Across the beauty aisle, products that once seemed harmless are suddenly under intense scrutiny. From salon hair straighteners to plastic-based glitter, regulators and researchers are tying everyday grooming rituals to cancer risks, hormone disruption, and even environmental damage that lingers for generations. Now officials in several states are pushing for outright bans on some of the most troubling ingredients, arguing that incremental warnings are no match for chemicals with such scary side effects.
At the center of the fight are products that promise sleek hair, long-lasting makeup, or extra sparkle, but deliver a hidden dose of carcinogens and microplastics. I see a pattern emerging: as science fills in the health and environmental costs, lawmakers are moving from quiet concern to aggressive phaseouts, while federal regulators struggle to keep pace.
From salon staple to cancer concern
Few products capture this shift more starkly than chemical hair straighteners that rely on formaldehyde. The Jan proposal by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict these treatments has stalled, with the agency described as having Misses Deadline on a rule that would Ban Formaldehyde in Hair Straighteners. That delay leaves salon workers and clients exposed to fumes from a chemical that regulators already classify as a carcinogen, even as pressure mounts for a nationwide phaseout.
Health experts are blunt about the stakes. One federal summary notes that Jan Formaldehyde is “a well-established carcinogen” that can trigger respiratory irritation, skin sensitization, and a range of other adverse effects, including potential reproductive harms such as uterine fibroids, underscoring why advocates want it out of personal care products entirely, not just labeled more clearly. Those risks are now central to the argument that a substance this hazardous does not belong in routine grooming at all, a case reinforced by research that links frequent use of chemical straighteners to higher rates of hormone-related cancers, as highlighted in analyses of uterine fibroids and related conditions.
Deadlines missed, communities exposed
The regulatory lag is not just a bureaucratic footnote, it has real-world consequences for the people most likely to use these products. The Jan coverage of the latest holdup describes how the FDA has now missed another target for proposing a formaldehyde ban in hair-straightening products, even after years of warnings about cancer risks tied to treatments often used by Black women, a pattern that has fueled accusations of environmental racism and unequal protection. That same reporting notes that the Jan, Due to worry about the chemicals’ links to increased cancer risks, the FDA under Biden had signaled it was considering stronger action, citing concerns about disproportionate health impacts on communities that rely on these services most.
Grassroots pressure has been building alongside the science. Salon workers joined forces with the Environmental Working Group and the Women, Voices for the Earth coalition to demand tighter limits on formaldehyde-based straighteners, arguing that they breathe in fumes day after day while clients may only see the chair a few times a year. Their campaign, detailed in advocacy efforts, has framed the issue as both a workplace safety crisis and a civil rights concern, since the products are marketed heavily to Black women seeking to conform to Eurocentric beauty standards.
States move first on toxic cosmetics
While federal regulators debate, state lawmakers are racing ahead with their own bans on hazardous ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. In California, Dec brought a sweeping update known as The Toxic Free Cosmetics Act, which targets 24 of the most toxic ingredients used in beauty products, including mercury and formaldehyde, and gives companies time to reformulate. That same package also cracks down on the PFAS family of chemicals in cosmetics and personal care products, reflecting mounting alarm over so-called “forever chemicals” that do not break down in the environment and have been linked to a range of health problems, as detailed in the state’s new laws.
Other states are following suit, particularly on PFAS. Legal analyses of Dec developments in Connecticut describe how that state now defines a “cosmetic product” broadly as any article, excluding soap, intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on the human body, then uses that definition to restrict PFAS in a wide range of items from lotions to makeup. The expansion of these state PFAS bans ahead of 2026 signals that, in the absence of swift federal action, regional rules are becoming the de facto standard for what counts as safe on store shelves.
Glitter in the crosshairs
The latest target for a total phaseout is not a chemical name most shoppers recognize, but a product they see everywhere: plastic-based glitter. In Illinois, Feb brought a proposal from Officials to impose a complete ban on this common personal care additive, which shows up in everything from nail polish to body wash, after evidence that it breaks down into microplastics that contaminate waterways and wildlife. Supporters of the measure stress that Most people do not realize how quickly these tiny particles become one of the most common pollutants found worldwide, a point highlighted in coverage of the proposed ban that quotes Offici backing the crackdown.
Unlike formaldehyde or PFAS, glitter’s harm is not primarily about direct toxicity on skin, but about the long trail it leaves in rivers, oceans, and even drinking water. Once washed down the drain, those plastic flecks are nearly impossible to capture in treatment plants, and they accumulate in fish and other marine life that humans eventually eat. By targeting glitter, Illinois lawmakers are effectively saying that the aesthetic payoff of a sparkly bath bomb is not worth the planetary cost, and they are betting that a clear, total prohibition will push manufacturers toward biodegradable alternatives faster than any voluntary guidelines could.
Evidence piles up, pressure intensifies
Behind these policy shifts is a growing body of research tying beauty routines to serious disease. A Jan social media post from a local news outlet summarized how a 2022 National Institutes of Health study and a 2023 Boston University analysis both found a strong connection between frequent use of chemical hair straighteners and increased risk of hormone-related cancers, a pattern that has galvanized salon workers who have pushed for a ban on the chemical that increases the risk of these illnesses. That post, which cited the National Institutes of and Boston University by name, helped translate dense epidemiology into a simple message: the more often people use these products, the higher their odds of developing certain cancers.
Academic researchers are also mapping how toxic exposures fall unevenly across racial and ethnic lines. Work led by Sep scientist Lariah Edwards in EHS, alongside Emily Weaver, has shown that cosmetics marketed to women of color, especially Black women and Latinas, are more likely to contain endocrine-disrupting chemicals and other hazardous ingredients. Their findings, highlighted in a Columbia public health brief on Washington State’s ban on cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics, have helped convince lawmakers that targeted bans are not just about abstract toxicology, but about correcting structural inequities baked into the beauty market.
More from Morning Overview
