The record
EU food-additive specifications require talc (E 553b) to be free of asbestos, and EFSA's 2018 re-evaluation of E 553b as a food additive (EFSA Journal 16(8):5375) concluded that the safety of talc when used as a food additive 'cannot be assessed' because reliable subchronic, chronic, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity data were lacking. An updated EFSA opinion is in progress (EC mandate amended July 2026).
Claim scope
That EU law already requires food-grade talc to be asbestos-free; that EFSA in 2018 could not assess the safety of food-additive talc for lack of data; and that an updated EU assessment is underway.
What this source does not establish
Does not establish that food-grade talc in commerce is contaminated — the asbestos-free specification is a legal requirement, not a test result. The 2018 'cannot be assessed' conclusion reflects missing toxicological data, not a finding of harm. Inhalation and perineal/ovarian routes were expressly outside the food-additive evaluation's scope.
Limitations
Anchor for the food/pharma-grade angle. Note the contrast the page may draw: the EU food specification has an asbestos-free requirement while US cosmetic talc has no binding federal testing standard.
Source
Gov Report — EFSA ANS Panel, 'Re-evaluation of calcium silicate (E 552), magnesium silicate (E 553a(i)), magnesium trisilicate (E 553a(ii)) and talc (E 553b) as food additives,' EFSA Journal 2018;16(8):5375, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5375 (PMC7009349; PMID 32626019); Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012