AB 60, the Musk Reduction Act, amends California Health and Safety Code Section 108980 to expand the state’s existing cosmetic ingredient restrictions. The bill adds musk ambrette, musk tibetene, musk moskene, and musk xylene to the list of intentionally added ingredients that are prohibited in cosmetic products beginning January 1, 2027. It also limits musk ketone in cosmetics to specified concentration thresholds by product type, including a complete prohibition in oral products and lower caps in fine fragrance, eau de toilette, and other cosmetic products.
The bill leaves intact California’s earlier ban, effective January 1, 2025, on a separate set of ingredients including certain phthalates, formaldehyde-related compounds, mercury, parabens, hair dye precursors, and several PFAS chemicals. It also preserves the statute’s trace-contaminant exception for technically unavoidable impurities and defines “oral products” for purposes of the musk ketone limits. In addition, AB 60 adds a new labeling requirement for vaginal suppository products containing boric acid, requiring a detailed warning statement starting January 1, 2027, and it phases in a full ban on intentionally added boric acid in those products beginning January 1, 2035, unless the product becomes regulated as a drug by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The bill’s broader legal effect is to strengthen California’s cosmetic safety regime by expanding the list of banned or restricted ingredients and by imposing product-specific concentration limits and warning labels. It affects cosmetic manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other entities that manufacture, sell, deliver, hold, or offer cosmetics for sale in commerce in California. The bill also includes a coordination clause with Senate Bill 39, providing that a conforming version of Section 108980 would become operative only if both bills are enacted and AB 60 is enacted last.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears strongly favorable. The bill advanced with substantial bipartisan support at multiple stages, including wide margins in both houses and unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes at later stages. The lack of committee transcript material limits direct insight into debate, but the recorded votes suggest broad agreement with the bill’s public health and consumer safety goals.
The main point of potential contention is the scope and timing of the restrictions, especially the addition of musk-related fragrance ingredients and the eventual ban on boric acid in vaginal suppositories. Those provisions could affect specific cosmetic and personal-care product formulations and may raise concerns from manufacturers about reformulation, compliance costs, and product availability. At the same time, the bill’s detailed thresholds, delayed operative dates, and FDA-drug exception indicate an effort to balance safety concerns with industry transition time and existing federal regulation.
AB 60 amends Health and Safety Code Section 108980 to expand California’s cosmetic ingredient prohibitions and restrictions, adding several musk compounds to the list of banned cosmetic ingredients and setting concentration limits for musk ketone in different product categories. It also adds a labeling mandate for boric-acid vaginal suppositories and establishes a future ban on intentionally added boric acid in those products, subject to an FDA drug-regulation exception. The bill affects cosmetic manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and others placing covered products into commerce in California, while preserving the statute’s existing trace-impurity exception and coordinating with Senate Bill 39 through a conditional operative clause.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support throughout the legislative process, as reflected in strong committee and floor vote margins and the absence of recorded opposition in later stages. The available voting history suggests that lawmakers generally viewed the measure as a consumer and public health protection bill aimed at reducing exposure to potentially harmful cosmetic ingredients. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record does not show detailed floor or committee debate, but the vote totals indicate a largely positive reception.
The most notable areas of contention are likely the expanded bans on musk fragrance ingredients and the new restrictions on boric acid in vaginal suppositories, since those provisions directly affect product formulation and may require industry reformulation or relabeling. Manufacturers of cosmetics, fragrances, and feminine-care products may be most affected by compliance costs and product redesign, while public health advocates are likely to support the restrictions as precautionary safety measures. The bill’s delayed implementation dates and FDA exception suggest lawmakers anticipated these concerns and built in transition time and carveouts.