As Johnson & Johnson faces a $966 million talc verdict and the FDA pulls back a proposed asbestos safety testing rule, consumers are once again at risk until regulators catch up.
The talc story was supposed to be winding down. Johnson & Johnson has spent years in court over allegations that its talc baby powder contributed to cancers, facing thousands of lawsuits. In October, a Los Angeles jury ordered the company to pay nearly $1 billion to the family of a woman who developed mesothelioma after decades of baby-powder use.
Weeks later, though, regulators moved in the opposite direction. Last week, the Food and Drug Administration formally withdrew a proposed rule that would have required standardized testing methods to detect asbestos in talc-containing cosmetic products, a rule the agency first proposed in December 2024 under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act. In its notice, the FDA said “good cause exists to withdraw the proposed rule at this time,” citing scientific, technical, and legal complexities raised in public comments.
For anyone dusting on setting powder or keeping an old bottle of baby powder under the sink, the whiplash is understandable. A nearly billion-dollar verdict confirms talc is dangerous. A pulled rule looks like regulators are wavering. The reality, experts say, is that the science and safeguards around it are shifting in ways consumers should understand.
“Inhaling even the tiniest amount of asbestos in talc can cause mesothelioma and other deadly diseases, many years after exposure,” Tasha Stoiber, Ph.D., senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, said in a statement. “How much talc is inhaled, and how much is contaminated with asbestos, is difficult to know, but it only takes a single asbestos fiber lodged in the lungs to cause mesothelioma decades later.”
How we got from baby powder to a pulled rule
Talc is a soft, naturally occurring mineral that has been used for generations in cosmetics and personal care. It helps absorb moisture, reduces caking, and gives powders their characteristic slip and silky feel, which is why it shows up in everything from baby powder to blush and dry shampoo. The problem is geological: talc deposits often occur near asbestos, a group of fibrous minerals historically used for insulation and fireproofing.
When mining cuts through those asbestos seams, contamination can follow the talc into finished products. Public health agencies have long warned that there is no known safe level of asbestos exposure. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, now classifies talc itself as “probably carcinogenic to humans,” based on evidence for ovarian cancer in people, sufficient evidence in animal studies, and strong mechanistic data.
Those concerns are not abstract. In 2019, the FDA found asbestos in a lot of Johnson & Johnson baby powder and recommended a recall, prompting the company to pull that batch and accelerating its decision to phase out talc-based baby powder in the United States and, later, worldwide. J&J has consistently said its talc was safe and asbestos-free, but the tens of thousands of lawsuits and proposed multibillion-dollar settlements to try to resolve U.S. talc litigation tell another story.
Researchers have also spent decades looking at talc itself, not just the asbestos contamination. The American Cancer Society notes that studies of people who used talc-based body powders in the genital area have shown a small to moderate increase in the risk of ovarian cancer in some, but not all, studies. A pooled analysis of case-control studies published in 2021 reported that ever using genital powder was associated with about a 30 percent higher risk of epithelial ovarian cancer, with similar effects seen in Black and white women.
Lawmakers used that patchwork of evidence to justify new authority. The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 directed the FDA to establish standardized methods for detecting and identifying asbestos in talc-containing cosmetic products. Last year, the agency proposed a rule that would have required manufacturers to use advanced techniques, including transmission electron microscopy, and would have treated products that contained asbestos as adulterated under federal law.
That is the rule the FDA just withdrew. In its November 2025 notice, the agency said it was pulling back in order to “reconsider best means of addressing the issues covered by the proposed rule” and to think more broadly about reducing asbestos exposure and setting any standardized testing requirements. Industry publications report that the FDA still intends to issue a revised rule to meet its obligations under the law, but for now there is no binding federal standard that forces every cosmetic manufacturer to use a specific test for asbestos in talc.
Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at EWG, which has pushed for stricter oversight for years, described the withdrawal as a serious step backward. He said the FDA’s decision to withdraw its proposed rule is “dangerous and irresponsible,” adding that its return to consumer products will not make Americans healthy again.
Although the FDA issued the withdrawal notice, the political fingerprints are hard to miss. The order was formally signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose Make America Healthy Again agenda has been positioned as a sweeping public-health reset. The talc rule was pulled under Kennedy’s authority, even though eliminating carcinogenic exposures has been described as a core MAHA priority.
Critics argue the move reflects a contradiction within the platform. As MAHA emphasizes removing toxins from food, medicine, and personal-care products, the withdrawal effectively removes the one pathway that would have forced cosmetic companies to screen talc for asbestos contamination. For experts like Faber, the decision is hard to understand, given MAHA’s stated mission to reduce cancer risks linked to chemical exposures.
“Thousands of products that contain talc can be contaminated with asbestos, one of the world’s deadliest substances,” he said. Faber also noted that the move to dial back accountability regulations is illegal. “Congress clearly required the FDA to mandate tests for talc in cosmetics,” he said.
Where talc shows up in your beauty routine
Even if baby powder has never been part of your bathroom routine, talc may be sitting in your makeup bag right now. The FDA and cancer organizations list talc as a common ingredient in loose and pressed face powders, bronzers, blushes, highlighters, eyeshadows, setting powders, and some body powders and dry shampoos. It can also appear in certain medicated powders and in some tablet medications as an inactive ingredient.
Independent testing suggests contamination remains a real risk. In a 2020 analysis commissioned by the EWG found asbestos in roughly 15 percent of talc-based cosmetic samples it tested, including some powders marketed for children. The group has also pointed to earlier investigations in which asbestos fibers were identified in popular cosmetic products, reinforcing its view that voluntary industry testing has not been enough.
Scientists are also paying close attention to who may be most affected. Research focused on Black women has suggested that genital powder use may be both more common and more strongly associated with ovarian cancer risk in that group, which means the burden of any residual talc risk does not fall evenly.
Respiratory exposure is another piece of the story. The American Cancer Society notes that people who are regularly exposed to talc in its raw form at work, such as miners and millers, can have higher rates of lung cancer and other respiratory problems, and that inhaling asbestos-contaminated talc can lead to mesothelioma. For everyday consumers, loose powders that create visible dust when applied, especially around the face, are the most obvious way inhalation could happen, although the actual risk will depend on how often and how heavily those products are used and whether asbestos is present at all.
What experts suggest you do now for talc safety
Because the FDA has stepped back from its initial asbestos-testing rule, the onus is back on brands and consumers to do due diligence. Experts are not calling for a panicked bathroom purge, but many say it is reasonable to treat talc-containing powders as a “better safe than sorry” category while the regulatory picture catches up.
The American Cancer Society puts it bluntly for anyone uneasy about the data: if you are worried, it is sensible to avoid or limit use of talc-based body powders in the genital area and to avoid inhaling cosmetic powders of any kind. Advocacy groups go further. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and the Environmental Working Group have urged companies to move away from talc altogether, pointing to cornstarch and other starches as readily available alternatives that do not carry the same contamination concerns.
For consumers who want to stay with their favorite products but dial down risk, major cancer centers and mesothelioma experts suggest a few basic habits: Check ingredient lists for “talc,” especially near the top of the label, which indicates it’s a larger overall percentage of the formulation, and look for products explicitly labeled talc-free when possible.
Favor pressed formulas or creams over loose clouds of powder if you are concerned about inhalation. Avoid sprinkling powders in the air around babies and children, where particles are more likely to be breathed in. If you used talc-based body powders heavily for many years, especially in the genital area, let your doctor know so that history can be part of your risk profile, alongside family history and other factors.
The bigger question, though, is not what is done in the bathroom. It’s what kinds of basic protections consumers can expect when they buy something as ordinary as face powder. As Faber notes, “tests for the presence of asbestos are the only way to ensure products made with talc are safe,” particularly when that risk comes from an invisible mineral fiber most people cannot see, smell, or taste.
Related on Ethos:
