The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is set to withdraw a proposed rule requiring mandatory asbestos testing for talc-based cosmetics, despite established links between asbestos exposure and cancer. This decision reverses a recent effort to strengthen safety standards and has drawn criticism from health advocates.
The Problem: Asbestos in Everyday Products
Talc, a mineral commonly used in cosmetics, food, medication, and personal care items, can be contaminated with asbestos – a known human carcinogen. There is no safe level of exposure to asbestos, and over 50 countries have banned its use. Despite this, cosmetic companies have been aware of potential asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1950s, yet public alerts were delayed until the 1970s. The industry has historically resisted stricter testing requirements, arguing that current methods are sufficient, even though they don’t detect all asbestos fibers.
Why This Matters
The FDA’s reversal comes amid pressure from pharmaceutical companies, who expressed concerns about “unintended consequences” from rigorous testing. This demonstrates how corporate interests can influence regulatory decisions, even when public health is at stake. The move is particularly concerning given the disproportionate impact on certain communities: Black women were historically heavy users of talc-based baby powder, which has been linked to thousands of lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson.
The History of Regulation
Efforts to regulate asbestos have been stalled for decades. A 1989 EPA ban was overturned by the courts, and subsequent attempts have failed. The recent withdrawal by the FDA continues this pattern, highlighting the challenges of balancing industry concerns with public health. Johnson & Johnson discontinued US sales of talc-based baby powder in 2020 after facing nearly 38,000 lawsuits and paying out billions in settlements; however, legal battles continue, with over 3,000 women in the UK currently pursuing a case against the company.
The Current Reversal
The FDA stated that it is “reconsidering best means” to address asbestos exposure, but health advocates argue that mandatory testing is a straightforward solution. Scott Faber, of the Environmental Working Group, stated that this reversal is “hard to understand,” as it removes a simple safety measure. The decision appears to align with the priorities of the “Make America Healthy Again” (Maha) movement, led by Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr., despite the contradiction of weakening safeguards against a known carcinogen.
The FDA’s move underscores the ongoing struggle to regulate dangerous substances in consumer products. The agency’s decision prioritizes corporate convenience over public health, ensuring that toxic asbestos will remain in cosmetics despite its proven dangers.
