RFK Jr. Signs Pullback of Asbestos Test Proposal for Talc Cosmetics

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has officially withdrawn a proposed rule that would have required companies to test talc-based cosmetics for asbestos. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. signed the withdrawal on November 28, 2025. The decision has drawn sharp criticism from health advocates who warn it leaves consumers vulnerable to mesothelioma, lung cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

The withdrawal notice RFK issued states the decision was based on “Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) priorities to ensure safe additives in the American food and drug supply” and to “reconsider best means of addressing the issues covered by the proposed rule and broader principles to reduce exposure to asbestos.”

The FDA first proposed the rule in December 2024 under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act. Companies would’ve tested talc with polarized light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. These methods detect even the tiniest amounts of hazardous asbestos fibers in products.​

As Patient Advocate Karen Selby, RN tells us, “Everyday makeup products like powder foundation, blush and eyeshadow can contain talc contaminated with asbestos. These minerals are often naturally found in the same mines, so cross-contamination is an ongoing issue, requiring rigorous testing for public safety. Even small amounts of contamination can add up with daily use. It’s that cumulative exposure over months and years that poses real health risks to people who trust these products are safe.”

Mesothelioma advocates point out companies have known about the risk of asbestos-contaminated talc for decades. They’re concerned about delaying the adoption of an established standardized testing method to detect toxic fibers in consumer products and prevent asbestos exposure.
Dr. Daniel Landau, medical director of virtual hematology at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, shares with us, “We’ve known for decades asbestos exposure on the job, like working on Navy ships or industrial fields, can cause mesothelioma and lung cancer. Asbestos-contaminated talc in makeup poses a similar risk.”

“When you apply powder foundation, blush or eyeshadow, microscopic asbestos fibers can be inhaled or ingested,” Dr. Landau explains. “These fibers lodge in tissue, causing inflammation over time, damaging DNA and potentially leading to cancer. Because diseases like mesothelioma can take 20 to 60 years to develop after exposure, regular talc-based makeup use today could lead to serious illness decades down the road.”

Background on the Original 2024 Proposal

The proposal aimed to address a known contamination problem. As the FDA stated in the 2024 proposal, “Asbestos is found in the same rock types that host talc deposits” and “may be inseparable from talc in the mining process.” The agency noted that in 2019, it confirmed asbestos in nine out of 52 talc-containing cosmetic products tested. Among brands with products that tested positive for asbestos are Avon, Beauty Plus and Coty. A number of products from popular children’s brands also tested positive including a variety of Claire’s palettes, sets and kits; IQ Toys Princess Girl’s All-in-One Deluxe Makeup Palette; and Justice Just Shine Shimmer Powder.

The proposal emphasized that “there is no established safe level below which asbestos could not cause adverse health effects,” meaning any amount of asbestos in cosmetics could be harmful. The rule would have required manufacturers to test “a representative sample of each batch or lot” of talc-containing products or the talc ingredient itself. Companies could either test finished products directly or rely on certificates of analysis from qualified talc suppliers, provided they verified the supplier’s testing reliability at least annually.

Manufacturers would have been required to keep detailed testing records for at least 3 years, including microscopy images, spectra, diffraction patterns and test results. These records would need to be made available to FDA inspectors within 1 business day upon request. Failure to comply would have rendered products adulterated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

Reaction from Advocates and Industry Groups

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization Co-Founder Linda Reinstein shared in a public statement, “Withdrawing the rule removes basic protections for consumers, especially women and children, who are disproportionately exposed through daily personal care routines.” She added, “When preventing deadly exposure is as simple as conducting better testing to detect a potentially lethal contaminant, it is negligent.” 

Reinstein warned, “The withdrawal of this rule represents a dangerous rollback of essential health protections. Without rigorous science, transparency, and accountability, the health and safety of Americans will remain at risk.” 

The National Association of Manufacturers was among industry groups that submitted formal comments opposing the proposed FDA rule in March 2025. Chris Phalen, vice president of domestic policy at NAM, argued the testing methods would create widespread false positives.

He claimed the ISO standard the FDA incorporated “cannot discriminate” between asbestos and non-asbestos fibers of “the same amphibole mineral.” Phalen also argued the FDA’s economic analysis ignored the costs to manufacturers from false positives, including “replacement goods, mandated yet unnecessary product recalls, reformulation of products with other as-yet-identified raw materials.”

Reputational damage and potential litigation risks from hypothetical false positives were also raised as concerns. The talc industry has faced mounting litigation over asbestos in talc. Notably, a Los Angeles County Superior Court jury awarded a historic $966 million to the family of Mae K. Moore in a wrongful death lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson in October 2025.

What’s Next for Consumers

Despite withdrawing the proposed testing rule, the FDA stated it will issue a new proposed rule to meet its obligations under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act. No timeline has been announced for when a new proposal might appear.

Meanwhile, Europe is taking action on talc itself. In September 2024, the European Chemicals Agency’s Committee for Risk Assessment classified talc as a Category 1B carcinogen based on evidence linking it to ovarian and lung tumors. This classification is separate from asbestos contamination concerns.

Under EU law, this classification typically triggers a ban on the substance in cosmetics, though the formal regulation hasn’t yet been finalized. Industry experts anticipate the ban could take effect around 2027.

Until stronger protections are in place, consumers bear the responsibility of checking product labels. Talc will be listed in the ingredients if present. Choosing talc-free makeup significantly reduces the risk of asbestos exposure. Brands like Pacifica, Honest Beauty and Araza offer transparent, talc-free options across powder foundations, blushes and eyeshadows.