would require personal hygiene product manufacturers to test for and remove toxic metals, establishing state safety standards and disclosure requirements for products sold within the state.

01/16/2026 Introduced, referred to Senate Health and Human Services
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 2117

Legislative bill overview

SB 2117 establishes safety standards and testing requirements for personal hygiene products sold in Rhode Island, with a specific focus on removing or limiting toxic metals (such as lead, cadmium, and arsenic) that may be present in items like menstrual products, diapers, and cosmetics. The bill would require manufacturers to disclose contents, conduct testing, and potentially reformulate products to meet state-mandated safety thresholds before sale.

Why is this important

Personal hygiene products are used daily by millions of Rhode Islanders, often in sensitive areas of the body where chemical absorption is higher. Recent research has detected trace metals in some commercial products, raising public health concerns—particularly for vulnerable populations like children and pregnant individuals. This legislation would establish some of the nation's first comprehensive regulatory standards in this product category, potentially influencing manufacturing practices beyond Rhode Island.

Potential points of contention

  • Compliance costs: Manufacturers may argue testing and reformulation expenses could increase product prices or reduce market availability, disproportionately affecting lower-income consumers
  • Scientific thresholds: Disagreement over what metal concentration levels are truly "safe" versus precautionary, and whether Rhode Island should set stricter standards than federal agencies like the FDA
  • Regulatory scope creep: Business groups may contend that state-by-state regulations fragment national markets and that federal standards should prevail instead

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.