PFAS in Cosmetics, Which Brands Grade Best and Worst

Based on available materials and public disclosure data, mineral and "clean" formula makeup brands tend to grade far better on PFAS concern than mass-market waterproof and long-wear products. In our review set bareMinerals Mineral Makeup RMS Beauty Organic Makeup, and Ilia Beauty Clean Makeup all earned an Excellent grade (100/100 model-based estimate), the highest in our cosmetics dataset, while waterproof formulas from Maybelline and generic mascara and eyeliner brands landed at the bottom with Poor grades in the 25 to 30 range.

These grades are model-based estimates built from ingredient disclosures, formulation category, and public data, not laboratory certainty. A high score means lower concern based on reviewed materials, not a guarantee that a product is free of PFAS or "safe" in any absolute sense. Waterproof and long-wear claims are the biggest red flag in cosmetics because fluorinated compounds are commonly used to create water and oil resistance in mascara, eyeliner, and some foundations. If you want to browse the full, continually updated dataset, our cosmetics finder and makeup finder tools let you filter by grade before you buy.

Summary comparison

Product	PFAS grade (model estimate)	Verdict
bareMinerals Mineral Makeup	Excellent, 100/100	Lower concern based on reviewed materials, our top-rated pick in this category
RMS Beauty Organic Makeup	Excellent, 100/100	Lower concern, strong organic-ingredient sourcing narrative
Ilia Beauty Clean Makeup	Excellent, 100/100	Lower concern, brand markets a "clean beauty" formulation standard
Glossier Makeup	Good, 70/100	Moderate concern, better than mass-market waterproof lines but below the top tier
L'Oréal Foundation	Poor, 40/100	Higher concern, mass-market formulation with limited PFAS disclosure
Generic Waterproof Mascara	Poor, 30/100	Higher concern, waterproof claim raises PFAS likelihood
Generic Waterproof Eyeliner	Poor, 30/100	Higher concern, waterproof claim raises PFAS likelihood
Maybelline Mascara	Poor, 25/100	Lowest grade in our cosmetics set, treat as highest priority to avoid or verify

The best-graded products

bareMinerals Mineral Makeup

Materials, Loose and pressed mineral powder formulas built around mica, iron oxides, and titanium dioxide rather than liquid emulsions that typically need fluorinated surfactants for texture control. Brand claims, bareMinerals markets itself around a simplified, mineral-first ingredient list, though this is a brand-stated positioning rather than a third-party verified PFAS-free certification. Pros, Highest grade in our dataset, mineral base reduces the formulation categories where PFAS typically appears, widely available. Cons, Powder formulas may not suit every skin type or coverage preference, and no public dataset can rule out trace contamination from shared manufacturing lines. Based on available materials and data, this product shows no evidence of PFAS found in reviewed sources.

RMS Beauty Organic Makeup

Materials, Formulated around organic oils and plant-derived emollients rather than synthetic waterproofing agents. Brand claims, RMS Beauty markets its line as "clean" and organic-leaning, a brand-stated claim, not an independently lab-certified PFAS-free result. Pros, Ties for the top grade in our review, appeals to buyers prioritizing simpler ingredient decks. Cons, Organic labeling and PFAS content are not the same thing, so shoppers should not assume "organic" automatically means lower fluorochemical risk in every case, though this product's model-based score reflects lower concern. Verdict, A strong option based on reviewed materials and data.

Ilia Beauty Clean Makeup

Materials, Positioned as a "clean beauty" formula, generally built on mineral pigments and reduced synthetic filler lists. Brand claims, Ilia states a clean-formulation standard on its packaging and marketing, which is brand-stated rather than independently lab-verified in the data we reviewed. Pros, Excellent model-based grade, part of a broader clean beauty movement that has pushed the category toward more transparent labeling. Cons, As with any cosmetic, "clean" is a marketing term without a single legal definition, so the grade should be read as an estimate from disclosed materials rather than a certified guarantee. This is one of the stronger picks to review on our foundation and primer finder if you're comparing base makeup specifically.

The middle of the pack

Glossier Makeup

Materials, A mix of lightweight, "no-makeup makeup" formulas that sit between mineral-based and heavier mass-market emulsions. Brand claims, Glossier emphasizes minimalist branding but does not carry the same explicit clean-formulation marketing as the top three brands here. Pros, Scores meaningfully better than mass-market waterproof products, popular and easy to find. Cons, At 70/100, it sits well below the Excellent tier, meaning available materials and data suggest moderate rather than lower concern. Buyers who want the strongest model-based grade may prefer to trade up to one of the Excellent-rated products above.

The products to think twice about

L'Oréal Foundation

Materials, A mass-market liquid foundation formula, a category that has historically relied more heavily on synthetic texture and long-wear agents. Brand claims, L'Oréal has made broader sustainability statements as a company, but our review found limited product-specific PFAS disclosure for this item. Pros, Widely available, affordable, extensive shade range. Cons, Poor grade (40/100) in our model, reflecting higher concern based on reviewed materials relative to the mineral-based leaders above. This is a case where checking a current listing on the foundation and primer finder before buying is a reasonable extra step.

Generic Waterproof Mascara and Generic Waterproof Eyeliner

Materials, Both generic waterproof categories typically depend on film-forming polymers and water-resistant agents, a formulation approach where fluorochemicals are commonly used industry-wide to achieve smudge resistance. Brand claims, As unbranded, generic products, there is no specific company PFAS statement to evaluate, which itself is a transparency gap. Pros, Budget-friendly, functional waterproof performance. Cons, Both grade Poor (30/100), and the waterproof claim itself is a known industry signal for potential PFAS use. Anyone specifically shopping for a waterproof formula should start at our dedicated waterproof mascara finder rather than picking generic options at random.

Maybelline Mascara

Materials, A conventional mass-market mascara formula. Brand claims, Maybelline has not, in the materials we reviewed, published a specific PFAS-free assertion for this product. Pros, Extremely widely available, low cost, long track record as a drugstore staple. Cons, The lowest grade in our entire cosmetics dataset at 25/100, indicating the highest level of model-based concern among the products reviewed here. Based on available materials and data, this is the product in this guide we'd flag first for replacement or further verification.

What to avoid

• Waterproof and "long-wear" claims without ingredient transparency. These claims are the single strongest pattern linking a cosmetic to potential PFAS use in our dataset, evident across both generic waterproof mascara and eyeliner.
• Vague marketing language used as a substitute for disclosure. Terms like "clean" or "organic" are brand-stated positioning, not a certification, so they should not be treated as equivalent to a lab-verified PFAS-free result.
• Ingredients on the label that hint at fluorochemicals. Watch for names containing "fluoro," "perfluoro," or "PTFE" on ingredient decks, though absence of these terms on a label is not proof of absence in the finished product.
• Assuming a brand's overall sustainability image applies to every product. A company-wide statement, as with L'Oréal, does not necessarily mean a specific foundation or mascara has been individually verified.
• Buying long-wear cosmetics without checking a current grade. Formulas change, so cross-check against an updated source like our cosmetics finder before purchase rather than relying on memory of an old formula.

It's also worth remembering that PFAS exposure in cosmetics is part of a wider picture that includes other daily-use products. If you're auditing your routine more broadly, our sunscreen deodorant, and shampoo finders apply the same model-based grading approach to adjacent personal care categories.

Our pick

Based on available materials and data bareMinerals Mineral Makeup is our top-graded option in this comparison, tied at Excellent (100/100) alongside RMS Beauty Organic Makeup and Ilia Beauty Clean Makeup. All three represent lower concern relative to the rest of the field reviewed here, though this reflects a model-based estimate built from disclosed materials and public data, not an independent lab certification of zero PFAS content. If your priority is avoiding waterproof-specific formulas altogether, start with our waterproof mascara finder and work down from the highest available grades rather than defaulting to a generic or mass-market waterproof product, both of which graded Poor in our review.

Frequently asked questions

Does a high PFAS grade mean a cosmetic is guaranteed PFAS-free?

No. A high grade like the Excellent (100/100) scores earned by bareMinerals, RMS Beauty, and Ilia Beauty reflects a model-based estimate built from disclosed materials and public data. It indicates lower concern based on reviewed sources, not a certified, lab-confirmed guarantee that zero PFAS is present.

Why do waterproof mascaras and eyeliners tend to grade worse?

Waterproof and long-wear performance in cosmetics is commonly achieved using film-forming and water-resistant compounds, a category where fluorochemicals have historically been used across the industry. That pattern is reflected in the Poor grades for generic waterproof mascara, generic waterproof eyeliner, and Maybelline Mascara in our dataset, though grading is based on available materials and data rather than a product-by-product lab test.

Is PFAS exposure from cosmetics actually linked to health effects?

Some research has examined associations between PFAS exposure and various health outcomes, but association is not the same as causation, and cosmetics are just one of many potential exposure sources alongside items like food packaging and drinking water. If you have specific health concerns, consult a medical professional rather than relying solely on a product grade.