Forever Chemicals Are Rarer in Cosmetics Than Labels and Tests Suggest, Study Finds

The global backlash against per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the notoriously persistent chemicals better known as PFAS, has swept through the cosmetics industry with particular force. Long-wearing foundations, waterproof mascaras and smudge-proof lipsticks have been singled out as hidden reservoirs of these fluorinated compounds, and regulators on both sides of the Atlantic have rushed to restrict them. Yet a new study published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research suggests that the picture may be far less alarming than headlines imply, and that the way scientists and regulators count PFAS in cosmetics may be fundamentally misleading the public. By systematically dissecting the ingredient lists of more than 1,200 cosmetic and personal care products, two researchers from the Université du Québec à Chicoutimi have uncovered a striking gap between what products declare, what analytical surveys detect, and what the word PFAS actually means.

PFAS are not a single chemical but a sprawling family of more than 10,000 synthetic fluorinated compounds, defined under the framework adopted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United Nations Environment Programme by the presence of carbon-fluorine bonds. That bond, one of the strongest in organic chemistry, makes these substances extraordinarily resistant to degradation, earning them the nickname forever chemicals. Their persistence, tendency to bioaccumulate and documented associations with adverse health effects have placed them at the centre of public health concern worldwide. In cosmetics, PFAS have historically served useful functions: they improve spreadability, create water-resistant films, and help pigments adhere to skin for hours. It is precisely these performance benefits that made them attractive formulators’ tools, and precisely these properties that now make them regulatory targets.

The new analysis, conducted by Margaux Vincent-Graindorge and Lionel Ripoll, took a deliberately simple approach: keyword screening of the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients, or INCI, lists that regulations require on every product label. The dataset covered 1,233 products spanning three categories: 500 makeup items, 111 oral care products, and 622 other personal care products such as skin creams and cleansers. The results were immediately intriguing. Just over 19 percent of the products declared at least one fluorine-containing ingredient on their labels. But when the researchers applied the strict OECD and UNEP definition of a PFAS, requiring an actual carbon-fluorine bond, the number collapsed to a mere 0.9 percent of products. In other words, fewer than one in a hundred products declared an ingredient that legally qualifies as a PFAS.

The ingredient-level classification reveals why the gap exists, and it is not evidence of concealed chemicals. Almost all of the declared fluorine in these products belongs to compounds with no carbon-fluorine bond at all. The dominant contributor is synthetic fluorphlogopite, a synthetic mica prized in makeup for its shimmer and purity, which appeared in 134 products. The second major contributor is a category of dental fluoride salts, such as those used in toothpastes to prevent cavities, found in 88 products. These inorganic fluorides are chemically worlds apart from PFAS: they lack the persistent organofluorine backbone that defines the forever-chemical family, yet a casual reading of a label mentioning fluoride or fluorphlogopite could easily lead a consumer, or even a careless screener, to lump them together with PFAS.

Perhaps the most visually striking finding is how strongly fluorine declaration is structured by product type. In oral care products, 73 percent declared at least one fluorine-containing ingredient, an unsurprising figure given the near-universal use of cavity-preventing fluoride salts in toothpaste. In makeup, the figure was 28.2 percent, driven overwhelmingly by fluorphlogopite and related pearlescent agents. Across all other personal care products, the figure plummeted to just 1.9 percent. The authors report that this distribution is highly statistically significant, with a chi-squared statistic of 355.7 across two degrees of freedom and a p-value below 0.001. The pattern tells a coherent story: when fluorine appears on a cosmetic label, it almost always has an innocent, well-understood explanation rooted in the product’s function, not in the stealth use of forever chemicals.

So why have analytical studies repeatedly found fluorinated compounds in cosmetics at levels that seem to dwarf what labels declare? The answer, the researchers argue, lies in the difference between two families of measurement techniques. Targeted methods, typically using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry, identify and quantify specific PFAS compounds against reference standards. They are precise but blind to anything outside their target list, which is a serious limitation in a chemical family of 10,000 members. Total-fluorine methods, by contrast, such as combustion ion chromatography and the extractable organic fluorine approach, capture every fluorine atom in a sample regardless of compound identity. These methods have powered many of the alarming headlines, because they routinely report fluorine masses far exceeding what any declared PFAS ingredient could explain.

The critical insight from the new study is that total fluorine is not synonymous with intentionally added PFAS. When the label data and the analytical surveys are placed side by side, the deliberate use of PFAS as functional ingredients in finished cosmetic formulations appears to be uncommon. The organofluorine that analytical surveys detect, the authors contend, most likely enters products through routes that no ingredient list could ever capture: process water used in manufacturing, residues on shared production equipment, or fluorinated contamination present in treated raw materials before they ever reach the formulator. This distinction matters enormously for policy, because the regulatory frameworks now proliferating around the world are almost universally keyed to intentional addition, targeting PFAS that manufacturers deliberately put into their products through defined substance lists.

The regulatory landscape is indeed tightening rapidly. The European Union operates restrictions under the REACH regulation and the Persistent Organic Pollutants regulation, while the European Chemicals Agency has broader restrictions under consideration. France has enacted a dedicated law on products containing PFAS, adopted in February 2025. Canada has proposed measures targeting forever chemicals, including action on firefighting foams, and has published a state-of-PFAS report assessing the whole class. Yet if a meaningful share of the fluorine in cosmetics arrives as unintended contamination rather than deliberate formulation, these frameworks, however well intentioned, may miss the very exposure pathways they aim to control. A regulation that bans intentionally added PFAS cannot, by construction, address fluorine that rides in on process water or a treated raw material.

The study also carries a cautionary tale for how science communicates risk. Several widely shared claims about PFAS in cosmetics rest on total-fluorine measurements interpreted through the lens of intentional addition, a combination that can inflate perceived prevalence. A sunscreen study that demonstrated transdermal absorption of a radiolabelled PFAS, and biomonitoring work linking personal care product use to serum PFAS levels, underscore that dermal exposure is a genuine pathway worth studying. But the new INCI analysis suggests that the magnitude of that pathway from finished cosmetics may be smaller than feared, and that the field needs better tools to distinguish listed ingredients from residual contamination. The authors point toward suspect screening workflows using high-resolution mass spectrometry, and toward fluorine mass-balance approaches that reconcile total fluorine with identified compounds, as the way forward.

For consumers, the practical takeaway is one of measured reassurance rather than complacency. The vast majority of fluorine appearing on cosmetic labels is synthetic mica in a shimmering eyeshadow or a cavity-fighting fluoride salt in toothpaste, neither of which is a PFAS in the regulatory or toxicological sense. For policymakers, the message is more demanding: if forever chemicals are sneaking into cosmetics through water, equipment and raw materials, then protecting the public will require controlling contamination at the supply-chain level, not merely policing ingredient lists. And for the scientific community, the study is a reminder that a keyword on a label and a fluorine atom in a chromatogram are two very different kinds of evidence, and that conflating them risks distorting both public understanding and the regulations meant to keep people safe. The full INCI dataset and the Python screening script behind the analysis are available from the corresponding authors, offering other researchers a transparent starting point for replicating and extending the work.

Subject of Research: Declared versus actual presence of PFAS in cosmetic products based on INCI ingredient list analysis

Article Title: Declared versus actual presence of PFAS in cosmetic products: an INCI list analysis and critical appraisal of current regulatory frameworks

Article References: Vincent-Graindorge, M., & Ripoll, L. (2026). Declared versus actual presence of PFAS in cosmetic products: an INCI list analysis and critical appraisal of current regulatory frameworks. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 33(30), 15883-15896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-026-38214-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s11356-026-38214-9

Keywords: PFAS, cosmetics, INCI, fluorine, fluorphlogopite, regulation, dermal exposure, total fluorine, extractable organic fluorine, OECD, forever chemicals, personal care products