We analyzed ingredient labels of 546 personal care products marketed to and/or used by Black/African American women, Vietnamese women, and Latinas in our partner communities and found that over half of these products contained ingredients linked to cancer, reproductive or developmental harm, or endocrine disruption.

The most prevalent CoCs were parabens, cyclosiloxanes, and formaldehyde releasers. By laboratory analysis, we found additional CoCs, including fragrances, solvents, preservatives, ultraviolet filters, and contaminants. We found high percentages (74% overall) of labels did not disclose ingredients used as fragrance, across all racial/ethnic groups and nearly all product categories.

There is no comprehensive authoritative list of endocrine disruptors. The TEDX list includes potential endocrine disruptors, and the strength of the evidence and the potential risk posed by these CoCs varies. Of the 59 total CoCs we found either on product labels or by laboratory analysis, 15 of them appeared only on the TEDX list. When omitting one of these chemicals that was also an essential nutrient (tocopherol), we found that 56% of products still had one or more CoCs on the label (compared to 65%). Endocrine disruption is still an overlooked concern, particularly in the regulatory domain, despite hormones being central to numerous body functions and disruption contributing to major diseases [43, 44].

Cumulative exposure to the same or similarly acting chemicals from frequent use of multiple products may have additive effects and result in higher-than-expected exposures. A recent survey in California found that women used a median of 8, and up to 30, personal care products daily [45]. We found a total of 37 CoCs listed on labels of 546 products, and up to 10 CoCs listed on a single product. We found that some of the same CoCs, particularly the more frequently occurring ones (parabens, formaldehyde releasers, and cyclosiloxanes) appeared on labels across all or most product types. More research is needed on formaldehyde-releasing preservatives to better evaluate toxicity and how consumers may be exposed to formaldehyde during product use [46].

We tested a subset (31 products) using GC-MS and found additional chemicals of concern not identified on product labels. The majority of CoCs found by laboratory analysis were ingredients used as fragrance. Others are typically used as preservatives, solvents, plasticizers, or UV-absorbing agents, but all of these are likely components of the fragrance mixture added to the product when not listed on the ingredient label. There were three products with no fragrance CoCs detected despite having the term “fragrance” on the ingredient label. This indicates that there are alternate fragrance ingredients that are not CoCs, or that they are not detectable by GC-MS. Some of the chemicals we found (phthalates, parabens) are being phased out of products [47]. We found diethylhexyl adipate, an alternative to some phthalates, more frequently than we found phthalates. There is some evidence of endocrine disruption for diethylhexyl adipate, but it is not currently on government authoritative lists.

Few studies of personal care products exist for which to compare the concentrations of CoCs we measured. Helm et al. [26] measured methylparaben up to 2100 μg/g in hair lotions used by Black women, which is similar to the highest concentration we measured (2537 μg/g) in skin lotion used by Black women in our communities. We found parabens in seven skin products and one makeup product but did not find parabens in the four leave-on hair styling products we tested. Helm et al. also measured DEP up to 2448 μg/g, which is on the same order of magnitude we measured in skin lotion, but we measured only 44 μg/g DEP in a hair lotion. Helm et al. measured up to 90 μg/g DEHP, while we measured 1019 μg/g DEHP in a leave-on hair lotion. Both studies found levels of octinoxate at the same order of magnitude in leave-on hair lotions.

A 2013 survey of phthalates and parabens in 170 personal care products detected phthalates most frequently in leave-on products, and up to 7980 μg/g of DEP in perfume [48]. The study measured up to 52.3 μg/g DEP among 23 skin lotions, while we measured 1431 μg/g DEP in a skin lotion marketed to and used by Latinas. The same survey also found parabens in 60% of leave-on products, up to 3540 μg/g, which is on the same order as our maximum level (2537 μg/g) of methylparaben in a skin lotion. Another study measured the fragrance ingredients galaxolide and tonalid in perfumes, body lotions, and deodorants, up to 451 μg/g tonalid [49]. We found galaxolide on product labels (n = 3), but we did not detect it in the 31 products we tested. We detected tonalid in one product, a leave-on hair styling lotion used by Black women, at 6.1 μg/g.

Dodson et al. [50] tested an array of consumer products in 2012, including 50 types of personal care products, and found several EDCs that were not listed on product labels, including various phthalates, parabens, and fragrance ingredients. They found levels of methylparaben up to 1600 μg/g in sunscreen and in other personal care products that did not list parabens on the label. We found comparable levels of phthalates for similar products, although Dodson et al. found higher levels in makeup (foundation) and perfume (up to 14,000 μg/g) [50]. They also found that both conventional and several products marketed as alternative or natural contained parabens and phthalates. We tested one product, a body wash, that was marketed as “natural” and “pure” and did not detect parabens or phthalates, but detected four other CoCs, including the carcinogenic contaminant benzyl chloride.

Our study was limited in the number of product labels we reviewed, considering the vast number of products available. We surveyed a total of only 39 stores to come up with a list of products used by women in our partner communities, thereby limiting the products representative of those used by certain races/ethnicities. Due to convenience and efficiency of review, we relied on online ingredient labels, which have the potential to change and possibly incorrectly represent the ingredients of a product that is in the store. We did not examine any products of brands that are sold online only, but our prior community survey suggested that the women in these communities primarily shopped in stores represented in our store inventories.

The different communities chose different product types to review, limiting our ability to draw conclusions based on racial/ethnic differences in chemicals within the same product type. However, we examined a large number of products among all three groups. We also did not examine a group of products not specifically marketed to or used by women of color, thereby limiting our conclusions about differences between certain races/ethnicities and White women, or differences between targeted and mainstream products. In addition, products with non-English labels were underrepresented in our review because we were unable to examine labels for which translations were not available. Among the products selected for label review, there was minimal overlap between community groups. For example, the Black and Latina community selected the same brand of skin lotion but different variations; the Black community’s product was a “cocoa” scent and was packaged in a dark brown bottle. Among all products selected independently by each community group, we found a total of 3 hair products and 1 skin care product that were duplicated between groups.

Laboratory screening for unidentified chemicals was limited to chemicals that can be analyzed by GCxGC-TOFMS, and could underestimate the total number of CoCs, e.g., the method we employed would not find heavy metal contaminants, highly volatile chemicals such as formaldehyde, or highly non-volatile chemicals more amenable to liquid chromatography. Other than comparing to product labels, we did not investigate the source of the chemicals found by laboratory analysis. Potential sources could include not only undeclared ingredients, but possibly starting material impurities, processing, and packaging (e.g., plasticizers). Another important limitation to our study and others on consumer product chemical exposure and toxicity is that some chemicals have little or no toxicological information available. Toxicological evaluation does not keep up with the demand and commercialization of new formulations. In addition, there is very limited study of the toxicity of chemicals of concern in combination with other chemicals or of the same chemical from cumulative sources or routes of exposure. Studies that measure the concentrations of CoCs in products can be used to inform dose levels for toxicological studies and exposure assessments. Lastly, our focus was cancer, reproductive/developmental harm, and endocrine disruption, and we did not survey or test for the presence of chemicals associated with other health endpoints such as asthma or allergies. Therefore, we expect that these products would have a greater number of CoCs if we expanded our scope.

Personal care products, or cosmetics, have limited regulation in the United States. Federal law requires intentionally added ingredients to be listed on product labels, but fragrance and flavor ingredients are exempt [51]. Products sold in the U.S. are also required to be labeled in English, although we found several products in our partner communities that were not compliant. Previously, we found that a portion of women in the surveyed racial/ethnic groups had concerns about certain ingredients in their products, with phthalates, parabens, formaldehyde, and fragrance being named most commonly [28]. It can be difficult for consumers to avoid exposure to CoCs if they do not know the hazards and if ingredients are not fully disclosed. The state of California recently passed laws that are more stringent than federal laws. The Cosmetic Fragrance and Flavor Ingredient Right to Know Act of 2020 commenced in 2022 and requires companies selling personal care products in California to report to the state products with fragrance or flavor ingredients that have been identified by authoritative bodies to have known or suspected health effects, including carcinogens, reproductive or developmental toxicants, endocrine disruptors, neurotoxicants, respiratory sensitizers, allergens, and persistent, bioaccumulative, or toxic pollutants [52]. The reported product and ingredient information is displayed for the public on the California Safe Cosmetics Program product database [53]. Another new law, The Toxic Free Cosmetics Act, commences in 2025 and aligns with the European Union by banning nine chemicals and three chemical groups from cosmetics sold in California, including two phthalates, two parabens, formaldehyde, and several perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) [54].