House Bill 686, titled the Safe Cosmetics Act, would prohibit the sale or distribution in North Carolina of cosmetic products that contain certain “restricted substances” when those substances are intentionally added, or when they appear as nonfunctional by-products or contaminants above a practical quantification limit. The bill defines a broad list of restricted substances, including PFAS, heavy metals, parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-releasing preservatives, benzophenones, several known carcinogens, asbestos and talc, butylated compounds, siloxanes, phenylenediamines, triclosan, triclocarban, nonylphenol, and nitrosamine-related compounds.
The bill also revises state law definitions related to cosmetics and adulteration, and it adds a new compliance mechanism. If the Board of Agriculture has reason to believe a cosmetic product violates the law, it may require the manufacturer to provide a certificate of compliance within 30 days. If the manufacturer does not comply, it must notify in-state sellers that the product may not be sold in North Carolina and provide the Board with a list of those notified. The act would take effect January 1, 2026.
H686 would amend Chapter 106 of the General Statutes, especially the state’s food, drug, and cosmetic provisions, by expanding the definition of adulterated cosmetics and creating an enforcement process for restricted substances. It would give the Board of Agriculture a stronger role in investigating and responding to suspected violations, and it would place compliance and notification obligations on manufacturers and downstream sellers. The bill could affect cosmetic manufacturers, importers, distributors, retailers, and consumers by limiting the sale of products containing the listed chemicals in North Carolina.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so the bill’s sentiment must be inferred from its sponsorship and subject matter. The bill appears to be framed as a consumer health and product safety measure, suggesting support from sponsors concerned about exposure to potentially harmful chemicals in cosmetics. Because the bill was introduced as a public measure and has not yet shown recorded opposition or amendment activity in the provided materials, the available context suggests a precautionary, pro-regulation posture rather than a clearly contested legislative debate.
The main points of contention are likely to involve the breadth of the restricted-substance list, the inclusion of trace contamination standards, and the compliance burden placed on manufacturers and retailers. Industry stakeholders may object to the practical quantification limit standard, the need to prove compliance on short notice, and the possibility that products could be restricted even when substances are present as by-products or contaminants rather than intentionally added ingredients. Supporters are likely to emphasize consumer protection, especially for products used on skin and in personal care routines, and the need to reduce exposure to PFAS, formaldehyde releasers, phthalates, parabens, and other chemicals of concern.