FDA withdraws asbestos testing rule for talc cosmetics, leaving consumers in the dark about toxic products they use every day

• FDA withdraws rule requiring standardized asbestos testing for talc cosmetics.
• This leaves safety reliant on industry self-policing despite known contamination risks.
• Past tests have found asbestos in cosmetics that contain talc.
• Even a single asbestos fiber can cause deadly cancers like mesothelioma decades later.
• Consumers now bear the burden of identifying potentially contaminated products themselves.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has quietly withdrawn a proposed rule that would have required standardized asbestos testing for talc-based cosmetics. The decision, made just days into the holiday season, represents a major setback for efforts to protect consumers from a known carcinogen that can contaminate talc. It shifts responsibility for safety back onto an industry with a long history of voluntary oversight and leaves millions of Americans wondering about the safety of everyday products.

For decades, health advocates have fought to eliminate asbestos from consumer goods. This mineral, linked to deadly cancers like mesothelioma, can be found naturally alongside talc deposits. The withdrawn rule was a direct response to the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, which mandated the FDA to expand safety oversight. Its sudden removal has drawn sharp criticism. “It’s just crazy,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group.

The agency defended its action, stating it was acting “on the basis of the Make America Healthy Again priorities to ensure safe additives in the American food and drug supply.” It pledged to develop a new, broader proposal to reduce asbestos exposure. Faber expressed deep skepticism about that promise. “I think there’s a better chance Santa is going to come down my chimney than for FDA to propose a new rule,” he said.

Toxic cosmetics contamination is putting consumers in danger

The danger is not theoretical. While the FDA found no asbestos in 50 samples in 2021, a 2019 agency test found asbestos in 9 out of 52 cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group’s own analysis of 2,000 products suggested a 15% contamination rate. “Nothing says happy holidays like more cancer,” Faber remarked. “We’re going back to the honor system.”

The cancer risk is particularly high for products that can be inhaled or applied to sensitive areas like the genital region. Medical experts warn that even a single asbestos fiber lodged in the lungs can lead to mesothelioma decades later. The amount of talc in products varies widely, with some face powders containing up to 100% talc.

Consumers bear the burden

This regulatory reversal places an impossible burden on shoppers. “It puts the onus on Americans to have to try to identify consumer products that might be contaminated, and the average person can’t do that because you can’t know without testing,” said Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. “People should be outraged,” she added.

Finding talc-free cosmetics is a significant challenge, especially for powder-based items like eye shadows, blushes, and foundations where talc is prized for its silky texture. While the American Cancer Society recommends choosing talc-free or cornstarch-based alternatives, these are not always easy to identify or access. Meanwhile, talc remains in a wide range of items, from makeup to some candies, gums, and tablets, and is still categorized as Generally Recognized As Safe in food due to its long history of use.

Industry voices had expressed concern about the proposed testing rule, worrying about costs and false positives. Christopher Phalen of the National Association of Manufacturers wrote that false positives could lead to the loss of product batches and spur litigation. In contrast, the European Union, declaring talc a carcinogen, will ban it from all cosmetics by 2027.

The FDA’s withdrawal notice stated the agency would seek a “more comprehensive approach” and consider “less costly” rules. Yet for advocates who watched Johnson & Johnson remove its talc-based baby powder from North American markets amid a storm of lawsuits, this delay feels like a dangerous step backward. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) called the decision “reckless and dangerous.”

So here we are. The promise of a stricter safety net has been yanked away, leaving consumers to navigate the cosmetics aisle with a mix of hope and unease. Perhaps the threat of future regulation or the looming European ban will finally compel the industry to reformulate products proactively. In the meantime, the burden of proof has shifted from the manufacturers who produce these goods to the individuals who use them, a silent and unfair exchange where the only thing that should be contaminating our makeup is doubt.

Sources for this article include:

MedicalXpress.com

TheHill.com

NYTimes.com

TheGuardian.com