Are There Forever Chemicals in Your Waterproof Mascara?
Are There Forever Chemicals in Your Waterproof Mascara?
Possibly, and there is a good chance the label will not tell you. Independent lab testing and a new FDA review both point to waterproof mascara, liquid eyeliner, and long-wear foundation as the makeup categories most likely to contain PFAS, the class of synthetic chemicals known as forever chemicals because they resist breaking down.
Why formulators reach for PFAS in the first place
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are prized in cosmetics for exactly the properties that make waterproof and long-wear products work. They repel water and oil, they help formulas glide on smoothly, and they hold a look through sweat, tears, and humidity. That is the whole selling point of a waterproof mascara or a 16-hour foundation, and PFAS chemistry is good at delivering it.
The tradeoff is the same one that made PFAS a problem in nonstick pans and stain-resistant carpet. These molecules do not break down in the environment, and they do not fully leave the body once absorbed. That persistence is why regulators have started treating cosmetics as a PFAS exposure source worth restricting, not just cookware and packaging.
What the testing actually found
A University of Notre Dame study tested 231 commonly used makeup products across categories including foundation, concealer, blush, lipstick, and mascara. Waterproof mascara stood out: roughly 82 percent of the waterproof mascaras tested showed fluorine levels high enough to indicate PFAS. When researchers ran deeper testing on the highest-fluorine products, they confirmed four to 13 individual PFAS compounds per product, and only one of those products listed a PFAS ingredient on its label.
Separate testing by the Environmental Working Group and Mamavation on mascaras marketed as "clean," "non-toxic," or "vegan" found detectable PFAS in more than 40 percent of them. Marketing language is not a reliable filter here. A follow-up review by the Center for Science in the Public Interest found PFAS in roughly half of the cosmetics it tested overall, concentrated most heavily in waterproof and long-wear formulas.
What the FDA's own report says
In late December 2025, the FDA published its first formal report on PFAS in cosmetics, a review required by the 2022 cosmetics reform law. The agency identified 51 distinct PFAS used across roughly 1,700 marketed cosmetic products. Eye shadow had the highest share (about 20 percent of products reviewed), followed by facial skin care, eyeliner, face powder, and foundation.
The more notable finding was not the count. It was the FDA saying plainly that safety data for most of these PFAS is incomplete or missing, and flagging one specific compound, perfluorohexylethyl triethoxysilane, as a potential concern in body lotion based on animal data showing effects on the nervous system. That is a data gap, stated by the regulator itself, not a verdict that every PFAS-containing product is dangerous.
Why this is not on the ingredient label
Two reasons. First, some PFAS enter a formula as manufacturing byproducts or contaminants in raw materials rather than as an ingredient the brand deliberately added, so they never make it onto the label at all. Second, even when added on purpose, PFAS often show up under technical names (look for "fluoro," "perfluoro," or "PTFE" in an ingredient list) that most shoppers do not recognize as related to forever chemicals.
What is changing
France's PFAS restriction law took effect January 1, 2026, banning the manufacture, import, and sale of cosmetics containing PFAS above set concentration thresholds. Unlike EU rules that mainly target PFAS a brand added on purpose, the French thresholds apply regardless of whether the PFAS was intentional or a contaminant. It is the first cosmetics-specific PFAS ban of its kind and puts real pressure on global formulators, since most brands do not run separate formulas for one market.
Where our own rubric stands
Our beauty category rubric screens for lead and heavy metals, talc, formaldehyde, phthalates, and coal tar dyes. It does not yet have a dedicated PFAS line item, and we are flagging that gap here rather than pretending it is already covered. Expect that to change as we bring new beauty picks through the rubric.
For a related look at how PFAS shows up outside makeup, see PFAS in Your Kitchen: Beyond Teflon. If you want the broader case for reading a beauty label instead of trusting the front-of-package claim, Clean vs. Conventional Makeup Ingredients is a good next read, and our beauty recommendations page has the products we have evaluated so far.
The practical takeaway
Waterproof and long-wear claims are the single biggest risk signal here, more than any brand's clean or natural marketing. If a product promises to survive sweat, tears, or a full workday without touch-ups, that durability has to come from somewhere, and PFAS is a common answer. Scanning an ingredient list for "fluoro," "perfluoro," or "PTFE" is a reasonable first check, but given how often these chemicals go unlisted, it will not catch everything. The more reliable move is choosing brands that publish third-party PFAS testing results or explicitly formulate without fluorinated ingredients, and treating "waterproof" and "24-hour wear" as claims worth a second look rather than a reason to buy.