In late 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) withdrew a proposed rule that would have required mandatory asbestos testing for talc-based cosmetics. This regulation years in the making was designed to protect consumers from one of the most dangerous carcinogens known. By dropping it, the FDA has removed a key layer of oversight in an industry where consumers already rely heavily on trust. For anyone using makeup products containing talc and for any brand committed to clean, transparent beauty—this rollback is more than a regulatory footnote. It is a major step backward. Official withdrawal notice: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-11-28/html/2025-21407.htm

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral used in cosmetics for its softness and absorbency. The issue is geological: talc deposits often form next to asbestos-bearing rock, which means cross-contamination can occur if mining is not rigorously monitored and tested. There is no safe level of asbestos exposure. Even trace contamination has been linked to serious diseases, including mesothelioma, ovarian cancer, and lung cancer. This is why standardized testing conducted the same way across the industry was so important.

The proposed rule would have established consistent testing methods for detecting asbestos in talc-based cosmetics. It was part of the broader MoCRA (Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act), the first major overhaul of U.S. cosmetics law in 80 years. By withdrawing the rule, the FDA has eliminated mandatory testing for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics, left safety decisions up to each individual manufacturer, reduced transparency for consumers, and weakened MoCRA’s intended safety protections. Public health advocates immediately condemned the move. Environmental Working Group statement: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/statement/2025/11/fda-withdraws-rule-tests-cancer-causing-asbestos-talc-based News coverage: https://www.drugs.com/news/fda-pulls-plan-require-asbestos-testing-talc-based-cosmetics-127747.html

For anyone who uses powder cosmetics, eyeshadow, blush, baby powder, or personal-care products containing talc, this rollback has real consequences. You can no longer assume the product is asbestos-tested. There is no federal requirement ensuring that talc used in cosmetic products is screened for contamination. Consumers are now dependent on brand transparency and voluntary testing, and products marketed as “clean,” “natural,” or “dermatologist tested” may not be screened for asbestos at all. This shift moves responsibility away from regulators and onto buyers many of whom don’t even know talc can contain asbestos.

There are meaningful steps consumers can take. First, choose talc-free products whenever possible; this eliminates the risk entirely. Many clean beauty brands including ours formulate without talc. Second, support brands that voluntarily test ingredients. If a product contains talc, ask the brand for Certificates of Analysis (COAs) proving third-party asbestos testing. Third, stay informed. Independent organizations monitor cosmetic safety and provide excellent resources. Good starting points: EWG’s safety summaries at https://www.ewg.org/news-insights and the FDA’s MoCRA updates at https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics. Finally, advocate for safer regulation. Public pressure has historically influenced cosmetic safety standards. Consumers can push regulators to revisit requirements like this.

For those who want to voice their concern directly, you can use the federal docket associated with the withdrawn rule: Docket FDA-2023-N-4225. Public comment periods reopen during active rulemaking. The withdrawal notice and docket status can be viewed here: https://www.regulations.justia.com/regulations/fedreg/2025/11/28/2025-21407.html. You can also support advocacy groups lobbying for reinstating asbestos testing requirements, such as EWG, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics.

When regulation weakens, responsibility shifts to individuals and ethical small businesses. Using talc-free, plant-based, and minimally processed ingredients has always been part of our mission—not because it is trendy, but because it protects long-term health. This rollback is a reminder that transparency, sourcing, and independent oversight are not optional in the beauty industry. They are essential.