Evaluation of the presence of asbestos in cosmetic talcum products

Abstract

Talc has been used for over a century in a variety of cosmetic products. While pure cosmetic talc (free of asbestos) is not considered a risk factor for mesothelioma, it has been recently suggested that inhalation of cosmetic talc containing trace levels of asbestos is a risk factor for mesothelioma. Bulk analyses of cosmetic talcum products were performed in the 1960s and 1970s, however, the analytical methods used at that time were incapable of determining whether asbestos minerals were present in the asbestiform versus non-asbestiform habit. The distinction between these two mineral habits is critical, as non-asbestiform amphibole minerals do not present an asbestos-related cancer risk via inhalation. As such, we evaluated six historical talcum powders using modern-era analytical methods to determine if asbestos is present, and if so, to identify the mineral habit (asbestiform versus non-asbestiform) of the asbestos. Based on their labels, the products were produced by four manufacturers and sold between 1940 and 1977. The products were analyzed in duplicate by two laboratories using standard protocols. Laboratory A analyzed samples using X-ray diffraction (XRD) and polarized light microscopy (PLM), and Laboratory B analyzed samples using PLM and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) with energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) and selected area electron diffraction (SAED). No asbestiform minerals were found in any of the products. Nonetheless, even if some historical cosmetic talcum products contained trace amounts (≤0.1%) of asbestiform minerals, any resulting asbestos exposure would be expected to be exceedingly low, and comparable to exposures from breathing ambient air.

Keywords:

• Talc
• cosmetic
• talcum powder
• baby powder
• asbestos
• tremolite
• anthophyllite

Disclosure statement

All the authors are employed by Cardno ChemRisk, a consulting firm that provides scientific advice to the government, corporations, law firms and various scientific/professional organizations. Cardno ChemRisk has been engaged by numerous companies (defendants) involved in asbestos and talc litigation, and three of the authors (Drs. Pierce and Gaffney, and Ms. Hollins) have served and may serve again as experts in future cases. However, the time invested by the authors to write this paper was provided by their employer, and no client of Cardno ChemRisk or defendant in litigation requested that this work be performed. No external funding was received for the laboratory analysis, the research supporting the analysis, nor the time needed to prepare the article. All analytical costs were provided to the laboratories by Cardno ChemRisk, and no external funding was received to cover these fees. Furthermore, the work product including the conclusions drawn is exclusively those of the authors, and no party to asbestos or talc litigation reviewed this paper prior to its publication.