Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cosmetic Chemical Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances AB 60 to restrict synthetic nitro musks in personal care products
Summary
The committee advanced AB 60, the "musk reduction" bill, which would ban synthetic nitro musks in cosmetics and personal care products; proponents cited health and environmental studies, opponents did not register on the record during the hearing, and committee members raised questions about product substitution and enforcement costs.
Assemblymember Pappan introduced AB 60, titled by the author as the “musk reduction act,” proposing a ban on synthetic nitro musks in cosmetics and personal care products; the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee voted to pass the measure to the floor.
"AB 60 will protect Californians' health and environment by banning synthetic nitro musks in cosmetics and personal care products," the author said, describing the bill's purpose as removing persistent synthetic fragrance compounds that proponents say bioaccumulate and may disrupt endocrine function. Supporters at the hearing and on the record included Ryan Spencer of the Environmental Working Group and representatives of local governments and environmental groups.
Witnesses described scientific studies that link nitro musks to environmental persistence and potential human health harms. Ryan Spencer argued these chemicals are “persistent bio‑cumulative toxins” and noted that other jurisdictions, including Canada and the European Union, have restricted the compounds. Several public witnesses from cities and environmental organizations voiced support.
Committee members asked practical questions about enforcement, product substitution and economic impacts. One member asked what would happen to specific branded products (an example cited in the hearing was a Chanel product) and whether manufacturers could substitute other ingredients; the author said substitutes exist and that many jurisdictions already restrict nitro musks. Members also flagged concerns about the bill's fee structure, enforcement costs and potential downstream price impacts for low‑income consumers.
On the roll call, the committee recorded five ayes, one no and one not voting; the chair's office reported the measure passed out of committee and would move to the Assembly floor.
Background and context: Proponents framed AB 60 as aligning California with international chemical safety standards and said the bill addresses fragrance chemicals used as synthetic nitro musks that have been restricted elsewhere. The hearing record includes citations from proponents to peer‑reviewed literature and international regulatory actions; the committee file does not include an exhaustive scientific bibliography in the hearing transcript.
Next steps: With committee approval, AB 60 moves to the Assembly floor for further consideration.
