Walk down a shampoo aisle and a good share of the bottles say sulfate-free. The phrase has been on packaging long enough that most shoppers read it as a safety claim, the way paraben-free is read. Something was taken out, and taking it out was an improvement.
We checked what regulators actually say about sulfates. Our database holds 21,796 cosmetic ingredients and 31,191 regulatory entries across 10 markets, and 280 of those ingredients have Sulfate in the INCI name. Thirty-five of them carry a regulatory entry.
That is 12.5 percent, against a database-wide rate of 3.95 percent. Taken alone, that ratio says sulfates are unusually regulated. The 35 say something else.
The sulfates people are avoiding
Start with the ones the marketing is aimed at. These are the cleansing surfactants used in shampoo and body wash.
| Ingredient | Regulatory entries across 10 markets |
|---|---|
| Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) | 0 |
| Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) | 0 |
| Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate | 0 |
| Ammonium Laureth Sulfate | 0 |
| Sodium Coco-Sulfate | 0 |
| Sodium Myreth Sulfate | 0 |
Six widely used cleansing sulfates, and not one regulatory entry between them in the EU, Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan, ASEAN, Brazil, Argentina, Canada or the US. Their ingredient-level classification field says Not Listed in all six cases, which agrees with the regulatory records through a second path in the data.
Two related anionic surfactants that often appear on sulfate-free labels return the same result. Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate is a sulfonate and Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate is a sulfosuccinate, so neither is in the 280 counted above, and neither carries a regulatory entry in any of the 10 markets.
So what are the 35?
Sorting the regulated sulfates by their stated function explains the 12.5 percent figure. We found the same pattern when we grouped every restricted ingredient in the database by function.
| Function | Count |
|---|---|
| Hair dye | 14 |
| Cleansing surfactant | 9 |
| Not stated in our data | 4 |
| Oxidizing agent | 3 |
| Colorant or opacifier | 2 |
| Antistatic, astringent, antioxidant | 3 |
Fourteen of the 35 are hair dye intermediates: p-Phenylenediamine Sulfate, Toluene-2,5-Diamine Sulfate, p-Aminophenol Sulfate and similar. These are oxidative dye precursors that happen to be supplied as sulfate salts, which is why the word appears in the INCI name. The regulation is on the dye, not on the sulfate. Three more are persulfates, carried in our data as oxidizing agents. Two are barium sulfate and calcium sulfate, carried under CI numbers with opacifier and abrasive functions.
Twenty-two of the 35 have nothing to do with cleansing. Narrow the set to sulfates that are actually cleansing surfactants and the rate falls to 9 of 101, or 8.91 percent.
The nine that are left
The nine share something the six above do not.
| Ingredient | Markets | Type |
|---|---|---|
| MEA-Lauryl Sulfate | 6 | Restricted in EU, Brazil, Argentina, ASEAN, China. Prohibited in Korea above a threshold |
| MEA-Laureth Sulfate | 6 | Same |
| MIPA-Lauryl Sulfate | 6 | Same |
| MIPA-Laureth Sulfate | 6 | Same |
| TEA-Lauryl Sulfate | 6 | Restricted in EU, Brazil, Argentina, ASEAN, China, Korea |
| TEA-Laureth Sulfate | 6 | Same |
| TIPA-Lauryl Sulfate | 6 | Same |
| Zinc Coco-Sulfate | 6 | Restricted, EU, Brazil, Argentina, ASEAN, China, Korea |
| Sulfated Peanut Oil | 3 | Restricted, EU, ASEAN, Korea |
Every one of the nine carries a counter-ion that is not sodium or ammonium. Seven are alkanolamine salts, one is a zinc salt, one is a peanut oil derivative.
The source text of those restrictions is explicit. The regulatory entries for the TEA and TIPA compounds are recorded under the heading Trialkylamines, trialkanolamines and their salts. The MEA and MIPA compounds fall under Monoalkylamines, monoalkanolamines and their salts. Zinc Coco-Sulfate sits under water-soluble zinc salts. Sulfated Peanut Oil sits under peanut oil, extracts and derivatives, which is an allergen listing.
Not one of the nine entries names sulfate as the regulated substance.
The conditions attached point the same direction. The EU entry for TEA-Lauryl Sulfate caps it at 2.5 percent in leave-on products and attaches five conditions: do not use with nitrosating systems, minimum purity 99 percent, maximum secondary amine content 0.5 percent in raw materials, maximum nitrosamine content 50 micrograms per kilogram, and keep in nitrite-free containers. Korea's entry for MEA-Lauryl Sulfate is a prohibition, but the proviso limits it to material where secondary amine content exceeds 0.5 percent.
Every one of those conditions names either a secondary amine, a nitrosating system, or a nitrosamine limit. The entry is written around amine content, and the substance it regulates is an amine salt. Sodium and ammonium bring no amine to the compound.
The regulatory line runs along the counter-ion. Lauryl sulfate paired with sodium or ammonium: no entry. Paired with an alkanolamine: six markets. Paired with zinc: six markets.
SLS and SLES are not the same molecule
The two most-avoided names on shampoo labels get treated as interchangeable. Our records describe them differently.
| Sodium Lauryl Sulfate | Sodium Laureth Sulfate | |
|---|---|---|
| Definition in our data | The sodium salt of lauryl sulfate | The sodium salt of sulfated and ethoxylated lauryl alcohol |
| CAS numbers | 2 | 6 |
| EC numbers | 2 | 1 |
| Stated functions | Denaturant, cleansing surfactant | Cleansing surfactant, emulsifying surfactant |
| Regulatory entries | 0 | 0 |
SLES has an ethoxylation step that SLS does not, which is why it resolves to six CAS numbers rather than two. It is a family of homologues distinguished by how many ethylene oxide units were added, not a single compound. The two also carry different stated functions in our records.
Both return zero regulatory entries, so the distinction changes nothing about their regulatory status. It does change what a shopper is actually choosing between when a label distinguishes them.
What the zeros mean
A zero is not a safety verdict. It means we hold no regulatory entry for that ingredient in that market. Regulators write rules about substances they have reason to write rules about. Silence in a database is silence, not endorsement. Irritation potential at a given concentration is a formulation question, and it is not the question a restriction list answers.
Our data has gaps, and they run in one direction. Seventeen further sulfate ingredients carry a restricted classification at the ingredient level with no corresponding regulatory rows, which is a linkage failure in our data rather than an absence of regulation. Every one of the seventeen carries a TEA, TIPA, MIPA, MEA or Zinc prefix. Including them would take the alkanolamine and metal salt pattern from 35 substances to 52 and would not change the conclusion.
Count markets, not rows. Barium sulfate and calcium sulfate each return 8 rows covering 7 markets, with Taiwan duplicated under two source ingredient codes. Camphor Benzalkonium Methosulfate returns 8 rows covering 6 markets, duplicated in the EU and ASEAN. The nine cleansing surfactants carry no duplicates, so their row counts and market counts match.
Function labels in our data are inconsistent. Cleansing surfactant appears under two different token spellings in the source, one parenthesized and one hyphenated, splitting the population 1,233 to 223. Counting either one alone drops most of the set. The combined figure is 1,456 ingredients, of which 45 carry a regulatory entry, or 3.09 percent.
Methodology and sources
Ingredient data comes from the Korea Cosmetic Association ingredient dictionary. Regulatory entries are compiled from Korea's Ministry of Food and Drug Safety open data covering restricted cosmetic ingredients, and from EU CosIng Annexes.
Figures reflect our production database as of 2026-08-19, holding 21,796 ingredients and 31,191 regulatory entries across the EU, Korea, ASEAN, China, Japan, Taiwan, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and the US. The source data was last updated 2026-08-05, and daily checks through 2026-08-19 have found no change since.
Ingredients were matched on their records rather than by searching restriction text. Restriction headings were read in full rather than summarized, which is what surfaced the alkanolamine pattern. A count that stopped at ingredient names would have reported nine regulated cleansing sulfates and missed that none of the nine entries is about sulfate.
Regulatory data changes, and the absence of an entry should be verified against the current official source before it is relied on for a compliance decision.
For the underlying data, see K-Beauty Cosmetic Ingredients on RapidAPI.
Comments
Post a Comment