WeVote
Log In

Bill

WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 686

HB 686 — Safe Cosmetics Act (North Carolina) — Summary

Status: Passed 1st Reading (referred to Rules); effective date in bill: January 1, 2026
Filed/Introduced: 2024–2025 session materials (bill text published April 2025)

Purpose

The bill prohibits the distribution or sale in North Carolina of cosmetic products that contain specified “restricted substances” when those substances are present as an intentionally added chemical in any amount — including when present as a nonfunctional by‑product or nonfunctional contaminant above an objectively defined practical quantification limit (PQL). The aim is to reduce consumer exposure to certain chemical classes and hazardous contaminants in retail and professional cosmetics.

Key definitions (selected)

  • Cosmetic product: cosmetics for retail sale or professional use.
  • Intentionally added chemical: chemical added during manufacture to provide a function, quality, or appearance.
  • Nonfunctional by‑product: element/compound intentionally added or formed during manufacture that has no technical function in the finished product.
  • Nonfunctional contaminant: unintended compound introduced during manufacturing or from environmental media (e.g., soil, water) and has no function in the finished product.
  • Practical quantification limit (PQL): lowest concentration reliably measured under routine lab conditions using scientifically defensible standard analytical methods; may vary by method.
  • Restricted substance: enumerated categories including (but not limited to)
    • PFAS (per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances)
    • Heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium, etc.)
    • Parabens (methyl, propyl, butyl, etc.)
    • Ortho‑phthalates and esters (DEHP, DBP, etc.)
    • Formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers
    • Benzophenones (e.g., oxybenzone)
    • Known carcinogens (benzene, ethylene oxide, etc.)
    • Asbestos and talc containing asbestos
    • Certain siloxanes, nitrosamines and releasers, triclosan triclocarban, phenylenediamines, nonylphenol, butylated antioxidants

The bill also clarifies that a “manufacturer” includes an importer or first domestic distributor when the brand owner lacks a U.S. presence.

Prohibited conduct / Substantive rule

  • A cosmetic is “adulterated” (and its sale/distribution prohibited) if it contains any listed restricted substance as an intentionally added chemical in any amount — including as a nonfunctional by‑product or contaminant — at levels above the applicable PQL.

Enforcement & compliance procedures

  • If the North Carolina Board of Agriculture has reason to believe a cosmetic product violates the prohibition, it may issue a notice to the product’s manufacturer requiring a certificate of compliance within 30 days, attesting the product does not contain a restricted substance as an intentionally added chemical.
  • If a manufacturer fails to provide the certificate, the manufacturer must notify sellers in the State that sale of the product is prohibited and must supply the Board with a list of notified sellers within 30 days.
  • The bill amends existing statutory provisions on adulteration and integrates the new restricted‑substance standard into enforcement mechanisms under G.S. 106‑129 et seq.

Who is affected

  • Cosmetic manufacturers (including importers/first domestic distributors), private‑label brands, ingredient suppliers, contract manufacturers.
  • Retailers and professional sellers (salons, spas) that sell cosmetics in NC.
  • Testing laboratories (increased demand for method development and PQL determination).
  • Consumers (intended protection from exposure to listed chemicals).

Timeline & procedural notes

  • Effective date specified in the bill: January 1, 2026.
  • Bill text places testing standard responsibility on scientifically defensible, standard analytical methods; PQLs may vary by method.
  • The excerpted bill does not set explicit civil/criminal penalty amounts in the quoted sections; instead, it integrates with existing statutory enforcement for adulterated products and adds the certificate/notification process.

Potential impacts (practical considerations)

  • Manufacturers may need reformulation, supply‑chain disclosure, and expanded lab testing to demonstrate compliance.
  • Importers and brands without a U.S. presence may be treated as manufacturers for compliance purposes.
  • Smaller producers may face higher per‑product compliance costs (testing, certification).
  • Retailers should review product inventories and supplier certifications to avoid offering prohibited products after the effective date.

If you want, I can:
- Produce a compliance checklist for manufacturers and retailers.
- Extract and format the full list of restricted substances for supplier/inventory review.
- Draft sample language for a manufacturer’s certificate of compliance consistent with the bill’s requirements.

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

Sign in to ask a question.