Asbestos contamination in talc products is a complicated topic. Since the monumental Johnson Johnson lawsuits over the years (which resulted in historic payouts: $4.96 billion to a group of 22 women and their families in 2018 and $966 million to a family of a woman who died from mesothelioma in October of this year) found that the company’s popular baby powder was responsible for causing cancer in many consumers, many have pushed for better regulations on an ingredient that is used in eyeshadows, face powders, blush, and other everyday products. But the fight for safe talc use took several steps back when, on November 28, 2025, the US Food Drug Administration announced that it would withdraw its proposed rule that requires the testing of asbestos in talc-containing products.
“Good cause exists to withdraw the proposed rule at this time,” writes the FDA in its announcement of the withdrawal. “On the basis of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) priorities to ensure safe additives in the American food and drug supply, the highly scientific and technical issues addressed in public comments the Agency has received, and the complexity of asbestos testing and legal considerations under the Administrative Procedure Act, we are withdrawing the proposed rule to reconsider best means of addressing the issues covered by the proposed rule and broader principles to reduce exposure to asbestos.”
The rule, which was first proposed in December 2024 as part of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, brought the industry closer to setting up standardized testing of asbestos in talc. Krupa Koestline, founder and chief cosmetic chemist of KKT Labs, explains that while most brands already conduct asbestos screening in talc products through third-party labs, the quality of testing can vary widely. “It basically creates a system where good actors continue doing the right thing and bad actors can cut corners without immediate consequence,” Koestline tells Vogue. “Anytime regulation lags behind consumer safety, it creates uncertainty.”
Krupa adds that the new development does not question whether asbestos contamination in talc is hazardous (“The FDA has been clear for years; [it] is a real risk, and companies should be testing proactively,” she says), but more about regulatory logistics. It still leaves the responsibility on brands and manufacturers on how they test for it, if at all. “It simply means the agency is stepping back from mandating a standardized method because there isn’t a consensus yet on which test should be required,” she says. “In other words, the science isn’t the issue; the lack of agreement on which specific testing method should be enforced is what stalled the rule.”
Others are more skeptical of the withdrawal and worry about what it means for the safety of cosmetics. “This announcement means Americans will be needlessly exposed to asbestos in personal care products,” says Tasha Stoiber, PhD, Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) senior scientist.
According to a survey done by EWG’s Skin Deep database, more than 3,000 products contain talc as an ingredient, with almost 60% of those being powder products. As Koestline explains it, pure, cosmetic-grade talc is safe, and the real problem is with contaminated talc. “Talc deposits in the earth often sit near asbestos deposits, which means contamination can occur if the mining and refinement processes aren’t tightly controlled,” she says. “The risk isn’t from talc as an ingredient, but from inconsistent testing and sourcing practices. Without mandatory standards, you’re relying on the integrity of each supplier and manufacturer.”
Fernando Carnavali, MD, associate professor of general internal medicine at Mount Sinai Hospital, explains that asbestos, which is a known human carcinogen that can cause asbestosis, mesothelioma, and lung and ovarian cancers, is not safe at any level of exposure. “When these products are applied, microscopic asbestos fibers can become airborne, be inhaled, and become lodged in the lungs or other tissues,” says Dr. Carnavali.
Dr. Stoiber adds that even the tiniest bit of exposure can trigger these diseases years later and that studies show that more than 60% of mesothelioma cases in women are likely linked to “non-occupational asbestos exposure,” such as using contaminated talc products.
But the FDA wants to assure the public that it is still working to make talc as safe as possible, despite walking back the testing rule. “The FDA remains committed to assessing the safety and necessity of the use of talc in the American food and drug supply, and the topics discussed at the Expert Panel in May,” writes Emily G. Hilliard, press secretary at the US Department of Health and Human Services, in an email statement to Vogue. “The FDA will submit a new proposed rule that offers a more comprehensive approach to reducing exposure to asbestos and reducing asbestos-related illness, including identifying safer additives as alternatives, especially when they are less costly.”
So if you want to make the safest choice when it comes to anything talc-related in the meantime, you have a few options. Koestline recommends looking for brands that are transparent about their testing protocols or have certifications for asbestos-free talc. “Many clean and prestige brands work only with certified suppliers who use advanced detection methods [of asbestos],” she says.
EWG recommends avoiding products that contain talc altogether, particularly powders, as those can easily be inhaled. Dr. Stoiber adds that any toys marketed as makeup kits for children should be examined thoroughly, as they are often made with cheaper and potentially hazardous ingredients, such as lead and asbestos-contaminated talc.
If you need help figuring out if a product is deemed safe, Dr. Stoiber points to resources such as EWG’s Healthy Living app, which allows you to scan barcodes of personal care products to see whether they contain talc or not, or EWG’s Skin Deep, where you can search more than 90,000 personal care items and what hazardous ingredients they might be associated with, that can help consumers make safer choices when picking out new products. Koestline adds that there are plenty of ingredients and formula alternatives out in the market for you to try instead. “Formula performance has come a long way,” she says. “Modern talc-free formulas can be just as smooth and effective [as those with talc].”
Have a beauty or wellness trend you’re curious about? We want to know! Send Vogue’s senior beauty and wellness editor an email at beauty@vogue.com.
