SB 1744 creates a new Florida statute regulating toxic chemicals in cosmetic products. Beginning July 1, 2026, it would prohibit the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, distribution for sale, or distribution for use in Florida of cosmetics containing intentionally added ortho-phthalates, PFAS, formaldehyde or formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, methylene glycol, mercury or mercury compounds, triclosan, m-phenylenediamine or its salt derivatives, o-phenylenediamine or its salt derivatives, and lead or lead compounds at or above 1 part per million, subject to limited exceptions. The bill also allows in-state retailers to sell through existing inventory until July 1, 2027.
The bill directs the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Health, to identify and publicly post information on chemicals or chemical classes that can serve similar functions in cosmetics, and to adopt rules implementing the restrictions. It also requires the department to create by rule a list of chemicals that release formaldehyde, with an initial set of up to 10 chemicals that may be restricted starting July 1, 2026, and additional listed chemicals potentially restricted starting July 1, 2027. The bill states that violations are grounds for disciplinary action under existing cosmetics law and does not apply to ingredients regulated as drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
In practical terms, the bill would add a new layer of state regulation over cosmetic ingredients and affect manufacturers, distributors, retailers, cosmetologists, and small cosmetic businesses operating in Florida. It would also require state agencies to evaluate substitute ingredients and publish hazard information, which could influence product formulation, compliance practices, and enforcement under Florida’s cosmetics regulatory framework.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of restricting chemicals viewed as harmful, with the findings emphasizing health risks such as cancer, reproductive harm, organ toxicity, and endocrine disruption. The bill appears framed as a consumer-protection and public-health measure, and its structure suggests an intent to align Florida with broader efforts to remove toxic ingredients from personal care products. There is no committee transcript or vote record provided showing debate or opposition, but the bill ultimately died in the Senate Regulated Industries committee.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of the bans, the use of state-level ingredient restrictions, and the compliance burden on small businesses and cosmetic manufacturers. The bill anticipates these concerns by requiring stakeholder input from independent cosmetologists, beauty salons, and small manufacturers, and by allowing a delayed sell-through period for existing stock. Another possible issue is the department’s authority to determine which formaldehyde-releasing chemicals are restricted and how broadly the lead threshold and other ingredient definitions are applied.
This bill would create s. 499.0095, F.S., establishing a statewide prohibition on specified toxic chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products sold or distributed in Florida. It would expand the Department of Business and Professional Regulation’s rulemaking and enforcement responsibilities, require consultation with the Department of Health, and make violations subject to disciplinary action under existing cosmetics licensing and enforcement provisions. The bill would directly affect cosmetic manufacturers, distributors, retailers, salons, and other businesses handling cosmetics in Florida, while carving out ingredients regulated as drugs by the FDA and allowing a limited sell-through period for existing retail inventory.
The bill is presented in strongly favorable terms, with legislative findings emphasizing health risks from cosmetic chemicals and the need to protect residents from toxic exposure. Its stated purpose is consumer safety and public health, and the text reflects a clear policy preference for banning certain ingredients rather than merely disclosing them. No committee debate or vote record is provided, but the bill’s final status indicates it died in the Senate Regulated Industries committee, suggesting it did not advance despite the supportive framing.
Likely areas of contention include whether Florida should ban ingredients already subject to federal oversight, how broad the chemical prohibitions should be, and the compliance costs for small businesses and cosmetic manufacturers. The bill itself signals awareness of these concerns by limiting initial formaldehyde-releasing chemical restrictions, requiring stakeholder engagement, and allowing retailers to exhaust existing stock. Another possible point of dispute is the department’s discretion to identify additional chemicals and set thresholds, especially for formaldehyde-releasing substances and lead.