News Mass Tort

FDA Withdraws Proposed Rule on Testing Talc Cosmetics for Asbestos

Vetted by Stefan Rest 1 min read

On November 28, 2025, the FDA withdrew a proposed rule that would have set standard methods for testing talc-containing cosmetics for asbestos. The FDA had announced the proposal on December 26, 2024, under the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022. It said comments on the proposal warranted further consideration and assessment. Here is what the rule was, why talc testing matters, and what the FDA's own testing has looked for.

What the proposed rule would have done

Under section 3505 of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA), the FDA proposed standardized testing methods for detecting asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics. The proposal was announced on December 26, 2024. (FDA)

The withdrawal

On November 28, 2025, the FDA withdrew the proposed rule. It said comments it received warranted further consideration and assessment. The withdrawal does not mean the FDA has made a finding about whether any particular product contains asbestos.

Why testing matters

Talc and asbestos are different minerals, but both occur naturally and can be found close together in the earth. The FDA says it is important to choose talc mining sites carefully and to test the ore. Asbestos is a known cause of cancer.

The FDA's own testing

The FDA has tested talc-containing cosmetics for asbestos in several rounds, including in 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2023, using methods such as polarized light microscopy and transmission electron microscopy. An earlier 2009 to 2010 survey found no asbestos in the samples tested, but the FDA noted that its results were limited because not all suppliers took part.

What it means for consumers

The possibility of contamination does not mean every talc product contained asbestos. If you have an old talc product, do not test it yourself. Keep it as it is. Our talcum powder page explains what to keep and how a claim review works.

This article is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Allegations in lawsuits are not findings of fact.

This article is general information about how these cases work. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and no two claims are alike. If something here sounds like your situation, the useful next step is a conversation about the facts.

Sources and citations

Statutes, regulations, agency material and decisions referred to above.

  1. TalcU.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSource for the proposed rule, its withdrawal and FDA testing rounds. Content current as of January 16, 2026.

Vetted by

Stefan Rest, managing director of CBW Law

Stefan Rest

Managing Director, CBW Law

Stefan Rest has spent more than two decades advocating for consumers and helping people understand how the law may provide a path forward when they’ve been wronged. As Managing Director of CBW Law, he oversees client relations, the firm’s national law-firm network and new partnerships. He writes about developing litigation and consumer legal issues because the right information can help people recognize when their own story may matter.

Other articles sharing a case type with this one.

All articles →

Mass Tort: The Federal Talcum Powder MDL: Where MDL No. 2738 Stands

Federal lawsuits alleging that Johnson & Johnson talc products contributed to ovarian cancer are gathered in one multidistrict litigation, MDL No. 2738, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's September 1, 2026 report, 69,250 actions were pending in it, out of 71,935 filed over its history. Here is what an MDL is, who is overseeing this one, and how bankruptcy has affected it.

Vetted by Stefan Rest

Read more about this Mass Tort article: “The Federal Talcum Powder MDL: Where MDL No. 2738 Stands”

Mass Tort: What IARC's Talc Classification Means, and How It Compares With FDA and NCI

In July 2024, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified talc as "probably carcinogenic to humans," or Group 2A. The FDA and the National Cancer Institute describe the evidence on talc and ovarian cancer more cautiously. Here is what each body said, and why a hazard classification is not the same as proof of what caused one person's cancer.

Vetted by Stefan Rest

Read more about this Mass Tort article: “What IARC's Talc Classification Means, and How It Compares With FDA and NCI”

Mass Tort: CPSC Warns Consumers to Stop Using Gourmia Pressure Cookers Over Serious Burn Hazard

On February 24, 2026, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission warned consumers to stop using about 43,500 Gourmia GPC625 six-quart digital pressure cookers right away. CPSC said the lid can open while the cooker is still pressurized, spraying hot contents out. It reported five incidents and four cases of severe burn injuries. This is a CPSC safety warning, not a recall: CPSC said the importer and Best Buy refused to agree to an acceptable recall.

Vetted by Stefan Rest

Read more about this Mass Tort article: “CPSC Warns Consumers to Stop Using Gourmia Pressure Cookers Over Serious Burn Hazard”

Attorney advertising. The content of this website may be considered attorney advertising under the rules of certain jurisdictions. The information on this website is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Viewing this site does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statutes, regulations and case law change, and the law differs from state to state.