Relates to the full disclosure of ingredients in certain products.
Summary
This bill would amend New York’s General Business Law to require fuller ingredient disclosure on certain personal care products sold or offered for sale in the state. It defines “personal care product” broadly to include items applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering appearance, while excluding soap.
The core requirement is that manufacturers may not rely on generic ingredient terms such as “fragrance,” “colorant,” “dye,” “perfume,” or “preservative” unless the specific chemical making up that ingredient is also explicitly listed on the product label. In effect, the bill would require all chemicals present in covered personal care products to appear on the ingredients list, and it would take effect immediately upon enactment.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new section 399-rrr to the General Business Law and impose labeling obligations on manufacturers, distributors, and sellers of covered personal care products in New York. It would change current labeling practices by limiting the use of umbrella terms for ingredients and requiring more specific chemical disclosure on product packaging for retail, wholesale, professional, commercial, and promotional sales. The practical effect would be increased transparency for consumers and additional compliance obligations for businesses that market cosmetics and other personal care items in the state.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the bill’s political sentiment cannot be measured from formal discussion. Based on the bill text alone, it appears to be a consumer-protection and transparency measure aimed at improving ingredient disclosure in personal care products. The absence of opposition or support statements in the record means no clear consensus or controversy is documented here.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the bill’s requirement that manufacturers disclose specific chemicals instead of using broad terms like “fragrance” or “preservative,” which could raise compliance, reformulation, and trade-secret concerns for industry. Supporters would likely emphasize consumer right-to-know, allergy awareness, and ingredient transparency, while opponents may argue the mandate is burdensome or difficult to implement for complex formulations. Because no transcripts or votes are provided, these concerns are inferred from the bill’s structure rather than from recorded debate.