Researchers have warned about asbestos contamination since the 1970s, but inadequate testing and the latency of asbestos disease prevented their calls from being heeded until now.

Talc, a soft mineral used in numerous household products, has long been part of daily life. Found in items such as baby powder, cosmetics[1], pharmaceuticals, and even food, it has been long sought-after for its absorbent and anti-caking properties. Recently, however, this once valued ingredient has been in the spotlight—and not in a good way. Rather, awareness is increasing around talc’s potential to become contaminated with asbestos, a carcinogenic mineral often found in close proximity to talc deposits. Product sampling and recent studies have uncovered a high prevalence of contamination in everything from maquillaje and baby powder to candy, rice, and chewing gum.

Liability in the courtroom is often the only means of redress

The rise in lawsuits and product recalls connected to talc-based items has also sparked widespread concern, shifting this debate from mere “alarmism” to an urgent health issue. While a handful of manufacturers are still dismissing the link between talc and asbesto as exaggerated and denying the existence of asbestos in their product lines, new evidence is suggesting otherwise, and more companies are engaging in proactive recalls.

High-profile lawsuits against trusted entities like Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and Dynarex have also cast talc into the limelight, drawing awareness around the connection between talc products and cancer, including deadly diagnoses like ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. As the issue continues to evolve, consumer advocates and health experts are drawing attention to broader implications around buyer safety and corporate responsibility, placing added pressure on supply chains to limit public exposure.

Talc and Asbestos

Talc and asbestos have a close geological relationship that complicates the safety of talc mining. Both minerals are silicate compounds found in ultramafic rock formations, which are rich in magnesium and iron. Talc, derived from talcum powder, is a hydrated magnesium silicate, while asbesto refers to a group of fibrous silicate minerals that includes chrysotile (white asbestos), the most common type, found in serpentine rock[2].

Because talc and asbestos are often formed in the same types of rock, they frequently co-occur, raising the risk of asbestos contamination in talc deposits. Both chrysotile asbestos, found in serpentine rock, and tremolite asbestos,[3] a rarer and more dangerous form, can easily transfer fibers onto these deposits. The fibers are microscopic and challenging to separate, making it difficult for manufacturers to ensure talc’s purity.

Attempting to reduce exposure risk, some suppliers have employed advanced testing methods to identify and remove asbestos contamination. However, this is not foolproof. As talc is mined and processed, asbestos can still find its way into the final product. A 2021 study, for instance, demonstrated how naturally occurring asbestos can persist even after extensive purification processes, posing risks to consumers.

Regulatory agencies have also taken steps to address the issues. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for example, has increased product sample testing, but without universally mandated testing procedures, contaminated talc continues to reach the market, and agencies are only intervening when items have already hit store shelves.

This contamination risk is extremely concerning because exposure to asbestos, labeled a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), can lead to chronic respiratory illnesses, like COPD, asthma, and emphysema, as well as deadly cancers like mesotelioma, a lethal cancer affecting the lining of the lungs. The close geological association[4] between talc and asbestos raises unavoidable questions about the long-term safety of talc-based products, including many that have already been on the market for a number of years.

An increasing number of asbestos-related diseases, particularly cancers, have been linked to items containing talc. Although mesothelioma and other asbestos-induced cancers have been historically associated with industrial exposure, recent studies reveal a troubling trend among individuals who’ve never handled the mineral in the workplace—especially women.

Research points to asbestos contamination in many talc sources

Research has uncovered a strong link between homemakers who have come into contact with asbestos-contaminated products and ovarian cancer and malignant mesothelioma (MM). While once assumed to primarily affect men in high-risk industries, MM cases among women have been steadily rising, with many being attributed to contaminated talc use. Face and body powders, dry shampoo, linen and shoe fresheners, and other talc-based household items (even food!) have been found to contain asbestos.

Despite the current growing evidence of asbestos-induced cancers in women, traditionally, medical literature has overlooked the risk posed by these products, leading to under-diagnosis and delayed treatment for female patients, causing them to face poorer prognoses. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), mesothelioma deaths among women increased from 489 in 1999 to 614 in 2020, with significant cases linked to domestic exposure.

Data has also revealed that women in particular age groups and certain ethnic groups are more likely to be affected. According to surveys, 61% of women express deep concern about asbestos in talc products, with Black and Asian women reporting higher talc usage rates compared to other demographics.

At the end of the day, no one is immune to the dangers of asbestos due to its high use in industry during most of the 20th century and the legacy it has since left behind. Asbestos continues to line the walls and floorboards of residences built prior to the 1980s, and imported goods from countries lacking strict regulations can still contain the toxin. Vintage items can also test positive for fibers, and concerns over tainted talc products are now lending to even more possibilities for exposure.

The presence of asbestos in talc-based products has intensified calls for stricter asbestos regulations and stronger consumer protections, particularly as it becomes more apparent that this issue can present itself across a variety of settings. Asbestos exposure can no longer be considered only an occupational hazard, but one that can affect individuals on the job, at home, or in public spaces. As a result, there is an increasing demand for clear labeling and rigorous safety guidelines, and health experts are encouraging anyone who feels they’ve been placed in harm’s way to receive regular screenings, which can lead to earlier diagnoses and better outcomes.

Moving Forward: Addressing the Asbestos-Talc Crisis

No chicken little in the talc issue

Given a substantial increase in evidence-based findings supporting the connection between talc and asbestos, growing public awareness over talc concerns can no longer be dismissed as mere “alarmism.”  Scientific evidence has unveiled an increase in cancer diagnoses, especially among woman, which, coupled with ongoing litigation and product recalls, has placed an urgent spotlight on the talc issue. 

Companies that produce and sell talc-based products bear a responsibility to ensure consumer safety, which includes introducing improved contamination testing and more transparent labeling. Increased public awareness, in general, is essential to drive change in corporate practices, and taking a proactive approach in this area can help prevent asbestos-related diseases.

Ensuring that word gets out about asbestos-contaminated talc products

Advocacy groups and healthcare organizations also play a vital role in educating the public about the potential risks associated with talc products. Encouraging consumers to seek regular screenings and to become informed about talc’s risks is critical for early detection and prevention of asbestos-related diseases. For those who have used asbestos-contaminated talc products and have subsequently experienced complications, legal avenues exist to hold companies accountable and secure compensation to offset medical costs.

Consumers can take active measures to minimize their risk of exposure by tossing outdated products and those known to contain asbestos, reading ingredient lists, and being especially mindful of what’s in any imported goods.

Shifting the long-standing perspective of talc as a standalone mineral to one that coexists with asbestos in nature has solidified the stance that most talc products are likely to be unsafe, inducing a collaborative effort among consumers, healthcare providers, corporations, and policymakers to pave the way for safer, asbestos-free products and a healthier future. Yet, this is only the beginning. Talc has been on the market for a very long time and meaningful change won’t happen overnight. Ongoing efforts must continue to be put in place to minimize, and eventually eliminate, risks for future generations.

[1] Segrave, Alan & Paglietti, Federica & Malinconico, Sergio, “Assessment of Naturally Occurring Asbestos and Cosmetic Talc: A Case Study,” December 2021, pp. 374–398. doi: 10.1520/STP163220210008.

[2] Pereira, D., Rivas, T., López, A. J., Ramil, A., & Bloise, A. Characterization of Talcose Rocks Derived from Serpentinite—Pilot Study in the Ultramafic Complex of Cabo Ortegal (Spain) for Potential Use and Commercialization. Applied Sciences, vol. 13, no. 22, November 2023, 12183. https://doi.org/10.3390/app132212183.

[3] M. S. Shekhawat, M. S. Ranawat, and P. S. Ranawat, “ Mineralogical and Chemical Characteristics of Talc and Tremolite Asbestos Hosting Proterozoic Ultramafic Rocks of lharol Area, Udaipur, Rajasthan,” International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, vol. 3, no. 4, August 2010, pp. 459–474.

[4] Hannah Wudke, Kenneth Brown, Madeline Murchland, Morgan Gillis, Kailee Gokey, Justin Bank, Marion Lytle, Claire L. McLeod, and Mark P.S. Krekeler. “Mineralogical and geochemical characterization of Johnson’s baby powder from 1985: Evidence of contamination.” Applied Clay Science, vol. 250, 15 March 2024, 107252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clay.2023.107252.