Date: 27 October 2026
Prepared for: Importers, Manufacturers, Suppliers and Buyers of Cosmetic Products for the Global Market
Background:
Talc is currently restricted but not prohibited in the EU. A CMR 1B classification proposed by ECHA’s Risk Assessment Committee would trigger an automatic cosmetics ban under Article 15 unless an exemption is granted. In the US, there is no federal ban, and the FDA withdrew its proposed asbestos testing rule in November 2025. The two markets are moving in different directions.
EU: Talc (CAS 14807-96-6) is listed in Annex III, entry 59 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. The current conditions require the absence of asbestos and carry a label warning for powder products intended for children under three years of age: “Keep powder away from children's nose and mouth.”
The trigger for a ban is the CMR 1B classification. ECHA’s Risk Assessment Committee adopted its opinion on 20 September 2024, recommending classification as Carc. 1B; H350 and STOT RE 1; H372 (lungs, inhalation). The opinion was published on 9 July 2025. Once a CMR 1B classification is formally adopted, Article 15 of the Cosmetics Regulation prohibits the substance automatically. The European Commission’s final decision is expected around end-2026, and if no exemption is granted, a cosmetics ban is likely to take effect in 2027.
US: There is no Federal Law prohibited talc in cosmetics. The regulatory focus in the US is asbestos contamination.
Under MoCRA, the FDA is required to establish standardised testing methods for asbestos in talc-containing cosmetics. A proposed rule was published in 2024. However, there is currently no finalised FDA rule requiring standardised asbestos testing.
Multi-Market Regulatory Comparison:
Market | Current Legal Status | Effective date |
EU | Restricted, not prohibited. 1) Annex III, entry 59 requires a warning for children’s powder products. 2) A CMR 1B classification would trigger an automatic ban under Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009. | Commission decision expected end-2026; ban likely 2027 if no exemption. |
US | No Federal Laws ban. No finalised asbestos testing rule. MoCRA statutory requirement for standardised asbestos testing remains, but the proposed rule was withdrawn. | A new proposed rule is expected, but no timeline confirmed. |
Canada | Restricted in Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist. a) Not permitted in products intended solely for use in the genital area of those who have ovaries ; b) Products that could come in contact with the genital area (for example, diapering products, body powder, bath products) | b) "Do not use in the genital area of those who have ovaries" ; c) Products in loose powder form that may be used for diapering | c) 51% | c), d) and e) "Keep out of reach of children", "Keep powder away from child's face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems" ; d) Other products in loose powder form intended for use on the face or body | d) 77% ; e) Other products in loose powder form (for example, dry shampoo, foot powder) ; f) Other cosmetics | No ban announced; restrictions already in force. |
UK | Restricted, not prohibited. HSE concluded in January 2026 that data are insufficient to support carcinogenicity classification under GB CLP. Annex III, entry 59 requires a warning. | No CMR classification expected; current requirements likely unchanged. |
Australia | No cosmetic-specific prohibition identified. Talc is listed on the Australian Inventory of Industrial Chemicals. | Verify the live Inventory listing for any conditions attached to introduction. |
New Zealand | Restricted. Schedule 5, reference 59 requires a warning for powder products intended for children under three. Mechanism: Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020 (HSR002552). | No ban announced; current conditions apply. |
What this means for you
l Treat the EU ban as likely, not yet law. Until the Commission adopts the CMR 1B entry, talc remains permitted under Annex III conditions. Monitor the Commission’s delegated act, not just the RAC opinion.
l If you use talc in powder products, prepare for substitution regardless of the final timeline. The direction of travel is clear. Mica, corn starch, and other alternatives are available, but reformulation and stability testing take time.
l Keep asbestos testing documentation on file. Even without a final FDA rule, the absence of asbestos remains the central safety expectation. A supplier certificate of analysis confirming asbestos-free status is the minimum evidence to hold.
l For Canada and New Zealand, check your product types against the existing concentration limits and warning requirements. These are already in force, unlike the EU and US positions, which are still evolving.
References
l EU Cosmetics Regulation, Annex III, entry 59 (consolidated text)
l ECHA RAC Opinion on Talc (adopted 20 September 2024)
l US FDA withdrawal of proposed asbestos testing rule
l Health Canada Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist – Talc entry
l UK HSE technical report on talc (January 2026)
l New Zealand Cosmetic Products Group Standard 2020, Schedule 5, reference 59
This document is prepared by EASYHARMONY TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED (EHC) for your reference and may be shared with your suppliers.
© 2026 EASYHARMONY TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED (EHC). All rights reserved.