Cosmetic Manufacturers in California Face a 2027 Ingredient Ban
Cosmetic manufacturers in California have 83 days to get a new list of banned ingredients out of their formulas. From January 1, 2027, Health and Safety Code section 108980(b) makes it unlawful to manufacture, sell, deliver, hold or offer for sale in commerce any cosmetic product containing any of 30 listed intentionally added ingredients. Because manufacture and hold are both prohibited acts, an in-state facility is caught even when the finished goods ship elsewhere.
Five verbs, not one
Most coverage calls this a sales ban. The statute is wider: the prohibited conduct is to “manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer for sale in commerce” — five separate acts, any one of which is enough.
So “do I sell in California?” is the wrong question to ask first. If the product is blended, filled or stored in a California facility, the ban bites at the point of manufacture. A brand shipping only to Texas customers still cannot have the product made here with a listed ingredient in it after December 31.
What landed on the 2027 list
AB 496 (Chapter 441, Statutes of 2023) created the 2027 list, adding 26 entries to the twelve ingredients already prohibited since January 1, 2025 under the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act. Two 2025 bills extended it: AB 60, the Musk Reduction Act (Chapter 432), added musk ambrette, tibetene, moskene and xylene; SB 39 (Chapter 208) addressed boric acid in vaginal suppositories.
Subdivision (b) now runs to 30 numbered entries, and the count understates it: entry 19 is a single line covering perboric acids, boric acid and the borates, tetraborates, octaborates and boric acid esters — more than a dozen individual CAS numbers on its own.
The entries most likely to appear in a skincare, hair care or body care formula:
- Cyclotetrasiloxane (CAS 556-67-2) — a cyclic silicone. Check silicone blends against the supplier’s full breakdown, not the trade name.
- Lily aldehyde (CAS 80-54-6) — a fragrance material. It usually arrives inside a purchased fragrance compound, not as a line on your own bill of materials.
- Phytonadione (CAS 84-80-0) — vitamin K1.
- Boric acid and borates (entry 19) — long used as buffering agents.
- Pyrogallol (CAS 87-66-1) and several basic dyes — hair color.
- Acetaldehyde, styrene, vinyl acetate, trichloroacetic acid, anthraquinone and the rest — rare in finished cosmetics, present in some specialty raw materials.
Musk ketone is handled differently. Subdivision (c) does not ban it outright; it caps it at 1.4 percent in fine fragrance products, 0.56 percent in eau de toilette, 0.042 percent in everything else, and zero percent in oral products, defined as anything applied to the teeth or the mucous membranes of the mouth.
There is no sell-through period
The statute sets a date and attaches no grace period to existing stock. Because holding the product is itself prohibited, inventory already filled does not stay compliant by virtue of having been legal when it was made. That makes this a production-planning problem as much as a formulation one: a November run of a product that needs reformulating creates finished goods that cannot lawfully be held in the state six weeks later.
The trace quantity exemption is narrower than it looks
Subdivision (d) protects a product containing a “technically unavoidable trace quantity” of a listed ingredient where that trace comes from impurities in a raw material, the manufacturing process, storage, or migration out of the packaging. It is a real exemption, and the reason the law does not become unworkable at parts-per-billion.
Two limits matter. The trace has to be technically unavoidable, not merely small; and the exemption only covers a product “made through manufacturing processes intended to comply with this chapter”. A deliberately added ingredient at a low inclusion rate is not a trace quantity, and a facility with no compliance process to point to is in a weaker position to argue it.
What to ask your manufacturer before January
Moe’s Group formulates, fills and labels in Chatsworth, California, so this deadline applies to the products we make exactly as it applies to anyone else manufacturing in the state. These are the questions worth putting to any contract manufacturer now, including us:
- Has every raw material been screened against the full subdivision (b) list by CAS number, not trade name?
- Have my purchased fragrances been screened? Lily aldehyde and the musks typically enter inside a fragrance compound that names neither on the label.
- Does packaging migration create a trace of anything on the list, and is that documented?
- What is the last production date for the current formula, and the plan for inventory still held past December 31?
- Separately from the ban: do I meet the California Safe Cosmetics Act reporting trigger — a million dollars or more in annual worldwide cosmetic sales, my company name on a label sold in California, and a reportable ingredient in that product? All three must be true, and reporting to CDPH is continuous, covering reformulations as well as new products.
That last point catches brands out: a different obligation with a different list, and reformulating to clear the 2027 ban can itself be reportable.
If you are unsure whether your formula survives January 1, the fastest answer comes from putting the full ingredient breakdown, fragrance compounds included, in front of whoever manufactures it. You can send us a formula to review.
— The Moe’s Group newsroom
