US State Ingredient Bans: The 1 January 2027 Deadline

Short answer: on 1 January 2027, a second tranche of intentionally added ingredients becomes prohibited in California and 25 named formaldehyde releasers become restricted in Washington. Both statutes reach the company that manufactures or holds the product, not only the brand on the label, so the work that prevents a problem is documentary and belongs in the raw-material file.

Most US compliance writing is about federal law, and federal law is where the dates have not moved. The state layer is where January 2027 arrives with a firm deadline, and it is the layer that catches formulas rather than labels. A preservative system, a fragrance compound or a colorant can carry a restricted substance that appears nowhere on the marketing brief for the finished product, and the brand that bought those materials as finished concentrates does not always know what is inside them.

This guide sets out what changes on that date, which raw materials carry the exposure, the documents that answer the question when it is asked, and the four claims about these laws that circulate widely and do not survive contact with the statutory text.

Two state lists, one date

California and Washington built separate restrictions that happen to share a commencement date. The practical consequence is that a single formula review has to be run against both lists.

California's framework sits in Health and Safety Code section 108980. Its first tranche, twelve ingredients and thirteen PFAS compounds, has applied since 1 January 2025. The second tranche was added by AB 496 and covers roughly 26 further intentionally added ingredients. The boron group is the one most often missed, because boric acid and the borax salts are bought as preservative boosters and buffers rather than as headline actives. A later amendment, AB 60, approved in October 2025, moved four musks onto the same date and added the percentage caps on musk ketone.

Washington's list began with formaldehyde, methylene glycol, triclosan, ortho-phthalates, PFAS, mercury, the phenylenediamines and lead at or above 1 ppm. From 1 January 2027 it extends to 25 named formaldehyde releasers, which are considerably harder to design around, because these materials are not additives a formulator can simply leave out. They are the preservative system in a great many water-containing products: DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, bronopol, sodium hydroxymethylglycinate, quaternium-15, methenamine and tosylamide/formaldehyde resin among them. The same date carries the state's regulatory definition of "intentionally added", and that definition applies to every restricted chemical on the list, not only to the releasers.

Why the obligation reaches the factory

The California provision is drafted around a list of verbs: to manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in commerce. Manufacturing is its own limb of that list. A facility in California therefore cannot make an affected product for sale in another state, and cannot hold it either, which is why this is a production-planning deadline rather than a labeling deadline.

The sell-through allowance makes the same point from the other direction: it is narrow, it belongs to in-state retailers moving stock they already held, and it runs only to 31 December of the year in which the restriction begins, with no equivalent grace period for manufacturers. That asymmetry turns a compliance date into a budget event — reformulating a preservative system is rarely one substitution, and the cost of doing it under a deadline rather than ahead of one is covered in what a forced reformulation costs.

Where the exposure actually sits

Three raw materials carry most of the risk, and all three are specified in the formula rather than described in a brief:

• The preservative system. This is where the formaldehyde releasers live, and where boron-containing boosters are used to broaden protection.
• The fragrance compound. A fragrance is a concentrate with its own composition, frequently protected as a trade secret by the house that created it. The musks and the caps on musk ketone are decided there, not by the brand.
• The colorant. Mineral pigments and clays are the natural home of trace lead, which is why the Washington safe-harbour bands differentiate color cosmetics and clay masks from general cosmetics. For a brand buying color cosmetics, mineral pigment and pressed powder formats are where the lead question is asked first.

The dates worth diarizing

• 1 January 2025 — California's first tranche and Washington's original restriction list both take effect.
• 7 October 2025 — AB 60 is approved, adding four musks and the musk ketone caps to the 2027 date.
• 31 August 2026 — Washington revises its interim policy on lead: the 1 ppm statutory limit remains the baseline, with safe-harbour options at 2 ppm for general cosmetics and 5 ppm for color cosmetics and clay masks, and a 5 to 10 ppm band open to qualifying color cosmetics and clay masks that notify the agency, monitor lead across batches and retain the analytical data. The policy no longer expires at the end of 2026; it remains until a permanent rule is adopted or the policy is rescinded.
• 1 January 2027 — California's second tranche, Washington's 25 formaldehyde releasers, and the state's definition of "intentionally added" all commence.

Two features of the lead policy change how a brand plans: removing the sunset date makes the interim framework a standing decision that can be withdrawn rather than a window that closes predictably, and the agency has begun auditing companies registered under the higher band, which turns batch-level documentation into the item being requested.

The file that answers the question

When a regulator, a retailer or a distributor asks whether a formula is in scope, these five items answer it. None of them is a marketing document.

1. A composition statement for every raw material, giving the full INCI list plus incidental components, from the supplier of the material rather than the supplier of the finished product.
2. An impurity statement or declaration for materials where trace carryover is possible, particularly pigments, clays and botanical extracts.
3. A formula-level map that ties each restricted family to the raw material that carries it, the supplier, and the concentration at use level. This is the document that a supplier letter cannot substitute for.
4. Retained analytical data, where a safe-harbour band is being relied on, together with the notification filed with the agency.
5. A change-control record, so that a supplier change or a revision to the preservative system re-opens items 1 to 3 instead of silently reintroducing a substance.

The documents that ship with a production order help here but do not replace the raw-material statements: the certificate of analysis and the rest of the batch pack describe the finished batch, while a composition statement describes what went into it.

Four claims that do not hold up

1. "This is a California problem." Two states have separate lists with the same date, and the California wording covers manufacture, which means the location of sale is not the test.
2. "Our raw-material supplier says the material is compliant." A supplier statement is material-level. Nothing about it maps the restricted family onto the finished formula, which is the question being asked.
3. "Existing stock can sell through." The allowance is narrow, belongs to in-state retailers holding stock at the transition, and ends on 31 December of the year the restriction begins.
4. "This is a labeling change." Nothing here is fixed by rewording an ingredient list. The remedy is reformulation or withdrawal of the product from the state, and both are formula decisions.

What this means for an order placed now

A formula review against two state lists is a fixed piece of work, not a variable one. What changes with volume is the cost of discovering a problem late, which is why the orders that absorb this deadline comfortably are the ones where the preservative system and the fragrance compound were reviewed before the brief was finalized.

MOQ in our range is set by the manufacturing system rather than by the product name, starting from 1,000 pcs per SKU: emulsions from 1,000, surfactant systems from 2,000, stick formats from 3,000, and powders and sheet masks from 5,000, with the applicable tier stated on the quotation. Reviewed early, a formula change is a lab exercise. Reviewed late, it is a batch that cannot ship. The same logic applies to the ingredient lists moving in other jurisdictions, which is why EU Regulation 2026/909 and its dates is worth reading alongside this one.

FAQ

Q: Does California's 1 January 2027 restriction apply to a product manufactured in California but sold only in another state? A: Yes. The statute lists manufacture as its own prohibited act alongside selling, delivering, holding and offering for sale in commerce, so a California facility cannot make an affected product for another market, and holding that product is also covered.

Q: Which formaldehyde releasers does Washington restrict from 1 January 2027? A: Twenty-five named releasers, among them DMDM hydantoin, diazolidinyl urea, imidazolidinyl urea, bronopol, sodium hydroxymethylglycinate, quaternium-15, methenamine and tosylamide/formaldehyde resin. The state's definition of "intentionally added" commences on the same date and applies to every restricted chemical on the list.

Q: How do Washington's lead safe-harbour bands work for color cosmetics and clay masks? A: The statutory baseline of 1 ppm is unchanged. Under the interim policy, total lead at or below 2 ppm is a safe harbour for general cosmetics and at or below 5 ppm for color cosmetics and clay masks; a band between 5 and 10 ppm is open to qualifying color cosmetics and clay masks that notify the agency, monitor lead across batches and retain the testing data. The policy no longer expires at the end of 2026.

Q: What is the first document to ask a raw-material supplier for? A: A composition statement giving the full INCI list plus incidental components, and an impurity statement or declaration where trace carryover is possible. A supplier letter of compliance is not a substitute, because it does not map a restricted substance onto the finished formula at use level.