The recent Johnson & Johnson lawsuits that found the company’s baby powder was responsible for causing cancer resulted in two historic payouts ($4.96 billion in 2018 and $966 million last October) and a movement to better regulate asbestos contamination in talc products, including blush, face powders, and eyeshadow.
But these efforts suffered a significant setback on November 28, 2025, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it would withdraw its proposed rule that requires talc-containing products to be tested for asbestos.
“Good cause exists to withdraw the proposed rule at this time,” the FDA writes 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.”
First proposed in December 2024 as part of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, the rule moved the industry closer to establishing standardized testing for asbestos in talc products. While most brands already conduct third-party asbestos screening for their talc products, the quality of the testing can vary widely, Krupa Koestline, a cosmetic chemist, told Vogue.
“It basically creates a system where good actors continue doing the right thing and bad actors can cut corners without immediate consequence,” Koestline said. “Anytime regulation lags behind consumer safety, it creates uncertainty.”
She added that the FDA’s announcement means that the agency is “stepping back from mandating a standardized method because there isn’t a consensus yet on which test should be required.” However, the FDA’s position on asbestos contamination in talc remains the same as it has for years: it is a real risk, and brands and manufacturers should be testing proactively, Koestline said.
More than 3,000 products contain talc as an ingredient, with nearly 60% of those being powder products, according to Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep database.
“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,” Koestline said. “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.”
Asbestos is a human carcinogen that can cause asbestosis, lung and ovarian cancers, and mesothelioma. It is not safe at any level of exposure. When a contaminated talc product is applied, microscopic asbestos fibers can become airborne, be inhaled, and become lodged in the lungs or other tissues. Even the slightest exposure can trigger diseases years later. Studies have found that 60% of mesothelioma cases in women are likely linked to “non-occupational asbestos exposure,” such as using contaminated talc products.
Despite withdrawing the proposed testing rule, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told 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.”
In the meantime, Koestline recommended seeking out brands that are transparent about their testing protocols or products that display asbestos-free talc certifications. Also, now may be the time to check out talc-free alternatives, which, she said, are growing in number and, in many cases, are just as effective.
Why You Should Incorporate Glycolic Acid into Your Skincare Routine