Key Takeaways:
Washington has become the first state in the US to take sweeping action against formaldehyde-releasing preservatives in beauty and personal care products, marking a new chapter in the convoluted patchwork of cosmetic regulations across the fifty states.
Under a new rule adopted by the Washington Department of Ecology, all intentionally added formaldehyde-releasing chemicals will be banned in cosmetics and personal care products beginning January 1, 2027. Cosmetics manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and cosmetology businesses will have until December 31, 2027, to sell through existing inventory before the ban takes full effect.
Washington’s Restrictions on Formaldehyde Releasers
The measure expands the state’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, which was first enacted in 2023. The bill prohibits intentionally added formaldehyde, along with eight specified chemicals or chemical classes, including methylene glycol, triclosan, and ortho-phthalates, among others. The latest rule closes a significant regulatory gap by targeting more than two dozen chemicals that release formaldehyde over time.
“There are cosmetic products on the market that do the same job without releasing these cancer-causing chemicals,” said Shari Franjevic, who leads the Department of Ecology’s work to implement Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act. “Switching to safer chemicals will help to protect all Washington residents—particularly cosmetologists, stylists, and people who work with these products every day.”
Washington’s ban on formaldehyde-releasing chemicals follows testing by the state’s Department of Ecology in 2023, which found high levels of formaldehyde in 26 of 30 hair and body products sampled, with many of those products marketed to or used by people of color. The report indicated that people of color in Washington may face increased exposure to these and other harmful substances, with the adverse effects of harmful cosmetics often exacerbated by additional environmental and social factors.
The new rule applies to manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and cosmetology businesses operating in Washington. It also covers products sold online and in physical stores.
Key features of the rule include:
The Washington State Department of Ecology has the authority to oversee and enforce the state's Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, ensuring that cosmetic products sold in Washington do not contain certain harmful chemicals. The department has the power to inspect manufacturers' products, conduct tests for harmful chemicals, and impose fines or penalties for noncompliance. The law also grants the Department of Ecology the authority to periodically update the list of banned or restricted chemicals based on new scientific research and health data.
The Facts on Formaldehyde & Formaldehyde Releasers
Formaldehyde is classified as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). These organizations have concluded, through extensive evidence and peer review, that prolonged exposure to formaldehyde is linked to an increased risk of specific human cancers, including nasopharyngeal cancer, sinonasal cancer, and myeloid leukemia.
Formaldehyde can either be added directly to products or released over time from preservatives such as DMDM hydantoin, which is a commonly used ingredient in shampoos, conditioners, and styling products. This process, called “off-gassing,” is intensified when products are exposed to heat or stored in poorly ventilated areas. For salon workers and consumers who use these products daily, the health risks are compounded.
“Manufacturers would add formaldehyde-releasing (or formaldehyde-donor) ingredients to products because they're very effective broad-spectrum preservatives that can be used in tiny amounts,” cosmetic chemist Ava Perkins explained in an email to BeautyMatter. “They're fairly inexpensive, easy to formulate with, and are suitable for many formulation types.”
According to Perkins, ingredients like DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, or quaternium-15 work by undergoing a chemical reaction over time that releases trace amounts of formaldehyde into the water phase of a product to shut down the growth of bacteria and fungi. “The key to their success is their slow and controlled release,” she added. “Companies aren't just senselessly dumping formaldehyde into your products.”
The Department of Ecology will host a compliance webinar on October 1, 2025, providing technical guidance and resources to help businesses prepare for the new requirements.
“We’re committed to supporting a smooth transition for all members of the cosmetics supply chain,” Franjevic said. “We’ll be working with distributors and retailers, as well as cosmetics professionals and manufacturers, to help them understand the law and rule and meet the new requirements.”
Important Dates:
State-by-State Cosmetics Regulations
While California and Maryland have already banned formaldehyde in cosmetics, Washington is the first state to prohibit a broad class of formaldehyde-releasing chemicals. California’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, which went into effect on January 1, 2025, banned 24 chemicals, including formaldehyde but did not cover all releasers.
Earlier this year, the New York Senate passed the Beauty Justice Act, which proposes to ban formaldehyde and other chemicals. The bill has not yet been passed by The Assembly, despite advocates urging for its passage before the legislative session's end in June. In 2023, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a national ban on formaldehyde in hair straighteners, but as of now, the agency has not finalized the proposed rule.
BeautyMatter has compiled an exhaustive and current list of essential legislation for brands to monitor, enabling readers to stay informed about the most recent state-level regulatory changes. This list is continuously updated as new laws are enacted and existing ones are modified.
The timing also aligns with the implementation of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA), the most significant update to US cosmetics law since 1938. While MoCRA does not outright ban specific ingredients, it gives the FDA authority over facility registration, safety substantiation, ingredient listings, and product recalls, making state-led initiatives like Washington’s even more influential in shaping the market.
How Washington’s New Rule Could Impact Beauty Brands
While safer preservative systems are available, brands may face additional research and development costs, reformulation timelines, and potential shifts in product performance, making early planning critical for maintaining brand and product consistency, as well as consumer trust.
Today, a majority of companies have moved away from formulating with formaldehyde donors. Many formulators choose to use aromatic alcohols (such as phenoxyethanol), organic acids (like sorbic or benzoic acid), and/or multifunctional ingredients (like ethylhexylglycerin or caprylyl glycol), according to Perkins. However, these ingredients are not direct substitutes.
“Many have a hard time being effective by themselves and need to be used in combination with other preservatives because of pH-dependency or they don't prevent all ‘bugs’ from growing, to name a few issues,” said Perkins. “Additionally, these tend to be more expensive or require specific conditions to adequately work.”
For beauty brands, Washington’s rule is likely to accelerate reformulation efforts well beyond state borders, as companies seek to align with the strictest regulatory frameworks and maintain consistency across portfolios. In some cases, proactive reformulation will be necessary to ensure compliance ahead of the 2027 deadline. Rather than producing state-specific SKUs, national beauty brands should prepare to streamline manufacturing by phasing out formaldehyde-releasing preservatives altogether. This will require not only auditing existing formulas for hidden releasers but also working closely with raw material suppliers to verify ingredient safety.
All of these efforts will take time, as Perkins noted. Smaller brands, in particular, might have difficulty sourcing a new preservative system and paying for the additional research, development, and testing. These additional costs are particularly challenging in the current economic climate.
“It's not realistic for companies to swap an ingredient and automatically go to market with it,” she said. “They will need to retest their products in stability, particularly with preservative efficacy testing and ensuring their product is still compatible with their packaging.”
