“Bemotrizinol has been used safely in Europe for decades,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about the approval. “FDA’s action will increase competition and consumer confidence in sunscreen products.”

Nonprofits that advocate for health, such as the Environmental Working Group, and the skin care industry alike had lobbied for approval of the ingredient, which makes sunscreens sheerer and lighter on the skin than many available American options while blocking a wider spectrum of ultraviolet rays that can cause premature aging and skin cancer.

The newly approved sunscreen filter will allow companies to reformulate sunscreens to address consumers’ concerns, said Carl D’Ruiz, a senior manager at , a Swiss maker of sunscreen chemicals that applied for the FDA approval. In addition to allowing companies to offer what the FDA calls safe and effective formulations, he said, the approval will allow sunscreens that are more like sought-after South Korean brands to be sold in the U.S. by autumn.

Confidence in U.S. sunscreen has faltered on two fronts: among those concerned about what’s in the sunscreens they use and those who believe sun exposure is healthy. But will the new ingredient win the trust of Make America Healthy Again skeptics and Gen Zers intentionally tanning? RFK Jr., strikingly bronzed, has helped stoke this confusion by pledging in 2024 to fight what he called the FDA’s “war on public health” and . Under his leadership, the FDA from a plan in March to ban people under 18 from using tanning beds.

All this matters because by age 70 in the United States. It is the in the nation, where about 3.3 million people are diagnosed each year with basal and squamous cell carcinomas.

D’Ruiz said he thinks bemotrizinol, also known as BEMT, will change the dynamic. “People will talk more positively about sunscreens,” he said.

In the U.S., new sunscreen chemicals are regulated as over-the-counter drugs like aspirin or cough syrup rather than as cosmetics, as in Japan and the European Union. That means they face more elaborate testing and safety protocols, such as animal testing that runs afoul of EU laws, which is why the for bemotrizinol took nearly two decades, D’Ruiz said.

What’s “generally recognized as safe and effective,” otherwise known as “GRASE” in FDA-speak, is at the center of the American sunscreen debate. Bemotrizinol joins zinc oxide and titanium dioxide on the FDA’s .

That could help rebuild trust, said , an environmental epidemiologist at the , a nonprofit that researches the ingredients in consumer products.

“It has strong safety data,” Friedman said. “The documents submitted to the FDA to achieve ‘generally recognized as safe and effective’ include tests of irritation, sensitization to allergies, two-year animal studies for carcinogenicity, and reproductive health.”

The approval will also give consumers access to sunscreens that don’t leave as much of a white cast, she said, which makes some people hesitant to use mineral sunscreens such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

Bemotrizinol’s approval won’t change the possibility of several chemicals with unclear safety profiles being added to sunscreens.

In 2019, the there was insufficient data to support a positive “generally recognized as safe and effective” determination for 12 commonly used sunscreen chemicals.

The concerns emerged after the that said some sunscreen ingredients had been found in humans’ bloodstreams. Though the industry has since phased out several of those chemicals lacking GRASE status, four are still widely used: avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate.

“The European Union had that homosalate was not safe at concentrations that they were using and recommended a very low percentage — which was effectively a ban,” Friedman said. “The U.K. also issued a safety evaluation.”

Octisalate and octinoxate have been associated with disruption of the endocrine system, and octinoxate was due to concerns that it harms marine life and bleaches coral reefs.

Avobenzone breaks down when exposed to light, making it less effective, Friedman said, and has been associated with allergic reactions.

Mark Mitchnick, a pediatrician who , which is known under the brand Z-Cote, said bemotrizinol will give chemists a new tool to make sunscreens that people will want to wear.

“It’s a good UVA block,” he said. “It gives us good flexibility. In my mind, it allows you to make really good products without using avobenzone, which I think has a lot of baggage.”

Most of the UV rays people are exposed to are UVA rays that can penetrate the middle layer of the skin and cause up to 90% of skin aging, along with a smaller amount of UVB rays, which are . falls on the electromagnetic spectrum between X-rays and visible light.

Mitchnick said major companies have used chemical filters because they work better on a per-pound basis compared with mineral sunscreens made with zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. “That’s why hybrids are great — you get the best of both worlds.” He said he expects companies, including , to release hybrid products containing bemotrizinol and zinc oxide later this year.

J. Frank Nash, a senior director and research fellow at Procter & Gamble, said skepticism about sunscreen is unfortunate because properly formulated sunscreens do an excellent job blocking solar UV, “which we know is responsible for skin cancers and aging.”

He worries the industry has contributed to the trust gap by , called boosters, to mineral sunscreens, to raise sun protection factor ratings, or SPF. This leads consumers to wonder what’s in the products they’re buying.

Still, in Australia, where bemotrizinol has been used in sunscreens for years, a shows that even when regulators allow lauded UV filters, bad actors can taint a whole industry.

“People are not shunning sunscreen because they have stopped believing UV is dangerous,” said Joseph Mizikovsky, a director of the . “They are shunning it because they have lost trust in what is in the bottle.”

He applauds the FDA’s transparency with American consumers about the lack of safety data for filters without GRASE status, and FDA’s insistence on mandatory microbial testing of products.

But he said the FDA could do more to rebuild trust in sunscreens.

“My view is the FDA should move faster to ban filters that are missing safety data, and the public should focus on physical protection — shade, clothing, hats, sunglasses — with sunscreen as the last layer, not the first.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

“When the ride is an hour or an hour and a half of mostly freeway driving, people tend to tell you what they’re going through,” she said.

Drivers such as Carr have become a critical part of the medical transportation system in Georgia, as well as in Washington, D.C., , , and elsewhere. While some patients use transportation companies solely dedicated to medical rides or nonemergency ambulance rides to get to their appointments, the San Francisco-based ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft are also ferrying people to emergency rooms, kidney dialysis, cancer care, physical therapy, and other medical visits.

But Georgia ride-hail drivers aren’t only serving patients living in Atlanta or its sprawling suburbs. When rural Georgians are too sick to drive themselves, Uber or Lyft is often one of the only ways to reach medical care in the state capital.

have meant people battling cancer and other serious illnesses must now commute two or more hours to treatment facilities in Atlanta, said Bryan Miller, director of psychosocial support services at the , a medical practice offshoot that seeks to alleviate financial burdens for cancer patients and their families.

From April 2022 to April 2024, Lyft drivers completed thousands of rides that were greater than 50 miles each way and that began or ended at Atlanta-area medical treatment centers, including the Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University and Emory University Hospital Midtown, according to Lyft.

While 75% of those trips were under 100 miles, the company said, 21% of them were between 100 and 200 miles and 4% were over 200, showing that even Georgians who live hours away from metro Atlanta rely on the ride-hail platform to reach medical care there.

Uber Health global head Zachary Clark declined to provide comparable ridership data. Uber Health is a division of Uber that organizes medical transportation for some Medicaid and Medicare recipients, health care workers, prescription drug delivery, and others seeking reimbursement for medical-related Uber rides, .

Lyft also has a health care division, offering programs such as Lyft Assisted and Lyft Concierge to coordinate rides for patients.

Nationwide, some insurance companies and cancer treatment centers, plus Medicare Advantage and state Medicaid plans, pay for such ride-hailing services, often with the goal of reducing missed appointments, according to , an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania medical school.

In 2024, 36% of individual Medicare Advantage plans and 88% of special needs plans offered transportation services, said , associate director of Medicare policy at KFF, the health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. A special needs plan provides extra benefits to Medicare recipients who have severe and chronic diseases or certain other health care needs, or who also have Medicaid.

And Medicaid — the federal-state government safety net insurance plan for those with low incomes or disabilities — paid for up to to use nonemergency medical transportation services annually from 2018 through 2021, according to a Department of Health and Human Services report. Patients residing in rural areas used ride-hailing and other nonemergency transportation providers at the highest rates, the report said.

The estimated total federal and state investment in nonemergency medical transportation was approximately $5 billion in 2019, by the Texas A&M University Transportation Institute.

Even with some insurance covering trips or charities offering ride credits, social workers say, many ailing patients are still left without a ride. Nationwide, 21% of adults without access to a vehicle or public transit went without needed medical care in 2022, by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. People who lacked access to a vehicle but had access to public transit were less likely to skip needed care.

The data analytics company Geotab for second worst in the nation when it comes to the accessibility of its public transportation network.

“The ability to get to a doctor’s appointment can be a barrier to care,” said Rochelle Schube, a cancer support group facilitator in Atlanta. “If I give a patient $250 in Uber cards and they live far away, that gets spent quickly.”

The fact that Uber and Lyft are harder to come by in rural America compounds the lack of medical access in those areas. “When you move to rural areas — which you could argue have a higher need — you see fewer services,” Chaiyachati said.

Finding drivers who are able and willing to provide medical transportation can be a challenge. The Atlanta-based start-up connects patients and health care providers with vetted drivers, many offering wheelchair or stretcher rides, in Georgia and 16 other states. Many of its drivers have medical training, walk patients to and from medical facilities or their homes, and can handle complex situations for vulnerable patients, said Dana Weeks, the company’s co-founder and CEO.

The company’s app can also dispatch directly to Uber or Lyft for patients who do not need specialized assistance, she said.

Uber and Lyft trips can save patients and insurers money, costing a fraction of the typical fee for an ambulance ride, said , an economics professor at the University of Kansas who the impact of ride-hailing services on medicine.

But instead of all of that, argued , a history professor emeritus at Georgia State University and a former director of the school’s neighborhood-studies center, the best solution would be for , so more rural hospitals would be able to remain open and Georgians could seek medical care close to home.

The decision by Georgia lawmakers to not accept a federally funded expansion of Medicaid has left more than 1.4 million Georgians without health insurance, — and that hurts rural hospitals when those patients use the medical facilities and cannot pay their bills. In Georgia, 10 rural hospitals have either closed or ceased their inpatient care operations since 2010, according to a from health care consultant Chartis, and 18 more are in danger of shuttering.

Until more patients are insured, Crimmins said, the state should subsidize Uber and Lyft trips for less prosperous Georgians who need help reaching medical care in Atlanta. “We might be talking about $100 to $150 round-trip,” he said. “That can be subsidized.”

Still, ferrying around patients is not for every ride-hail driver. Damian Durand said his Chevrolet Equinox SUV is large enough to accommodate a medical passenger requiring a wheelchair, but he isn’t paid extra to transport those with medical needs. He said some of his recent passengers in Atlanta have been Medicaid recipients with mental health conditions or disabilities.

“It can be stressful,” he said. “I do feel like Uber and Lyft are trying to catch me off guard. When I can see that the ride is going to the hospital, I try to avoid or cancel the ride.”

While Durand’s experience with medical transport has been mostly negative, Carr loves the work and appreciates being able to help older Georgians, who she said often tip her well. For her, ride-hail work remains a good option even when it entails medical calls.

“It’s not stressful for me,” she said. “I worked a good 20 years in customer service. For me, human connection is important. I tried to work from home, and I really didn’t like it. I prefer this because I can connect with people.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

At issue is not just whether people are using enough sunscreen, but what ingredients are in it.

The Food and Drug Administration’s ability to approve the chemical filters in sunscreens that are sold in countries such as Japan, South Korea, and France is hamstrung by a 1938 U.S. law that has required sunscreens to be tested on animals and classified as drugs, rather than as cosmetics as they are in much of the world. So Americans are not likely to get those better sunscreens — which that can cause skin cancer and lead to wrinkles — in time for this summer, or even the next.

Sunscreen makers say that requirement is unfair because companies including and , which make the newer sunscreen chemicals, submitted on sunscreen chemicals to the some 20 years ago.

Steven Goldberg, a retired vice president of BASF, said companies are wary of the FDA process because of the cost and their fear that additional animal testing could ignite a in the European Union, which of cosmetics, including sunscreen. The companies are asking Congress to change the testing requirements before they take steps to enter the U.S. marketplace.

In a rare example of bipartisanship last summer, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) (D-N.Y.) for urging the FDA to speed up approvals of new, more effective sunscreen ingredients. Now a bipartisan bill is pending in the House that would to allow non-animal testing.

“It goes back to sunscreens being classified as over-the-counter drugs,” said Carl D’Ruiz, a senior manager at DSM-Firmenich, a Switzerland-based maker of sunscreen chemicals. “It’s really about giving the U.S. consumer something that the rest of the world has. People aren’t dying from using sunscreen. They’re dying from melanoma.”

Every hour, at least two people in the United States. Skin cancer is the in America, and 6.1 million adults are treated each year for basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, according to the . The nation’s second-most-common cancer, breast cancer, is diagnosed about , though it is far more deadly.

Though skin cancer treatment success rates are excellent, 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer by age 70. The disease costs the health care system , according to CDC researchers. One study found that the annual cost of treating skin cancer in the United States from 2002 to 2011, while the average annual cost for all other cancers increased by just 25%. And unlike many other cancers, most forms of skin cancer can largely be prevented — by using sunscreens and taking other precautions.

But a heavy dose of misinformation has permeated the sunscreen debate, and some people question the safety of sunscreens sold in the United States, which they deride as “chemical” sunscreens. These sunscreen opponents prefer “physical” or “mineral” sunscreens, such as zinc oxide, even though all sunscreen ingredients are chemicals.

“It’s an artificial categorization,” said E. Dennis Bashaw, a retired FDA official who ran the agency’s clinical pharmacology division that studies sunscreens.

Still, such concerns were partly after it published a study that said some sunscreen ingredients had been found in trace amounts in human bloodstreams. When the , and then again , that older sunscreen ingredients needed to be studied more to see if they were safe, sunscreen opponents saw an opening, said , president of Alpha Research & Development, which imports chemicals used in cosmetics.

“That’s why we have extreme groups and people who aren’t well informed thinking that something penetrating the skin is the end of the world,” Shaath said. “Anything you put on your skin or eat is absorbed.”

Adamson, the Austin dermatologist, said some sunscreen ingredients have been used for 30 years without any population-level evidence that they have harmed anyone. “The issue for me isn’t the safety of the sunscreens we have,” he said. “It’s that some of the chemical sunscreens aren’t as broad spectrum as they could be, meaning they do not block UVA as well. This could be alleviated by the FDA allowing new ingredients.”

falls between X-rays and visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum. Most of the UV rays that people come in contact with are UVA rays that can penetrate the middle layer of the skin and that cause up to 90% of skin aging, along with a smaller amount of UVB rays that are .

The sun protection factor, or SPF, rating on American sunscreen bottles denotes only a sunscreen’s ability to block UVB rays. Although American sunscreens labeled “broad spectrum” should, in theory, block UVA light, to meet the European Union’s higher UVA-blocking standards.

“It looks like a number of these newer chemicals have a better safety profile in addition to better UVA protection,” said , deputy director of Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that researches the ingredients in consumer products. “We have asked the FDA to consider allowing market access.”

The FDA defends its review process and its call for tests of the sunscreens sold in American stores as a way to ensure the safety of products that many people use daily, rather than just a few times a year at the beach.

“Many Americans today rely on sunscreens as a key part of their skin cancer prevention strategy, which makes satisfactory evidence of both safety and effectiveness of these products critical for public health,” Cherie Duvall-Jones, an FDA spokesperson, wrote in an email.

D’Ruiz’s company, DSM-Firmenich, is the only one currently seeking to have a new over-the-counter sunscreen ingredient approved in the United States. The company has spent the past 20 years trying to gain , a process D’Ruiz said has cost $18 million and has advanced fitfully, despite attempts by Congress in 2014 and 2020 to speed along applications for new UV filters.

Bemotrizinol is the bedrock ingredient in nearly all European and Asian sunscreens, including those by the South Korean brand and , a Japanese brand.

D’Ruiz said bemotrizinol could secure FDA approval by the end of 2025. If it does, he said, bemotrizinol would be the most vetted and safest sunscreen ingredient on the market, outperforming even the safety profiles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

As Congress and the FDA debate, many Americans have taken to importing their own sunscreens from Asia or Europe, despite the .

“The sunscreen issue has gotten people to see that you can be unsafe if you’re too slow,” said , a professor of economics at George Mason University. “The FDA is just incredibly slow. They’ve been looking at this now literally for 40 years. Congress has ordered them to do it, and they still haven’t done it.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

Under the plan from the Biden administration, Medicare of preexposure prophylaxis drugs, which prevent HIV transmission. The drugs, known by the shorthand “PrEP,” would be free in pill form and — for the first time — as long-acting injectables through the government insurance program designed for those 65 and older. Those 50 and over of all people in the U.S. already living with HIV.

The proposed policy change represents a big shift because it means that even new long-acting injectable versions of PrEP drugs, which more than $20,000 a year in the U.S., would be covered fully, without requiring patients to kick in copayments. It is not yet clear what the plan would mean for taxpayers, though, either in paying for the medications or in offsetting the costs of caring for fewer Medicare patients with HIV in the future.

The final green light for the plan was expected Oct. 10, but the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced it is still working out details of how to transition coverage for patients already taking the drugs.

The U.S. is decades behind nations in Europe and Africa that are on track to end new HIV infections by 2030. But while the proposal should bring down infections in older Americans, it highlights remaining inequities: Many people under age 65 will still struggle to pay for PrEP. And, at the same time, Republican congressional leaders have threatened to cut funding for a federal HIV prevention effort championed by the Trump administration that is intended to help all at risk.

“We’ve done a very poor job in the U.S. of assuring that people who could most benefit from PrEP have access to it,” said Justin Smith, who directs the Campaign to End AIDS at in the Atlanta area.

Though PrEP has been embraced by gay and trans Americans, it is prescribed less often to heterosexuals over 50 or women of any age. In the first three months of this year, of the more than 300,000 people receiving PrEP in the U.S. were women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The racial gap is large, too: While 66% of white people eligible for PrEP got prescriptions for it in that period, only 8% of eligible Black people and 17% of eligible Hispanic people did.

Broadening access for gay and bisexual men of color, as well as straight and cisgender women of color — particularly Black women, who of women with HIV in the U.S. as well as the majority of new infections among women — is critical for the nation to catch up to the rest of the world, Smith said.

Leisha McKinley-Beach, a national HIV consultant and CEO of the , which prepares Black health department employees for leadership positions, noted that the Medicare proposal to cover the cost of injectable PrEP could help many women because a shot given every two months can be easier to manage than a daily pill.

But it’s just a start. She and others are lobbying for a national PrEP plan that would build on momentum from the recent Medicare proposal to expand free access to other age groups, much as with covid-19 vaccinations. McKinley-Beach also wants the U.S. government to expand the message that anyone can get HIV, encourage drug companies to advertise more on TV to women of color, and fund outreach to dispel medical mistrust in communities of color.

“Gay white men have had a narrative of dignity and respect with regards to HIV treatment, and I would never want to change that narrative,” she said. “But the message needs to be broadened. Forty-two years into the HIV epidemic, the current HIV prevention model is detrimental to Black women who could benefit from PrEP.”

Though the U.S. was to approve PrEP, in 2012, it now trails the rest of the world in equitable access. That’s mostly due to the cost of laboratory tests and medical visits. While the cost of the generic form of Truvada, an oral form of PrEP, can be as low as about $30 a month in the U.S., by University of Virginia researchers reported the cost of starting PrEP is typically about $2,670 for uninsured patients, including about $1,000 for lab tests and medical visits. The new Medicare proposal would cover up to seven counseling visits every 12 months for HIV risk assessment and reduction.

Meanwhile, PrEP pills are free for people in the United Kingdom and including France, Germany, Sweden, and Denmark. Those nations don’t yet cover the more expensive shots, although the U.K. is leading a small test on injectable PrEP in people who cannot take it in tablet form.

The U.S. also lags Western Europe and some nations in Africa in overall HIV treatment and prevention. For example, just 57% of HIV-positive Americans have attained viral suppression, according to the U.S. government website , meaning they regularly take medications to make them unable to transmit the virus. That makes PrEP, which is for people who don’t have the virus, all the more important for Americans to stay negative, according to HIV experts.

In Africa, by contrast, Botswana, Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe have already achieved the United Nations’ set for 2025 — 95% of people with HIV know their HIV status, 95% of people with diagnosed HIV infection receive sustained antiretroviral therapy, and 95% of people receiving antiretroviral therapy have achieved viral suppression, or the virus is undetectable in their blood — .

In the U.K., have achieved “undetectable” status via free antiretroviral medicines and treatment available through the country’s universal health care program, the National Health Service. Moreover, nearly anyone in the U.K. who is HIV-negative and wants to take PrEP can get it at no charge. it is now on a path to reduce new HIV infections by 80% by 2025.

The U.K. changed its PrEP approach after 2015, when Greg Owen founded “,” a website that ignited a PrEP movement by helping people in the U.K. and Europe self-source low-priced generic forms of Truvada, the first drug approved as PrEP, from pharmacies in Hong Kong and India.

“It became more affordable,” said Owen, now PrEP lead at one of the U.K.’s top HIV and sexual health charities, . “Soon people demanded it for free on the NHS.”

In the U.S., Smith said, the lack of a national PrEP program that would make the drugs and associated bloodwork free and a heated political climate around health care have hindered HIV outreach.

“In rural areas of the South, especially in places like Georgia or Tennessee, there has been outright hostility toward accepting money from the CDC and to treat and prevent HIV,” Smith said. “People think it’s just politics, but this is having an impact on public health, on people’s lives.”

Anti-queer sentiment in many quarters also creates an environment of hostility around overall sexual health, said , director of clinical research at Washington Health Institute and a professor at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences. “There’s a chilling effect for everyone, not just queer Americans,” he said.

Elion said shame surrounding sex and the feeling of vulnerability that some people get from taking any medicine may also reduce PrEP uptake among older Americans. “Taking PrEP is actually very empowering, and that needs to be the message,” he said.

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

The Environmental Protection Agency rule would many products that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They’re a family of chemicals that don’t degrade in nature and have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and hormone irregularities.

Companies would have to disclose any PFAS that have been manufactured or imported between 2011 and when the rule takes effect, with no exemptions for small businesses or for impurities or byproducts cross-contaminating goods with PFAS. Those disclosures would be available to the public, barring any trade secrets linked to the data. The EPA will finalize the rule in the coming months, agency spokesperson Catherine Milbourn said, then require companies to report back within 12 months.

The effort excludes pesticides, foods and food additives, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Milbourn said. It also is essentially a one-time reporting and record-keeping requirement — and companies wouldn’t need to provide updates.

Still, the chemical and semiconductor industries are grumbling about what the EPA estimated is a to comply with the rule. The U.S. chemical industry says it generates .

On the other side, environmental health activists say the data collection exercise would be flawed, as it accounts for only a tenth of PFAS chemicals, which are used in everything from nonstick cookware to kids’ school uniforms. Moreover, they say, it wouldn’t stop PFAS from making their way into the air, waste, or consumer products, nor would it clean up existing contamination.

Congress gave the EPA the power to track PFAS chemicals in 2016, when it revised the Toxic Substances Control Act. Then a , which President Donald Trump signed into law, called for the EPA to inventory PFAS. However, health activists warn that unless Congress overhauls U.S. chemical laws to give the EPA and other agencies more power, PFAS will continue to threaten humans and the environment.

These so-called forever chemicals went from marvel to bête noire in just 50 years. When PFAS debuted, they were revered for making Teflon pans nonstick and Gore-Tex jackets waterproof. They are effective at repelling water and oil yet so durable they don’t break down in the natural environment. That strength has become their downfall, as the chemicals accumulate in landfills, soil, drinking water supplies, and, ultimately, human bodies. As scientists learn more about PFAS’ toxic nature, governments around the world have set limits or imposed outright bans.

Because PFAS are found in thousands of products — , cosmetics, , paper plates, clothing, and dental floss, to name just a few — regulators are scrambling to gather data on the scope of the PFAS threat. The EPA data collection proposal is a move in that direction.

Milbourn told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News that 1,364 types of PFAS may be covered by the rule, and EPA officials are reviewing public comments they received to determine whether they should modify its scope to capture additional substances.

By contrast, the European Union is discussing banning or limiting , according to Hanna-Kaisa Torkkeli, a spokesperson for the European Chemicals Agency.

“In the U.S., chemicals are innocent until proven guilty,” said , director of science policy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit based outside Washington, D.C. “In the EU and Japan, chemicals are guilty until proven safe — and that’s why they have fewer PFAS.”

That lack of regulation in the U.S. is driving states to take matters into their own hands, pursuing PFAS bans as gridlock and in Washington thwart tougher federal laws. Minnesota’s limits the chemicals in menstrual products, cleaning ingredients, cookware, and dental floss. Maine’s law will . and ban PFAS in food packaging.

“The states are acting because our federal system doesn’t currently allow the government to say ‘no more use of PFAS,’” said , director of the federal policy program at Toxic-Free Future, a national advocacy group. “And even if it did, that wouldn’t clean up the mess already made.”

U.S. courts are also weighing in on PFAS contamination. On June 22, 3M up to $12.5 billion to settle lawsuits by communities around the country that argued their drinking water was contaminated by the company’s PFAS-containing products.

Additionally, the U.S. military is , after said more than 600,000 troops were in drinking water contaminated largely by PFAS-laden .

Just cleaning up PFAS waste could cost at least $10 billion. Removing it from U.S. drinking water supplies more than $3.2 billion annually to the bill, according to a report commissioned by the American Water Works Association.

“The CDC estimates that 99% of Americans have PFAS in their blood,” said , vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that researches the ingredients in household and consumer products. “We estimate that 200 million Americans are exposed to PFAS in their drinking water right now.”

Officials with the U.S. Geological Survey released a similar finding that the agency’s researchers estimate more than 45% of U.S. tap water is contaminated with at least one PFAS chemical after they conducted a nationwide study of water samples.

As ubiquitous as PFAS are, the reason they haven’t generated more outrage among the public may be that the damage from PFAS chemicals isn’t immediate. They affect health over time, with repeated exposure.

“People aren’t getting headaches or coughing from exposure to PFAS,” Bennett said. “But they are getting cancer a few years down the line — and they don’t understand why.”

Some environmental health advocates, such as Arthur Bowman III, policy director at the , say the EPA’s data collection project could help. “It will be fairly straightforward for the EPA to gather PFAS information on cleaning products and other wet chemicals that contain PFAS,” Bowman said. “And this will lead to phaseouts of PFAS.”

Some retailers, such as and , have recently announced plans to remove the chemicals from many of their products.

But Bowman said it will be more difficult for manufacturers to remove PFAS used in the production of semiconductor chips and printed circuit boards, since alternative products are still in the research phase.

The Semiconductor Industry Association to the proposed reporting requirements because, it maintains, semiconductor manufacturing is so complex that it would be “impossible, even with an unlimited amount of time and resources, to discern the presence (if any) of PFAS in such articles.” Other industries have also asked for waivers.

The American Chemistry Council, which represents large PFAS manufacturers such as 3M, disagrees with those calling for the entire class of PFAS chemicals to be banned. “Individual chemistries have their own unique properties and uses, as well as environmental and health profiles,” said Tom Flanagin, a spokesperson for the trade group.

While the council’s member companies “support strong, science-based regulations of PFAS chemistries that are protective of human health and the environment,” Flanagin said, the rules shouldn’t harm economic growth “or hamper businesses and consumers from accessing the products they need.”

For their part, some environmental advocates welcome the reporting proposal, expecting it to reveal new and surprising uses of PFAS. “However, it’s going to be a snapshot,” said , the senior toxics policy adviser for the Sierra Club.

Lunder said even if PFAS were found in, for example, brands of baby bibs, pesticide containers, or pet food bags, it isn’t clear which federal agency would regulate the products. She said Americans should demand that Congress add PFAS and other harmful chemicals to all major environmental statutes for water, air, food, and consumer products.

And another worry: If the data does make it into the mainstream, will consumers simply tune it out — just as many do with ? Lunder doesn’t think so, since “the audience is scientists, regulators, and — for better or for worse — tort attorneys.”

Benesh, of the Environmental Working Group, said the disclosures could reach further and “embolden consumers to demand even more market change.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

The U.S. stalled out on chemical regulations after the 1970s, according to , an urban and environmental policy associate professor at Occidental College. And that has left a regulatory void, as lax federal oversight allows potentially toxic products that would be banned in Europe to be sold in American stores.

“Lots of products on the market aren’t safe,” Shamasunder said. “That’s why states are helping create a solution — it’s a patchwork approach.”

The potential exposure to toxicants in cosmetics is especially worrisome for women of color, because that Black women use more hair products than women of other racial groups and that Hispanic and Asian women have reported using more cosmetics in general than non-Hispanic Black and white women.

The is a second attempt at passing the Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, after legislators approved a that was stripped of the ban on toxic ingredients in cosmetics. This year, lawmakers have additional context after a by the legislature and published by the state Department of Ecology in January found multiple products with concerning levels of hazardous chemicals, including lead and arsenic in dark-tint CoverGirl Clean Fresh Pressed Powder foundation. CoverGirl Continuous Color Lipstick and Markwins Beauty Brands’ Black Radiance Pressed Powder foundation were among other products from various brands containing lead, the report found.

Research teams asked Hispanic, Black, and multiracial women what beauty products they used. Researchers then tested 50 cosmetics purchased at Walmart, Target, and Dollar Tree, among other shops.

“Companies are adding preservatives like formaldehyde to cosmetics products,” said Iris Deng, a toxics researcher for the Washington State Department of Ecology. “Lead and arsenic are different stories. They’re detected as contaminants.”

Markwins Beauty Brands did not respond to requests for comment.

“Nominal traces of certain elements may sometimes be present in product formulations as a consequence of natural mineral origin, as permitted by applicable law,” Miriam Mahlow, a spokesperson for CoverGirl parent company , said in an emailed statement.

The Washington report’s authors said European Union countries ban products like the dark-tint CoverGirl foundation. That’s because arsenic and lead have been linked to brain and nervous system damage and cancer. There is “no known safe level of lead exposure,” said Marissa Smith, Washington state’s senior regulatory toxicologist, and formaldehyde is also a carcinogen.

“When we find these chemicals in products applied directly to our bodies, we know people are being exposed,” Smith added. “Therefore, we can assume these exposures are contributing to health impacts.”

Though most of the products’ lead content was low, Smith said, people are often exposed for years on end, considerably increasing the danger.

The Washington ecology department findings were not altogether surprising: Other testing bodies have picked up preservatives such as formaldehyde or, more often, formaldehyde-releasing agents such as quaternium-15, DMDM hydantoin, imidazolidinyl urea, and diazolidinyl urea in hair-straightening products marketed especially to Black women. Formaldehyde is one of the chemicals used to embalm corpses before funerals.

In addition to Washington, at least 12 states — Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont — are considering policies to restrict or require disclosure of toxic chemicals in cosmetics and other personal care products.

States are acting because the federal government possesses limited authority, said , vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that researches what’s in household and consumer products.

“The FDA has had limited resources to pursue ingredient bans,” Benesh added.

Congress has not given the Environmental Protection Agency widespread authority to regulate such products, even though contaminants and preservatives from cosmetics end up in the water supply. In 2021, a California man to ban toxic chemicals in cosmetics under the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the , said , a lawyer in Washington, D.C., because cosmetics are outside the scope of the act’s jurisdiction.

“The law is crystal clear on this,” she said.

Bergeson said the regulation of chemicals is subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, but the FDA color additives and because those products make the medical claim of decreasing the risk of skin cancer.

Minnesota, for example, fills in the regulatory gaps by testing for mercury, hydroquinone, and steroids in skin-lightening products. It also passed a law in 2013 banning formaldehyde in children’s products such as lotions and bubble baths.

California has passed several laws that regulate cosmetics ingredients and labeling, including the California Safe Cosmetics Act in 2005. A law adopted in 2022 bans intentionally added perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as starting in 2025.

Last year, Colorado also in makeup and other products.

But consumer safety experts said that states should not have to fill in the void left by federal regulations, and that a smarter approach would entail the federal government subjecting cosmetics ingredients to an approval process.

In the meantime, states are fighting an uphill battle, because thousands of chemicals are available to manufacturers. As a result, a gap exists between what consumers need for protection and regulators’ ability to act, said , executive director of Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit that researches and advocates for environmental health.

“The federal systems are inadequate in that they do not require the safest chemicals to be used,” Valeriano said. “Instead, they allow hazardous chemicals in personal care products, such as PFAS, phthalates, or even formaldehyde.”

Moreover, the federal government’s risk assessment system is flawed, she said, “because it attempts to determine how much risk from toxic exposures is acceptable.” In contrast, the approach that Washington state hopes to legislate would assess the hazards and ask whether the chemicals are necessary, or if there are safer alternatives — which is to say prevent toxic ingredients in cosmetics in the first place.

It’s a lot like the approach taken by the European Union.

“We put boundaries and restrictions around these chemicals,” said Mike Rasenberg, hazard assessment director of the in Helsinki.

Rasenberg said that because research shows formaldehyde causes nasal cancer, the EU has , plus and , in beauty products. The EU’s 27 countries also work together to test products for safety.

In Germany, more than 10,000 cosmetic products are examined annually, said Florian Kuhlmey, spokesperson for that country’s . And it doesn’t end there. This year, Germany will examine about 200 samples of children’s toothpaste for heavy metals and other elements banned in the EU for cosmetics, Kuhlmey added.

The legislation in Washington would move the state toward a more European approach to chemicals regulation. If approved, it would give retailers that sell products with banned ingredients until 2026 to sell existing stocks.

Meanwhile, customers can protect themselves by seeking out natural beauty products, Atlanta-area dermatologist Dr. Chynna Steele Johnson said.

“Lots of products have formaldehyde-releasing agents,” Steele Johnson said. “But it isn’t something customers can find on a label. My suggestion — and this goes for foods too — would be fewer ingredients are better.”

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .