House committee advances bill requiring warnings on hair relaxers and synthetic hair products

Representative English, a bill sponsor, told the Business Affairs and Labor Committee that House Bill 26‑11‑35 is rooted in public health and consumer protection and aims to give consumers clearer information about long-term chemical exposure from hair relaxers and synthetic hair pieces. "House Bill 26‑11‑35 does not ban products," she said. "It simply requires disclosure when certain hazardous chemicals are present so women, families, and professionals are not unknowingly exposed over years of repeated use."

The bill would require manufacturers to include a clear, conspicuous warning label on products sold in Colorado if the product contains a carcinogen or reproductive toxicant as identified by established national or international scientific authorities. Representative Joseph, a co-sponsor, said the goal is transparency rather than prohibition: "This bill ensures warnings are standardized, easy to read and visible both in stores and online so consumers receive the same information regardless of how they shop." Committee sponsors said the measure provides manufacturers time to comply — with a compliance deadline of 07/01/2027 — and includes civil penalties to encourage adherence.

Industry feedback and scientific testimony shaped the committee's work. Sloan Whalen of Konica, a synthetic-hair fibers manufacturer, testified that her company worked with sponsors on draft amendments and supported threshold language in the adopted amendment that aims to preserve the integrity and credibility of warning labels: "We believe the thresholds created in the amendment preserve the integrity and credibility of warning labels so they serve as a true mark for consumers of which products are safe and which are not." Shana Johnson, testifying online, cited peer-reviewed and published chemical screening work showing tens of chemicals of concern in some hair extensions and urged the committee to advance the bill.

Committee members asked whether labeling costs would be passed on to consumers and whether shoppers would notice new warnings. Sponsors noted the law applies only to products sold in Colorado, described labeling as a minimal economic adjustment, and argued that standardized warnings create reputational pressure on manufacturers and retailers to prioritize safer products. Representative Brooks said she worried about downstream effects and competitiveness; sponsors answered that the measure is narrowly focused on disclosure and consumer choice.

After brief discussion and the adoption of two stakeholder-driven amendments that clarified enforcement pathways and technical definitions, the committee moved HB 26‑11‑35 as amended with a favorable recommendation to the Committee of the Whole; the clerk announced the bill passed out of committee by an 11–1 vote with one excused member.

Next steps: HB 26‑11‑35 will go to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration in the legislative process.