Committee hears AB 60 to restrict synthetic nitro musks in cosmetics; environmental and public-health groups urge adoption

5120221 · July 2, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

AB 60 (Papan) would restrict five synthetic nitro musks in personal care products and align California with the EU; supporters cited endocrine-disrupting health risks and environmental persistence, while committee members asked about implementation timelines.

Assemblymember Papan presented AB 60, the "Musk Reduction Act," to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. The bill would heavily restrict five synthetic nitro musks used as fragrance ingredients in personal care products and some cleaning products beginning in the year set by the bill's operative date; the author and witnesses said the bill mirrors restrictions adopted by the European Union and other jurisdictions.

Supporters included Susan Little, California legislative director for Environmental Working Group, and Fatima Iqbal Zubair (California Environmental Voters), who described health studies linking nitro musks to endocrine disruption, early puberty, reproductive disorders and cancer in some laboratory studies; witnesses also noted environmental persistence and bioaccumulation. Little said industry voluntary guidance already bans four of the five nitro musks and restricts the fifth, while some companies (e.g., Procter & Gamble, cited in testimony) have removed all nitro musks from their products.

Local governments, water and sanitation districts, and multiple environmental and public-health organizations testified in support. The committee recorded no in-room opposition witnesses, and members asked technical questions about the implementation timeline; the author said the bill currently includes a 2027 implementation date and that staff had been discussing phased implementation to give manufacturers time to comply. The author accepted committee amendments; the Environmental Working Group reiterated industry movement away from these ingredients.

The author asked for an "aye" vote; the committee moved the bill to the next committee with a recorded vote in favor. Members flagged implementation timing as a concern and some said they would reserve the right to change their vote if final amendments did not address the timeline for compliance.

Ending: Committee action advanced AB 60 to the next committee with amendments; supporters urged continued work on implementation timing and compliance assistance for manufacturers.