California’s SB 39 exemption protects access to boric acid products as pH-D Feminine Health leads advocacy on women’s wellness

California has enacted Senate Bill 39, the Cosmetic Safety Act, with a targeted exemption that preserves consumer access to boric acid suppositories on retail shelves. Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom and authored by State Senator Akilah Weber Pierson, M.D., the law reflects a policy compromise that keeps an established women’s wellness ingredient available while advancing broader chemical safety reforms. For pH-D Feminine Health, the Nashville-based company that pioneered the commercial availability of boric acid suppositories in 2014, the law validates a decade of advocacy aimed at aligning regulation with clinical practice and everyday access for women.

At its core, the SB 39 exemption is a test case for how regulators can modernize cosmetic safety frameworks without disrupting products that clinicians recognize in specific contexts. By confirming retail availability for boric acid suppositories and phasing reformulations for other boric acid cosmetics by January 1, 2027 for select retailers, California has placed scientific nuance at the center of a high-visibility policy debate. The decision also signals to national retailers and brand owners that evidence-based engagement with policymakers can safeguard consumer access where clinical and public health considerations overlap.

Why did California lawmakers prioritize preserving boric acid access within SB 39’s cosmetic safety reforms despite broader chemical restrictions?

Legislative discussions around SB 39 initially focused on tightening controls across a wide cohort of cosmetic ingredients. Within that sweep, women’s health experts warned that an indiscriminate chemical prohibition could unintentionally encompass boric acid, an ingredient with more than a century of use in gynecological care. State Senator Akilah Weber Pierson, herself a board-certified OB-GYN, championed language that recognizes the ingredient’s specific use cases and the ways clinicians have referenced it in practice. The result is a law that threads the needle: it elevates consumer safety as a principle while exempting boric acid suppositories so that women who rely on them are not cut off from retail access.

Public health guidance has historically acknowledged boric acid’s role in defined, clinician-directed scenarios. That backdrop, coupled with real-world reliance among consumers who view major retailers as their primary health-and-wellness channel, made access a pivotal consideration. For policymakers balancing safety with practical care pathways, the exemption helps avoid a scenario where women turn to costlier or less accessible alternatives, particularly in communities with limited pharmacy options.

How has pH-D Feminine Health’s decade-long advocacy and collaboration with clinicians shaped the final SB 39 exemption language and retail availability?

pH-D Feminine Health introduced boric acid suppositories to mainstream shelves in 2014 and has since positioned itself as both a category leader and an educator. The company’s leadership emphasized that the debate was larger than a single SKU; it was about access, affordability, and ensuring that real-world clinical use informed regulatory decisions. Over the past decade, the company worked with lawmakers, regulators, medical specialists, and advocacy groups to foreground clinical context. Executives consistently argued that policy should reflect the scenarios in which clinicians incorporate boric acid for women’s wellness, and that removing such products from retail could produce unintended consequences for patient care.

This coalition approach proved influential. By pairing commercial experience with scientific voices and patient-centered advocacy, pH-D Feminine Health helped lawmakers understand the practical implications of a blanket ban. Industry observers note that this blend of evidence, practitioner input, and consumer access considerations is becoming a template for how smaller health brands can engage lawmakers on technically complex ingredient issues without sacrificing public safety goals.

What historical role has boric acid played in women’s wellness and why does a California exemption matter for national regulatory and market precedents?

Boric acid’s history in women’s wellness stretches back more than a century, originally through pharmacist-compounded preparations and later through standardized consumer products sold at scale. Over time, its presence expanded in the feminine care aisle as a pragmatic, affordable option used in specific situations when traditional approaches fell short. The California exemption matters because state-level policy often sets a de facto national standard. Brands frequently harmonize formulations to satisfy the strictest market, and California is both the largest consumer economy in the United States and a bellwether for safety regulation.

By codifying a nuanced approach, the state has created a blueprint for other jurisdictions to distinguish between chemicals of concern in cosmetics and ingredients that are used within well-defined clinical contexts. That blueprint may influence how retailers approach shelf continuity and how manufacturers plan reformulation timelines outside the exempted category. For consumers, especially in rural or underserved areas where large retailers are the first line of access, the exemption reduces the risk of a sudden gap in the availability of trusted products.

How are medical experts, advocacy groups, and retailers interpreting SB 39 and what signals does this send about evidence-based women’s health policy?

Clinicians and infectious disease specialists who have studied women’s health applications have expressed support for preserving retail access to boric acid suppositories, noting that an abrupt removal could have negative knock-on effects for patients who rely on clinician guidance and over-the-counter continuity. Advocacy organizations focused on women’s autonomy likewise view the law as a step toward embedding clinical reality into regulatory language. For these groups, the win is not merely the exemption itself but the precedent that science and patient access can meaningfully shape legislative outcomes in a high-profile state.

Retailers and category managers tend to interpret the law as a stability signal. The exemption reduces the likelihood of sudden shelf resets or complex carve-outs that confuse shoppers and erode category trust. It also offers a predictable compliance path for non-suppository boric acid products that will be reformulated or channeled differently by January 1, 2027 for select retailers. In practical terms, merchandising and supply chain teams can maintain inventory continuity for the exempted products while planning phased changes elsewhere in the assortment.

What are the practical implications for consumer access, product reformulation timelines, and category growth through January 1, 2027 under SB 39?

The immediate implication is that boric acid suppositories remain available in California, ensuring continuity of care for thousands of women who incorporate them into their wellness routines. Category leaders like pH-D Feminine Health can continue serving the state’s consumers across major retail partners while sustaining national consistency. For other boric acid cosmetics that are not covered by the exemption, manufacturers have a clear planning horizon to adjust formulations, revise claims, or shift channel strategies ahead of the January 1, 2027 threshold for select retailers.

From a category growth perspective, the law may spur additional product development that aligns with evidence-based standards and consumer transparency. Brands could use the window to invest in clinical data generation, improve labeling clarity, and refine consumer education so that shoppers understand when and how specific products are intended to be used. Retailers, for their part, may elevate shelf communication that connects shoppers with pharmacist or clinician guidance in ways that reinforce appropriate use while maintaining accessibility.

In the broader women’s wellness market, the SB 39 outcome may embolden brands to engage earlier in regulatory processes. Companies that can credibly convene clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates will be better positioned to navigate ingredient-level scrutiny without sacrificing consumer trust. Investors following women’s health and consumer health more broadly often reward firms that de-risk regulatory exposure while defending access. While pH-D Feminine Health is privately held, the episode sends a message across the category: policy engagement is no longer optional; it is a core competency for enduring growth.

Where does this leave the intersection of safety regulation, clinical practice, and women’s wellness access as consumer expectations evolve?

California’s approach suggests that the era of one-size-fits-all bans is giving way to more calibrated frameworks that differentiate between cosmetic ingredients with limited or no clinical justification and those recognized in specific use cases. That shift mirrors consumer expectations for science-backed products and transparent communication. It also aligns with the trajectory of women’s health innovation, which is moving beyond generic wellness into more precise, needs-based solutions informed by clinician experience and real-world evidence.

For policymakers, SB 39 demonstrates that it is possible to raise the bar on safety while honoring access. For clinicians, it confirms that their practical experience can shape how laws are written. And for consumers, it is a reminder that their day-to-day realities—cost, convenience, and confidence—are beginning to register in the halls of policy. As the market evolves, the most resilient brands will likely be those that invest in data, engage constructively with regulators, and keep patient-centered access at the heart of product strategy.

In short, SB 39’s exemption for boric acid suppositories is not an end state; it is a model for how women’s wellness can be regulated with nuance. It preserves an option that many women and clinicians value, protects retail continuity in the nation’s most influential market, and sets a precedent other jurisdictions can reference as they chart their own cosmetic safety policies. The signal is clear: evidence and access can coexist—if stakeholders commit to both.