A tentative Food and Drug Administration rule standardizes the tests used to spot asbestos-talc cross-contamination in pre-market consumer goods, such as baby powder.

“For many years the FDA has been sampling and testing talc-containing cosmetics for asbestos as well as working with our federal partners on efforts to reduce consumers’ risk of exposure to asbestos, a known human carcinogen, from contaminated talc-containing cosmetic products,” said Linda Katz, M.D., M.P.H., director of the FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors. “We have carefully considered the scientific evidence and complex policy issues related to detecting and identifying asbestos in talc and talc-containing cosmetic products.  We believe that the proposed testing techniques are appropriate methods to detect asbestos to help ensure the safety of talc-containing cosmetic products.”

How does talc get contaminated with asbestos? (During its formation)

Talc is a naturally occurring mineral that has many uses in cosmetics and other personal care products, such as absorbing moisture, preventing the appearance of caking, making facial makeup opaque, or improving the feel of a product. Asbestos, a known carcinogen, is found in the same rock types as talc deposits and may be inseparable from talc in the mining process. Because there is the potential for contamination of talc with asbestos, it is important to test for the presence of asbestos in talc-containing cosmetic products.

The proposed rule would require manufacturers of talc-containing cosmetic products to test for asbestos using an analytical approach that includes both Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) (with dispersion staining) and Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)/Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS)/Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED) to detect and identify the presence of asbestos. 

FDA Powers

Before we break down the troublesome asbestos-tacl cross-contamination issue, we should briefly address the FDA’s authority, or rather its lack of authority, to protect consumers from harmful products.

FDA rules are largely advisory. This agency has almost no power to unilaterally recall dangerous products or block sales that don’t conform with the rules. 

Dangerous products either have hurt someone or have the potential to hurt someone. The underlying issue is usually a manufacturing defect or a design defect. As outlined below, talc-asbestos cross-contamination could fall into either category:

  • Design Defect: Many consumer products, especially cosmetics, have talc fillers. If this talc comes from a contaminated mine, and it probably does, cross-contamination is a serious potential risk. But most talc users ignore this risk and thereby intentionally endanger people.
  • Manufacturing Defect: The FDA’s testing procedures are largely designed to eliminate talc-asbestos manufacturing defects. Theoretically, if talc-using companies screen their products and take corrective action, the cross-contamination risk disappears. However, as mentioned, FDA rules are basically advisory.

Similarly, if a company doesn’t provide proof of compliance with testing or other rules, the FDA can release that information publicly and thereby shame the company into compliance. But these government bureaucrats usually cannot take further action.

Even if further action is possible, the FDA often doesn’t take that step. Industry-paid user fees largely fund this agency. The more products that regulated industries sell, whether or not those products are potentially dangerous, the more money they make, and the more money the FDA receives.

Still, the FDA talc-asbestos testing standards are certainly better than nothing. Currently, many companies practically self-certify that their talc-containing products contain no asbestos. The result has been tragic for many. Asbestos-laced talc products are now most likely in your home.

Asbestos-Talc Cross-Contamination

A consumer product like talc seems to have almost nothing in common with an industrial product like asbestos. Indeed, their purposes are vastly different. Talc, one of the world’s softest minerals, is a key ingredient in many consumer products. Asbestos, one of the world’s most fireproof minerals, is (or rather was) a key ingredient in attic and other insulation products. 

However, these minerals have similar chemical formulas. Each one is silicon, water, and magnesium, albeit in different combinations. Therefore, talc and asbestos mines are almost literally on top of each other, at least in many cases.

We mentioned poor quality control practices that allow asbestos particles to seep into talc products. Usually, this cross-contamination occurs at the source. 

Source cross-contamination is very predictable but almost impossible to confirm, unless the extraction company has the correct equipment onsite. Twenty thousand microscopic asbestos fibers can fit in the tiny space between Abraham Lincon’s nose and mouth on a U.S. penny.

Workers at talc mines are often exposed to asbestos.

Direct asbestos exposure is also a serious problem at talc mines. Most talc miners don’t protect themselves from airborne asbestos fibers. These tiny fibers easily pass through large body openings, like the ear, nose, and throat. They’re also small enough to pass through tiny openings, like tear ducts and skin pores.

We should also mention indirect exposure. Spiky asbestos fibers easily cling to soft surfaces, such as hair and clothes. Therefore, talc miners unintentionally carry these fibers home, where they poison friends and loved ones.

The combination of exposure possibilities means that, by around 2050, consumer product asbestos poisoning matters may exceed the number of industrial product asbestos poisoning cases. That’s saying quite a bit.

Asbestos Exposure Illnesses

Talc-asbestos exposure illnesses are largely the same as direct asbestos exposure illnesses. Either kind of poisoning could cause:

  • Cancer: Toxic particles, like asbestos particles, alter cellular lifespan. Cells that should naturally die off clump together and form tumors. As these tumors grow, they siphon nutrients from nearby healthy cells. Additionally, asbestos fibers increase free radical particle levels. These particles cause many kinds of cancer, including ovarian cancer.
  • Lung Disease: Asbestosis and pleural thickening may be the worst asbestos exposure-related lung diseases. Asbestosis is a buildup of scar tissue that blocks tiny, but vital, lung airways. Pleural thickening is inflammation of the pleural layer that surrounds the lungs. Frequently, the lung cannot tolerate the additional pressure.

Asbestos exposure illnesses have extremely long latency periods. That latency period greatly complicates these matters for an asbestos exposure lawyer. More on that below.

Asbestos illness victims usually have limited medical options. Gene therapy and other advanced treatments offer hope for cancer victims, but a cost-effective CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) gene therapy treatment is still years away. Total transplants can treat lung diseases like asbestosis, but because of the aforementioned latency period, many of these victims are older, in poor physical condition, and not good candidates for such radical procedures.

A few final words about legal options for asbestos poisoning victims. The FDA and other government agencies don’t adequately protect people from asbestos poisoning. Fortunately, these poisoning victims can partner with an asbestos exposure lawyer and obtain compensation for their injuries. Several options are available.

A civil action against the talc or other product manufacturer is the best option in most cases. Companies have a legal duty to make and sell safe products that are fit for ordinary use. If they fail to meet these standards, victims are entitled to substantial compensation.

This compensation usually includes money for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. Additional punitive damages are usually available in these cases as well.

A no-fault option, such as Social Security Disability, may be a better alternative in some cases. Not as much compensation is available in such cases, but they are much easier to prove.

Usually, both options are available no matter how much time has passed between asbestos poisoning and the onset of a disabling illness, such as mesothelioma cancer. The delayed discovery rule, which extends the statute of limitations, usually applies in such matters.