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; anthophyllite; asbestos; baby powder; cosmetic; talcum powder; tremolite.