The record
The scientific dispute over whether cosmetic talc is contaminated is genuine and unresolved, turning substantially on the distinction between amphibole asbestos and amphibole cleavage fragments.
Claim scope
A published appellate opinion, quoting a standard scientific-evidence treatise, characterising the dispute as one of genuine expert disagreement. This is the honest framing device for the site: the disagreement is real and can be stated on the authority of a published opinion rather than of either side's experts.
What this source does not establish
It does not resolve the dispute in either direction. Strobel reversed a defence summary judgment — i.e. it held a jury COULD find exposure, not that asbestos was present.
Limitations
The cleavage-fragment literature required by rule 5 is directly reachable here. Defence-aligned PubMed-indexed examples already resolved in groundwork: PMID 36965797 (non-asbestiform elongate mineral particles and mesothelioma risk) and PMID 38619498 (review of mesotheliogenic potency of cleavage fragments in talc). Lanzo additionally records OSHA's 1992 removal of non-asbestiform tremolite/anthophyllite/actinolite from the asbestos standard AND NIOSH's contrary recommendation — cite both sides from the opinions themselves.
Source
Case Citation — Strobel v. Johnson & Johnson, 70 Cal.App.5th 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 1st Dist. Div. 4, 2021)