What California, the EU and FDA ban in cosmetics, and what EWG scores those ingredients

What does California ban in cosmetics?

The text is Health and Safety Code section 108980 on the legislature’s own site. The 11 named 2025 entries are in the first table below, each with the EU reference for the same substance; the 2027 list is in the second.

Is California's list the same as the EU's?

It is a subset. We looked up every named 2025 entry, and the representative substance of every 2027 entry, by CAS number in the EU Cosmetics Regulation as consolidated on 1 May 2026: all 11 named 2025 entries and all 19 2027 entries are in Annex II, the list of substances prohibited in cosmetic products. Of the 13 PFAS, 5 appear in Annex II under their own CAS number (PFOS 1493, PFOA 1561, ammonium pentadecafluorooctanoate 1560, nonadecafluorodecanoic acid 1604 and PFNA 1636); the other 8 are salts that Annex II does not list under their own CAS numbers, so we make no claim about them. Annex II is far larger: its reference numbers run to 1,766, 25 entries read "Moved or deleted" and 5 numbers are unused, which leaves 1,736 prohibited entries. So California's lists are short, and the EU had already banned every named substance on them. All 1,736 Annex II entries are searchable in our index of the EU ban list.

How does that compare with FDA's list?

FDA's page on prohibited and restricted ingredients, which showed "content current as of 02/25/2022" when read, names 11 entries, and says that cosmetic ingredients other than colour additives do not need FDA approval before they go on the market. Only one name appears on both agencies' lists: mercury, which FDA limits to eye-area products at 65 parts per million and California bans when added intentionally. None of California's other 10 named ingredients appears among FDA's headed entries, so a product can be legal federally and not in California or the EU.

Does EWG's score match the ban lists?

At the top, yes, and not exactly. We searched EWG Skin Deep for each of the 11 named 2025 entries by name; its search returned an exact-name page for 4: isobutylparaben, isopropylparaben, dibutyl phthalate and formaldehyde, all in EU Annex II. All 4 sit at 10 out of 10 with robust data. But 2 ingredients California does not list, propylparaben and butylparaben, sit at 9, 1 points below; the EU restricts both in Annex V (entry 12a) rather than banning them. EWG's number is a hazard score on its own scale, so it ranks the banned ingredients at the top without separating them from some restricted ones.

Does EWG's use-restrictions flag follow the law?

Partly. EWG's pages carry a separate "use restrictions" concern. It reads high for 4 of 4 banned ingredients and for 0 of the 11 legal ones, and it is present at low or moderate for all 7 legal ingredients we found in EU Annexes V or VI (propylparaben, butylparaben, dmdm hydantoin, oxybenzone, methylparaben, phenoxyethanol, ethylparaben). But it is also present for 3 of the 4 ingredients with no EU entry we could find (dimethicone, moderate; glycerin, moderate; sodium lauryl sulfate, low), so it is not simply EU membership. We cannot see how EWG sets it.

1. Ask which list a score is built on: a statute,
   a regulator's opinion, or the scorer's own scale.
2. California bans 24 chemicals now; the EU's Annex II
   holds 1,736; FDA's page names 11 entries.
3. EWG put all 4 banned names it lists at 10, and
   2 EU-restricted parabens at 9: a high score is not "banned".
4. "Not on the list" is not "approved": FDA does not
   approve cosmetic ingredients before sale.
5. Check the ingredient on the statute and the annex.

Why does this matter for ingredient apps?

Because several apps lean on a hazard database rather than on a statute. Skincarisma's methodology page builds its score from EWG's hazard ratings, so an ingredient EWG scores 9 weighs heavily there whether or not any regulator has banned it. Yuka's help article describes its own four-tier ingredient list with sources shown per ingredient. For how the apps' rules differ, see our ten-app comparison, and for where their verdicts split on the same products, the 20-product study. For a one-page answer per ingredient, with the EU caps, open the ingredient files.

How should you use a hazard score next to the law?

• If you want to know what is bannedRead the statute and the annexCalifornia's list is 24 chemicals now and 19 more entries from 2027; the EU's Annex II holds 1,736. A score app is not the source.
• If you see a 9 or 10Ask which list put it there4 banned names scored 10, but 2 parabens the EU only restricts scored 9.
• If an ingredient is "not on the list"Do not read that as approvalFDA says it does not approve cosmetic ingredients before sale.
• If you compare appsCompare what each score is built onSee the ten-app matrix for which use a worst-ingredient cap or a hazard database.

How we read the lists and the scores

FAQ

Bottom line

California's ban lists are short and specific, and every named substance on them was already in the EU's Annex II. EWG's scores sit at the top of their scale for the banned ingredients it lists but also for some the EU only restricts. Use the statute and the annex for what is banned, a hazard score for what one database worries about, and check the date on all of them. If EWG or any other maker spots something here that is out of date, tell us through the contact page and we will correct it with the date.