FDA Finds Asbestos in Claire's Makeup

Asbestos in the Makeup Aisle

For millions of parents, stores like Claire’s represented harmless fun — a place where teenagers could pick up sparkly eyeshadow or their first lip gloss. That assumption changed in 2019, when FDA testing revealed that some of these products contained asbestos.

The discovery wasn’t just a regulatory problem. It raised a disturbing question: How many young people had unknowingly inhaled asbestos fibers while applying powder-based cosmetics?

What the FDA Found

Between 2017 and 2019, FDA scientists tested 52 cosmetic products for asbestos contamination. Nine tested positive for asbestos fibers — a finding that prompted immediate action.

The contaminated products came from multiple brands: Claire’s makeup, Beauty Plus Global cosmetics, City Color products, and Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder. All shared a common ingredient: talc.

Talc and asbestos form together in the same geological deposits. When mining operations don’t adequately separate the two minerals, asbestos can end up in everything from face powder to children’s play makeup. The process of complete separation is technically challenging, and at the time, no federal law required cosmetics manufacturers to test for contamination.

A Particular Risk for Young Users

The FDA findings were especially troubling because of who was using these products. Claire’s built its brand on tweens and teenagers — customers who might apply and reapply powder-based eyeshadow or glitter throughout a school day.

Each application creates an opportunity for exposure. Powder-based products release fine particles into the air. Users inhale them. If those particles contain asbestos, fibers can lodge in the lungs — where they may remain for decades.

Mesothelioma typically develops 20 to 50 years after asbestos exposure. A 12-year-old who used contaminated makeup in 2019 might not develop symptoms until her 40s or 50s. For children, this long latency period means the full health consequences of such exposures may not become clear for another generation.

Claire’s Pushed Back

When the FDA announced its findings, Claire’s disputed the results. The company challenged the agency’s testing methodology and insisted its products were safe.

Eventually, Claire’s removed certain products from store shelves. But the company’s initial response drew sharp criticism from consumer advocates, who argued that parents deserved more comprehensive testing and transparent communication about potential risks.

The incident highlighted a troubling reality: cosmetics face less regulatory scrutiny than many other consumer products. Unlike drugs, cosmetics don’t require FDA approval before hitting store shelves.

A Regulatory Gap

The 2019 findings exposed significant weaknesses in how the US regulates cosmetics. At the time, the FDA had no authority to mandate asbestos testing. Manufacturers weren’t required to prove their products were safe before selling them. Even when contamination was discovered, the agency’s enforcement options were limited.

Congress addressed some of these gaps in 2022 with the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, or MoCRA, which gave the FDA broader authority over cosmetic safety. But the FDA later withdrew a proposed rule that would have established standardized asbestos testing requirements for talc-based products. As of 2025, no federal mandate requires cosmetics companies to test talc for asbestos contamination.

Choosing Safer Products

Parents and consumers can reduce risk by checking ingredient labels. Products listing talc, talcum, or magnesium silicate carry potential contamination risk. Talc-free alternatives eliminate that uncertainty entirely.

The type of product matters too. Loose powders release more airborne particles than pressed formulations. Cream and liquid cosmetics don’t typically contain talc at all.

The FDA maintains a database of cosmetic recalls at FDA.gov, and consumers can sign up for safety alerts. For children’s products especially, knowing the source and checking ingredient transparency is worth the extra effort.

Lasting Impact

The Claire’s investigation contributed to broader changes in the cosmetics industry. Consumer awareness of talc risks increased. Demand for talc-free products grew. The case became one of several catalysts that eventually led to MoCRA’s passage.

For families whose children used these products, the waiting has already begun. Whether any health consequences will emerge lies decades in the future — a reminder that asbestos exposure can affect people in ways that won’t become clear for years.