The Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn a proposed rule that would have required makeup manufacturers to test talcum powder and cosmetics made with talc for traces of asbestos, a highly carcinogenic contaminant.
The unexpected move was a blow to public health advocates who have worked for decades to curb or eliminate asbestos, which can be found in talc and causes deadly cancers like mesothelioma and lung and ovarian cancer, and for which there is no safe level of exposure. Even as the proposed rule was withdrawn, however, the F.D.A. said that it may consider regulating an even broader range of talc-containing products.
Johnson & Johnson took its talcum-based baby powder off the market in North America in 2020 amid litigation and reports indicating that the company knew about the risk of asbestos in talc. But many makeup products — from eye shadow and foundation to lipstick and mascara — continue to be made with talc, which is added because it absorbs moisture and creates a silky feel (it is listed on the label as talcum powder, talc or magnesium silicate).
Talc is also an ingredient in candy, flavored chewing gum and the tablet forms of commonly used medications, according to a paper calling on the F.D.A. to re-evaluate talc in food and drugs. The paper was published earlier this year by Dr. George Tidmarsh, a Stanford doctor who was the director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research from July until his resignation earlier this month.
Dr. Tidmarsh’s paper, published in the Journal of the Academy of Public Health in April, said that many widely used medications and dietary supplements, as well as common food items, contain talc.
Although the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies talc as “probably carcinogenic to humans” based on limited evidence, it has been presumed to be a safe food additive, and falls under the F.D.A.’s category of things that are Generally Recognized As Safe, or GRAS, because it has a long record of use in food. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized the GRAS program, which he and other critics say the food industry has used to introduce untested ingredients into the food supply.
Manufacturers say their talc has been free of asbestos since the 1970s, when the cosmetics trade association issued voluntary guidelines that all talc be free of detectable asbestos.
The American Cancer Society suggests that consumers who are concerned use corn starch-based, talc-free cosmetics.
Efforts to reach Dr. Tidmarsh and his co-author, Arman Sharma, for comment were unsuccessful.
The withdrawn rule was narrowly focused on testing cosmetic products, but an F.D.A. spokeswoman who responded to questions about the pullback said the agency “remains committed” to assessing the safety and necessity of talc use “in the American food and drug supply.”
“F.D.A. will submit a new proposed rule that offers a more comprehensive approach to reducing exposure to asbestos and reducing asbestos related illness, including identifying safer additives as alternatives, especially when they are less costly,” the spokeswoman said. She declined to elaborate further.
Consumer advocates were not mollified.
“This is another horrific rollback,” said Linda Reinstein, president and chief executive of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization. Ms. Reinstein’s husband died of mesothelioma decades after being exposed to asbestos fibers at his workplace.
“It puts the onus on Americans to have to try to identify consumer products that might be contaminated, and the average person can’t do that because you can’t know without testing,” Ms. Reinstein added. “People should be outraged.”
Officials with the Personal Care Products Council, a national trade association that represents the cosmetics and personal care products industry, declined to comment immediately on the rule withdrawal.
In public comments submitted on the federal register in response to the proposed rule, most comments from private individuals expressed strong support but several trade associations expressed concern that consumer products other than cosmetics — including over-the-counter medications and dietary supplements — might be swept up in the testing for asbestos, with results that could be costly and burdensome.
Christopher Phalen, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, wrote that testing would inevitably result in false positives and that companies would “be impacted by the loss of batches or lots of cosmetic talc wrongly identified as containing asbestos,” adding to manufacturing costs and prompting litigation.
Although U.S. cosmetics manufacturers have won a reprieve from testing talc-containing products for asbestos, those that export to Europe will be facing another talc-related deadline soon: The European Union, which has declared talc to be a carcinogen, is set to ban talc from all cosmetics by 2027.
Roni Caryn Rabin is a Times health reporter focused on maternal and child health, racial and economic disparities in health care, and the influence of money on medicine.
The post F.D.A. Withdraws Rule to Require Testing Cosmetics Made With Talc for Asbestos appeared first on New York Times.
