An Act to Enact the Safe Cosmetics Act
LD317, titled the Safe Cosmetics Act, would prohibit the distribution, sale, or offering for sale in Maine of cosmetic products that contain certain intentionally added ingredients beginning January 1, 2027. The bill lists specific chemicals and substances that would be banned in cosmetics, including lead, mercury, dibutyl phthalate, diethylhexyl phthalate, formaldehyde, paraformaldehyde, quaternium-15, methylene glycol, m-phenylenediamine, o-phenylenediamine, triclosan, triclocarban, and nonylphenol.
The bill also creates exceptions for technically unavoidable trace amounts of prohibited ingredients when those traces result from impurities in ingredients, the manufacturing process, storage, or migration from packaging. In addition, it gives retailers a right to a full refund from manufacturers, including shipping and related costs, if products delivered to them are later found to contain prohibited ingredients and therefore cannot be sold in the state. The Department of Environmental Protection may adopt routine technical rules to implement the chapter.
If enacted, the bill would add a new chapter to Maine law regulating cosmetic product ingredients and would impose a state-level ban on the sale of cosmetics containing the listed intentionally added chemicals. It would affect manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other sellers of cosmetics in Maine by requiring product reformulation, supply-chain screening, and compliance with ingredient restrictions. The bill also creates a statutory refund remedy for retailers and authorizes agency rulemaking to carry out the law.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be precautionary and consumer-protection oriented. The bill’s framing suggests support for limiting exposure to potentially harmful chemicals in personal care products, but there is no available discussion record here showing formal support or opposition. No vote history is provided, so no legislative sentiment can be inferred from roll-call results.
The main likely point of contention is the scope of the ingredient ban and whether the listed substances are appropriately regulated at the state level versus through federal oversight or existing product standards. Manufacturers and retailers may also be concerned about compliance costs, reformulation timelines, supply-chain testing, and the refund obligation imposed on manufacturers when prohibited ingredients are discovered after delivery. Another possible issue is how the law would treat trace contamination and packaging migration, since those exceptions may require technical interpretation and enforcement guidance.