SF3421 would create a new Minnesota law restricting certain toxic chemicals in cosmetics beginning January 1, 2027. The bill prohibits the manufacture, sale, distribution, or use in the state of cosmetics containing intentionally added ortho-phthalates, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals, methylene glycol, triclosan, m-phenylenediamine and its salts, and o-phenylenediamine and its salts. It also limits lead in cosmetics, setting a 2 ppm threshold generally and a 5 ppm threshold for cosmetics with colorants or clay masks, while allowing in-state retailers to sell through existing stock until January 1, 2028.
The bill directs the Pollution Control Agency commissioner, in consultation with the commissioner of health, to identify and assess additional chemicals that serve similar functions and may disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, and to make that information public by July 1, 2026. It also requires the agency to create small-business support initiatives for cosmetic manufacturers and cosmetology service providers, including technical assistance, hazard assessment resources, reformulation help, safer-product transition support, and possible financial incentives. The commissioner is authorized and, in some cases, required to adopt rules, including a formaldehyde-releaser list and phased regulation of those chemicals starting in 2028 and 2029.
The bill would amend Minnesota Statutes section 325E.3892 by expanding the definition of “covered product” to include cosmetics and personal care products, tying the new cosmetics restrictions into the state’s broader toxic chemicals framework. It also establishes enforcement authority, civil penalties of up to $5,000 for a first violation and $10,000 for repeat violations, and directs collected penalties to the environmental fund. The measure therefore affects cosmetic manufacturers, distributors, retailers, salons, and small businesses operating in Minnesota.
Overall, the bill appears to be framed as a public health and environmental protection measure, with an emphasis on reducing exposure to hazardous chemicals and protecting vulnerable populations. Because no committee transcript or vote record was provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s policy design. The structure of the bill suggests support for safer consumer products and small-business transition assistance, but it also implies potential compliance and reformulation burdens for industry.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the scope of the chemical bans, the lead thresholds, the commissioner’s rulemaking authority, and the compliance costs for manufacturers and retailers. Small businesses and cosmetology service providers may support the assistance provisions but could still be concerned about the cost and timing of product transitions. Manufacturers and trade stakeholders may object to the restrictions, especially where the bill relies on future rulemaking to identify additional formaldehyde-releasing chemicals and to phase in further limits.
The bill would add a new chapter 116 section regulating toxic chemicals in cosmetics and would amend Minnesota’s existing toxic-chemicals statute to include cosmetics and personal care products as covered products. It creates new statewide prohibitions on the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of cosmetics containing specified chemicals, establishes lead limits, authorizes and directs agency rulemaking, and creates enforcement and penalty provisions. It also requires the Pollution Control Agency to develop public hazard assessments and small-business assistance initiatives, affecting cosmetic manufacturers, distributors, retailers, salons, and related small businesses in Minnesota.
No committee testimony or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill text alone, the measure is clearly oriented toward health and environmental protection, with added support for small businesses and cosmetology providers to ease compliance. The overall tone suggests a policy effort to reduce toxic exposure while managing implementation impacts.
Likely points of contention include the ban on several widely used cosmetic ingredients, the lead concentration limits, and the commissioner’s authority to identify and regulate additional formaldehyde-releasing chemicals through rulemaking. Industry stakeholders may be concerned about reformulation costs, product availability, and compliance burdens, while small businesses may support the assistance provisions but still worry about transition expenses and timelines. Environmental and public health advocates would likely favor the restrictions, especially the focus on vulnerable populations and disproportionate exposure.