Talc and Asbestos: What They Are, What They’re In, and How They Impact You
What is talc and for what is it used?
Talc is a naturally occurring, soft silicate mineral that is mined from the earth. Its chemical name is hydrous magnesium silicate. In finely powdered form, talc absorbs moisture well and helps cut down on friction. Talc is used in ceramics, paints, paper, plastics, rubber, roofing, cosmetics, commonly prescribed and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs and supplements, and even food.
What is asbestos and for what is it used?
Asbestos is a commercial and regulatory term for six naturally occurring silicate minerals defined by their fibrous shape and size and their name and chemical formula. They are: chrysotile, and fibrous varieties of five minerals from the amphibole group, tremolite, actinolite, anthophyllite, riebeckite (known commercially as crocidolite), and grunerite-cummintonite (known commercially as amosite). While chrysotile is always fibrous, minerals in the amphibole group can be fibrous or non-fibrous. Asbestos is resistant to heat, electricity, and corrosion, and is used in automotive, construction, and insulation products.
Talc and asbestos coexist in nature.
According to testimony given by Rodney V. Metcalf, PhD, from the Department of Geoscience, University of Nevada-Las Vegas, at the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy Hearing Examining Asbestos in Talc on December 10, 2019:
“the probability that talc and amphibole asbestos coexist in talc-rich rocks is very high. Talc and amphibole asbestos minerals can and certainly do co-exist at scales that cannot be mined in such a way as to exclude amphibole minerals from talc. Though not impossible, it is improbable for geologic processes to produce 100% pure talc ore in minable volumes.”
More importantly, Dr. Metcalf testified that:
“Asbestos in cosmetic talc is considered a health hazard to consumers even at levels labeled as ‘non-detect’ by the industry J4-1 method. We should not be surprised when more sensitive testing methods find asbestos present in talc ores and talc products given that the formation of asbestos and talc are linked by common geologic processes. Although we often refer to asbestos as a ‘contaminant’ in talc, as though it is an introduced foreign substance, asbestos can occur as a relict component of the natural talc-forming geologic processes and its presence should be anticipated.”
How do talc and asbestos impact your health?
Asbestos is a carcinogen, it promotes the development of cancer. Asbestos exposure causes chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asbestosis, malignant mesothelioma, and lung cancer. More than 60 countries have banned asbestos, but it remains in use across the U.S., although its use is heavily regulated.
In July, 2024 the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), classified talc as, “probably carcinogenic to humans" and there’s growing evidence that talc is associated with chronic inflammation. The European Union is expected to ban talc in cosmetics in 2027.
On December 27, 2024 the Biden Administration proposed a new rule to establish and require more sensitive, standardized testing methods for detecting and identifying asbestos in talc-containing cosmetic products, which fell under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act.
If finalized, this proposed rule would have required manufacturers to test their talc-containing cosmetic products or talc-containing ingredients prior to using them in their talc-containing products, for asbestos. They would have had to have kept records demonstrating compliance with this rule. The presence of asbestos in talc intended for use in a cosmetic, a talc-containing ingredient, talc-containing cosmetic product, or failing to comply with the proposed rule’s testing and record-keeping obligations would have resulted in the FDA deeming a cosmetic product to be adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
This proposed rule was intended to hold cosmetics manufacturers more accountable and better protect consumers and was, in large part, a response to the ongoing harm perpetuated by Johnson & Johnson’s talcum baby powder. For decades Johnson & Johnson (J&J) knew that their talcum baby powder was contaminated with asbestos. They chose to keep the contamination a secret and continued to market their baby powder as safe for use. When they could no longer find a market amongst babies and white women, they knowingly continued to market their talcum baby powder to overweight women and women of color, specifically Black women. They only stopped selling talcum baby powder altogether in 2023, when they could no longer ignore the lawsuits that were piling up. To add insult to injury, when faced with $10 billion in lawsuits, J&J tried to avoid paying up by spinning off the talcum baby powder portion of the company and declaring bankruptcy. They’ve unsuccessfully tried 3 times to use bankruptcy to settle talc-related lawsuits and courts have since ruled that they aren’t allowed to use bankruptcy to shield themselves from liability. J&J currently faces over 90,000 talc-related lawsuits. Most recently J&J was ordered to pay $966 million to the family of a California woman who died of mesothelioma caused by her use of J&J talcum baby powder. As I described in my May 14, 2023 article, “Who Is Responsible For Substantiating The Safety Of Cosmetics? You Are.”, the lack of third party oversight of the cosmetics manufacturing process leaves consumers vulnerable to experimentation, exploitation, and injury.
Given how many people were hurt and have died because of talc, this proposed rule requiring more sensitive, standardized testing methods for identifying and quantifying asbestos in talc erred on the side of protecting consumers at the expense of cosmetics manufacturers. The proposed rule had a zero tolerance standard, which meant that the presence of even one asbestos fiber would deem the entire batch of talc contaminated and unusable. The proposed rule also classified non-asbestos minerals that grow in asbestos environments (e.g., winchite and richeterite) as asbestos, adding to the 6 minerals classified as asbestos. Other federal agencies, including the Department of Labor (Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Mine Safety and Health Administration) and Environmental Protection Agency, asked for a consistent definition of asbestos to be used to avoid unnecessary confusion. And, finally, according to Dr. Michelle Wong, a cosmetic chemist, asbestos is notoriously difficult to identify and it’s easy to classify a non-asbestos fiber as asbestos, creating false positives. The proposed rule failed to address how manufacturers would deal with false positives, which would create unnecessary waste and an added cost to the manufacturing process.
For these reasons and more, the FDA withdrew the proposed rule on November 28, 2025 leaving consumers at the mercy of individual cosmetics manufacturers whose focus and incentive is profit. Revlon, CoverGirl, Almay, Laura Mercier, Maybelline, Milani, Wet ’n Wild, and Rimmel London are just some of the other cosmetics brands that use talc in their pressed powder, bronzer, blush, eyeshadow, concealer and other makeup products. My solution? I published it on January 14, 2024 in my article, “Buck The Beauty “Ideal”, It’s Toxic, And It’s A Lie”.
Since the late 1970’s the FDA has considered talc a Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) additive for food and drugs. GRAS additives are exempt from premarket review if deemed safe by qualified experts for their intended use. The problem is that the safety of many GRAS additives hasn’t been reviewed in over 50 years while the makeup of the American population and the technology available to determine safety has changed significantly.
Some of the most commonly consumed drugs that contain talc include: Lipitor, Synthroid, Prilosec, Neurontin, and OTC versions of Prilosec and Nexium. Talc also is used in all kinds of chewing gum, candy, and many kinds of commonly consumed over the counter supplements.
This article lays the factual foundation of an ongoing saga. There’s more to come…
A version of this blog post is published in my local newspaper, The Davis Enterprise.
Read other articles on Bexi's Blog.