<p class=ldtitle>A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 59.1-200, 59.1-571, 59.1-573, and 59.1-574 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Chapter 52 of Title 59.1 an article numbered 2, consisting of sections numbered 59.1-574.1 through 59.1-574.4, relating to manufacture or sale of cosmetic products containing certain ingredients prohibited.</p>
HB864 would expand Virginia’s consumer protection laws to create a new “Toxin-Free Cosmetics Act” within Title 59.1 and to make violations of that act enforceable as prohibited practices under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act. The bill would bar the manufacture, sale, delivery, offer for sale, or consumer use of cosmetic products containing a specified list of intentionally added ingredients, including certain phthalates, formaldehyde and related compounds, mercury, parabens, phenylenediamines, and several PFAS chemicals. It also retains the existing “Humane Cosmetics” provisions on cosmetic animal testing and keeps the current civil penalty structure for that article.
The bill defines cosmetics and related terms, creates limited exceptions for technically unavoidable trace contaminants, and directs enforcement through the Attorney General and the Consumer Protection Act’s remedies. It also prohibits localities from adopting cosmetic-animal-testing regulations that are not identical to state law. In practical terms, the measure would affect cosmetic manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and other businesses selling personal care products in Virginia by requiring product reformulation, supply-chain review, and compliance with ingredient restrictions.
The general sentiment reflected in the available record is supportive and noncontroversial, though the bill’s final disposition suggests it was folded into a broader general laws measure rather than moving as a standalone bill. The last action indicates it was incorporated by General Laws (HB122-Keys-Gamarra) by voice vote, which typically signals broad committee acceptance and little recorded opposition in the available materials.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the scope of the ingredient ban and the compliance burden it places on the cosmetics industry. Potential concerns include whether the listed chemicals are already present only in trace amounts, how manufacturers will verify compliance, and whether the state should regulate product formulation at this level. Another possible issue is preemption and uniformity, since the bill expressly bars localities from adopting nonidentical cosmetic-animal-testing rules, centralizing regulation at the state level.
HB864 would amend the Virginia Consumer Protection Act to treat violations of the new cosmetics ingredient restrictions as prohibited practices, making them subject to Attorney General enforcement and the act’s civil and remedial provisions. It would also add a new article to Chapter 52 of Title 59.1 establishing a statewide ban on cosmetics containing specified intentionally added toxic ingredients, while preserving limited exceptions for unavoidable trace contamination and maintaining existing cosmetic-animal-testing rules. The bill would directly affect cosmetics manufacturers, sellers, and retailers operating in Virginia, and it would preempt local regulation in the animal-testing area unless identical to state law.
The available legislative record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. There are no recorded committee transcripts or roll-call votes showing organized opposition, and the bill’s final action—incorporation into another General Laws bill by voice vote—indicates it was treated as a broadly acceptable consumer-protection measure. The absence of recorded dissent in the provided materials points to a consensus-oriented posture rather than a sharply divided debate.
The likely areas of contention are practical and regulatory rather than ideological. Industry stakeholders could object to the breadth of the prohibited ingredient list, the cost of reformulating products, and the compliance challenges associated with testing, labeling, and supply-chain documentation. Consumer and public-health advocates would likely support the restrictions as a way to reduce exposure to harmful chemicals, while questions may arise about the treatment of trace impurities and the extent to which the state should regulate cosmetics versus relying on federal standards. The bill also centralizes authority by limiting local cosmetic-animal-testing rules to identical provisions, which could be a point of concern for local governments favoring more tailored regulation.