HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

50 Years Later, FDA And Cosmetics Industry At Odds Again Over Asbestos

Executive Summary

The Personal Care Products Council says talc-testing methods in the cosmetics industry must distinguish between carcinogenic asbestos and harmless non-asbestiform minerals, recalling its position against the FDA’s stab at rulemaking in 1973. However, the FDA is now arguing that elongate mineral particles of respirable dimensions are inherently dangerous, regardless of other considerations.

You may also be interested in...



EWG Study Suggests More Than One In 10 Talc-Based Cosmetics Contain Asbestos

The Environmental Working Group and Scientific Analytical Institute say inadequate testing of talc-containing personal-care products is to blame for findings of asbestos in cosmetics, including three of 21 powder-based cosmetics SAI analyzed at EWG’s request. They continue to push for updated testing standards that include electron microscopy as a core component.

US FDA’s Cosmetics Director Katz Cites Fragrance Allergens, Talc-Containing Products Among Priorities

Linda Katz, director of the US FDA’s Office of Cosmetics and Colors, offered insight into priority cosmetics issues at the Independent Beauty Association’s virtual FDA Cosmetic Regulations Workshop.

FDA Clarification: Interagency Recommendations On Talc-Asbestos Test Methods Not Formal Guidance

The Executive Summary of an interagency working group's preliminary recommendations on testing methods for asbestos in talc and talc-containing consumer products, released by the FDA in early 2020, does not constitute a formal position taken by the FDA, it says, noting that concerns have arisen recently about misunderstanding among "external parties."

Related Content

Topics

Related Companies

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

LL005491

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel