FDA rollback on asbestos testing for cosmetics…A gross miscalculation
A short explainer and simple, meaningful call to action
As we enter the holiday season, the FDA is playing Grinch. And I’m normally one to carefully defend our federal agencies when they are unfairly called out for not taking action on pressing health or environmental topics (more on that below). But their Grinch-esque moves warrant some fury, because a day before Thanksgiving, FDA withdrew a 2024 proposal that would have required makeup companies to test for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics.
Asbestos, a carcinogen linked to mesothelioma and lung cancers, is naturally present in talc, which is used in hundreds of makeup products, from eye shadow to bronzer to lipstick. Asbestos has even been found in children’s makeup kits, discovered only because of tests commissioned by advocacy groups. The proposed rule, as part of 2023’s Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA)—which I helped pass with Beautycounter after decades of work—would have established an important and logical safeguard: Helping ensure makeup with talc is safe before it hits the shelves.
Why the yank-back?
The FDA claims it removed the rule to make it more comprehensive and to ensure testing methods are truly protective for consumers. Don’t believe the rhetoric. It’s as if they took a page directly from the Dr. Seuss classic in which the Grinch tells little Cindy Lou Who that he’s simply borrowing the Christmas tree to fix a light—then he’ll return good as new.
Product safety advocates aren’t buying it either. Linda Reinstein, president of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and widow to Alan Reinstein, who died from asbestos-related mesothelioma, told the New York Times:
“This is another horrific rollback. 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.”
- Linda Reinstein, President of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization
It is clear that whomever wrote the FDA’s explanation knows very little about actually formulating makeup.
Flawed FDA Rationale for the Rollback
For example the FDA’s statement falsely shares that the testing they will roll out will be “more comprehensive”, yet the testing protocols for asbestos and talc are quite straightforward. Seems like a class PR spin game to reduce the damage of this giveback to the asbestos industry. (During my time at Beautycounter (now relaunched as a new business Counter) we reformulated the entire cosmetic line away from talc, back in 2017.)
FDA also cites “safer alternatives” will be shared after their delay, which is a fool’s errand since the asbestos is a contaminant of talc, not an intentionally added ingredient. So it isn’t as simple as swapping out a different ingredient for the asbestos (more PR spin?). Even former FDA staff who oversaw this work have been publicly vocal about how absurd the rollback rationale is.
I’ll connect a few more dots, the EPA threatened to slow walk the 2023 asbestos ban implementation (a different law that took decades to pass) due to pressure from the asbestos industry. Public outcry had the EPA quickly pivot and retract, one of a few examples of the power of our pressure amidst the deregulation across consumer safety and environmental laws.
If the MAHA agenda is for real then RFK Jr’s FDA will keep the rule intact and quickly expedite (rather than delay) implementation of MoCRA. It’s clear that the issue of tackling toxic chemicals is popular with voters, in fact it was artfully used as a political chit during the last election to keep Republican women who support banning toxic chemicals from products and food to support President Trump (I know first hand—and love—that this issue enjoys bipartisan support). Using environmental health as a campaign topic worked and allowed him to take office. And yet under President Trump’s leadership and directive, he has unleashed an unprecedented set of rollbacks across toxic chemicals in products, our water and air.
They seem to hope we aren’t paying attention, but I know the bipartisan group of women who helped pass this law and we are smart and certainly paying attention.
We are also not afraid to be loud.
In the meantime, it’s on us to hold lawmakers accountable and protect all the hard-won MoCRA provisions that took 10 years to get passed. As I share frequently, I have been a longtime supporter of our federal agencies’ role in implementing strong laws. But agencies can only act when they have the authority to do so (and often where I see finger pointing that is misguided by individuals). This example however, is different. This is a classic case of the FDA’s politically appointed leadership slow-walking the implementation of the few safety provisions we do have for cosmetics.
Here’s a menu of meaningful ways to take action:
Send a personal and short email through the contact form of your U.S. Senators and Representative (if you don’t have time to do all three, just send to one of your Senators). Once you look up your elected officials go to their websites and send a form email (it goes straight to the staff who work on these issues!).
A draft email:I’m writing as a very concerned constituent. I have seen more rollbacks of laws that protect us from toxic chemicals than ever before, the FDA pulling back on asbestos testing in cosmetics is the final straw. I ask you to vocally oppose any rollbacks to the laws that exist to protect us from toxic chemicals in our air, water, and products. This is a bipartisan issue and I won’t vote for you or any other candidates in future elections who allow for rollbacks to public health, consumer safety or environmental laws.
Sign up to follow Breast Cancer Prevention Partners a national organization that leads work on safer cosmetics, and Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, the leader in banning asbestos in the U.S.
Buy a copy of my book CLEANING HOUSE, where I tell the incredible 10 year journey to get the cosmetics safety law passed through the power of bipartisan organizing (plus the book was praised by Erin Brockovich, yes the real one).
Look for makeup without talc, Counter is my favorite in both safety and performance.
And sure, you can read the ingredient lists of makeup and avoid products that list talc. There aren’t many (and I still to this day recommend Counter as the gold standard in cosmetic safety). But if the FDA wants to give us a real gift, they’ll follow the lead of the European Union, which is set to ban talc in all cosmetics by 2027.