A new analysis of 8,810 talc-containing cosmetics found that powder products — especially eyeshadows and blushes — carried the highest potential risk for asbestos exposure.
Researchers identified Beauty Plus Global, Claire’s and Justice as the brands with the highest average risk scores, and noted that all FDA-confirmed asbestos-positive cosmetics were powder-based.
Experts say consumers shouldn’t assume “clean beauty” labels mean products are asbestos-free, as most certification programs do not require asbestos testing or ban talc.
Millions of Americans reach for makeup products every day without giving much thought to what’s inside them. But a new study from Mesothelioma.com suggests some talc-based cosmetics may carry a hidden risk: asbestos contamination.
After analyzing thousands of products and records from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) researchers found that powder formulas were far more likely than creams or liquids to score high for potential exposure.
To better understand what the findings mean for consumers, ConsumerAffairs spoke with Melanie Radliff, senior content writer specializing in health and wellness at Mesothelioma.com, about why certain products may pose a greater risk and what shoppers should know.
Key findings
Here’s a look at what the study revealed:
The FDA tested 236 cosmetic products across 5 rounds, and 9 tested positive for asbestos. Before being recalled, they were sold at Walmart, Amazon, Claire's and Justice stores.
There is no federal requirement to test makeup for asbestos. The FDA proposed a rule in 2024 but withdrew it less than a year later. The European Union (EU) requires testing, but the United States doesn't.
92% of powder-based products scored High or Critical risk across the 8,810 products analyzed. That includes 89% of blushes and 88% of eyeshadows.
Based on average scores, powder makeup is 62% riskier than creams and 120% riskier than liquids.
Most "clean beauty" labels don't include testing for asbestos. Only EWG Verified and MADE SAFE ban talc, but programs like Clean at Sephora and Leaping Bunny don't.
The risks of powder-based make-up
Radliff explained that the risks of powder-based make-up comes from two main factors: the talc mining process and the nature of powdered products.
“Talc and asbestos often develop near one another on the earth,” she said. “When mined, talc may become contaminated. This means talc-based products could contain some asbestos.
“Talcum powder products in particular pose asbestos exposure risks. These powders often create a cloud of dust, which people can easily inhale. If asbestos fibers embed themselves in the lining of some organs, like the lungs, this may later lead to cancer. Liquid and cream products are less likely to make asbestos fibers airborne.”
‘Clean’ beauty products aren’t always ‘clean’
The study found that many beauty companies that tout “clean” products don’t actually test for asbestos exposure. Instead, these companies focus on the presence of certain ingredients, manufacturing practices, or animal testing standards.
“These programs often restrict or prohibit specific chemicals, but most don't address asbestos testing or bans,” Radliff said. “Our study evaluated five major product certification programs. We found that only two, EWG Verified and MADE SAFE, specifically prohibited talc. Other well-known programs, including Clean at Sephora and Leaping Bunny, did not.
“One of the biggest takeaways from this research is that terms like 'clean’ don't always mean a product is talc-free or has been tested for asbestos. Many consumers assume these labels provide broader safety assurances than they actually do.”
Updating product testing mandates
The findings highlight one potential gap in current product testing standards: there is no federal requirement for asbestos testing in talc-based cosmetics.
“Many experts say that some changes could help reduce consumer use of contaminated products,” Radliff explained. “Possible steps may include mandatory asbestos testing, stronger standards for talc sourcing, and clearer recall enforcement. Together, these measures could improve transparency and strengthen consumer protections.”
On top of that, Radliff recommends that shoppers understand what certifications do and do not cover, as this can help them make more informed decisions.
“Until federal regulations adequately protect consumers, reading labels is an easy way to check for talc,” she said.