The FDA rule mandating asbestos testing of talc used in cosmetics was supposed to go into effect this month. Instead, we got a withdrawal and a promise to get back to it, but absolutely NO timeline for when the rule will actually be finalized.
If you’ve been following the talc saga (you have if you read In My Kit regularly), you’ll remember that MoCRA mandated that the FDA finally do something it has managed to avoid for over 80 years: establish standardized, enforceable testing methods for detecting asbestos in talc used for cosmetic manufacturing.
This is not a rule about banning talc. This is not even a rule about restricting it.
This is simply a rule to require testing for carcinogens in a raw material that has generated over 100K lawsuits globally.
The proposed rule landed in December 2024. It was genuinely substantive, requiring manufacturers to test every batch using two specific methods: Polarized Light Microscopy and Transmission Electron Microscopy. Rigorous, science-backed approaches developed by an interagency group that had been deliberating since 2018. Products that failed testing, or manufacturers that skipped it entirely, would be deemed adulterated under federal law. Finally, some teeth.
The final rule was targeted for this month, March 2026. It did not arrive.
WHY?
The proposed rule was withdrawn on November 28, 2025, signed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. There is currently no mandatory federal testing requirement for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics. No new proposed rule has been issued. No timeline has been announced.
So what actually happened?
The official explanation, per the Federal Register withdrawal notice, cites the “legal considerations under the Administrative Procedure Act,” and — perhaps most eyebrow-raising, it’s not a priority of the tRump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative. 🤬
Industry groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, argued that the FDA’s proposed definition of “asbestos” was broader than that used by other federal agencies, and that the testing methods could generate false positives, flagging non-asbestos mineral fibers as asbestos, triggering unnecessary recalls and reformulations. Those aren’t frivolous concerns in a regulatory context.
What’s harder to square is the timing and the outcome. The FDA didn’t narrow the rule, clarify the definition, or adjust the methodology. It withdrew the proposal entirely, with a vague commitment to issue a new one…eventually.
As of January 2026, over 90,000 lawsuits have been filed against Johnson & Johnson alone, with the company ordered to pay over $2.5 billion to talc victims in 2025. For an ingredient with such a litigious history, this “we’ll get back to you” messaging is a head-scratcher as a regulatory stance.
Meanwhile, in the EU…
While the U.S. regulatory machinery idles, the EU’s Committee for Risk Assessment did something more definitive in September 2024: it classified talc itself — not just potentially contaminated talc, but the ingredient — as a Category 1B carcinogen, based on evidence linking it to ovarian and lung tumors. That classification is entirely separate from the asbestos contamination question.
Under EU cosmetics law, a Category 1B carcinogen classification typically triggers a ban on use in cosmetic products. The formal regulation hasn’t been finalized yet, but industry experts anticipate it could take effect around 2027. That’s not a testing standard rule - that’s an exit ramp for talc in cosmetics.
The regulatory deviation between the U.S. and the EU on this ingredient is now stark and accelerating. Brands formulating for global markets are already doing the math: if talc is heading toward a European ban, does it make sense to keep it in your formulations at all — regardless of what the FDA does or doesn’t do?
What this means right now.
For consumers, the practical reality is unchanged from last year: there is no federal requirement for how your setting powder, blush, bronzer, or eyeshadow gets tested for asbestos. Testing happens voluntarily, by manufacturers, using methods of their own choosing. Some brands do it rigorously. Some don’t at all.
Unfortunately, you can’t tell from the label if the talc in your product has been tested.
For brands and formulators, the signal, however confusing and messy its delivery, is clear enough. The direction on talc is toward intensified scrutiny, not less, even if the U.S. regulatory path seems derailed. The EU’s carcinogen classification didn’t happen in a vacuum, and it won’t stay contained to European markets. Talc-free reformulation isn’t just a clean beauty marketing choice anymore; it’s become an increasingly important supply chain and liability management decision.
The FDA says it will eventually issue a new proposed rule. It’s statutorily required to. But “eventually” and “no timeline announced” are phrases that should sound familiar to anyone who’s been watching the painfully slow rollout of MoCRA.
#MyTwoCents
Here’s what I keep coming back to: the FDA was legally required to finalize this rule. Congress put it in writing. MoCRA mandated it. And the agency still withdrew the proposal — citing industry pushback over testing methodology — with no replacement and no timeline.
Meanwhile, the EU has gone in the opposite direction entirely, classifying talc itself as a probable human carcinogen — independent of the asbestos contamination issue. Two completely separate regulatory bodies, looking at the same ingredient, arriving at conclusions that couldn’t be more different. One is pressing pause. The other is heading toward a ban.
The talc story isn’t over. It’s just waiting for its next chapter, and the US cosmetic industry would be wise not to wait for Washington to write it.
If you’re a brand still formulating with talc and your distribution is global — or aspirationally global — the EU’s 2027 timeline should be the number on your radar, not whatever Washington eventually proposes. Reformulating ahead of a mandate is always less expensive, less disruptive, and better for the brand story than scrambling after one.
And for consumers?
Until there’s a federal standard with real enforcement - which we now know isn’t happening anytime soon - opting for talc-free products is the only reliable way to make an informed choice.
I know, it shouldn’t be that way. But here we are.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this industry-changing issue in the comment section.
Kevin James Bennett is a multiple Emmy Award-winning makeup artist, respected industry expert, cosmetic developer, and educator. He is the publisher of In My Kit®
We also voted to abolish Daylight savings time in over 13 states and that has not happend either- so much regulation is dependent upon current administration. Good reputable manufacturers are being burden by these class action suits.