Historical evolution of regulatory standards for occupational and consumer exposures to industrial talc

Our plain-English summary of Historical evolution of regulatory standards for occupational and consumer exposures to industrial talc, by D.A. Drechsel, C.A. Barlow, J.L. Bare, et al (Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 2018).

The study

• Authors: D.A. Drechsel, C.A. Barlow, J.L. Bare, N.F. Jacobs, J.L. Henshaw
• Journal: Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
• Published: 2018;92:251-267
• Type of article: Review
• Cited by: 8 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher

Abstract

Talc has been used historically in a wide range of industrial applications and consumer products. The composition and purity of talc used for industrial purposes can vary greatly depending on the source and may contain asbestos minerals. The developing science associated with the health risks of asbestos had an effect on the talc industry throughout the 20th century. This review presents a detailed analysis of the evolution of regulatory standards impacting the use of industrial talc in the U.S. from the early 20th century through the 1990s. While it was recognized by the 1930s that airborne exposures to talc dust at high concentrations could cause lung disease, it was not until later that concerns were raised about the health risks associated with potential occupational exposures to asbestos from industrial talc. Regulatory agencies adopted occupational standards for industrial talc in the early 1970s, but the terminology used to define and characterize talc and other associated minerals varied between agencies. In addition, the complex and varying mineralogy of industrial talc led to inconsistent and imprecise interpretation of studies concerning health risk and occupational health standards among individual agencies.

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

In plain English

This article reviewed the history of U.S. regulatory standards for industrial-grade talc. Industrial talc can contain amphibole minerals such as tremolite and, to a lesser extent, anthophyllite. The authors searched publicly available documents, mainly from 1900 to about 1992. ACGIH set its first national talc limit in 1946 at 20 million particles per cubic foot (mppcf); some states had earlier talc limits. That limit rested on exposure levels at which a 1935 study reported no pneumoconiosis. In July 1974 the Bureau of Mines and MESA issued a mining asbestos standard separating asbestiform from non-asbestiform minerals. OSHA's position changed several times. In January 1977 it reversed an earlier 1974 position. Its 1986 rule covered all forms of tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite. In 1992 it removed the non-asbestiform forms of those minerals from its asbestos standard. In 1977 the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned consumer patching compounds and artificial emberizing materials containing respirable free-form asbestos; for patching compounds this meant intentionally added asbestos, not unavoidable trace amounts. The authors concluded that standards were often inconsistent and unclear, both between and within agencies.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Review of historical regulatory, scientific and industry documents (literature search)
• Who was studied: Publicly available U.S. documents (federal government, trade journals, professional societies, scientific literature), mainly from 1900 to about 1992, limited to English or available translations
• Exposure: Industrial-grade talc, which in some deposits contains amphibole minerals such as tremolite and to a lesser extent anthophyllite, in asbestiform or non-asbestiform habits
• Main results:
  • In 1942 the ACGIH (then NCGIH) Subcommittee compiled existing state limits, which included talc values of 10 mppcf in North Carolina and 50 mppcf in Colorado and California. Before ACGIH's first set of limits in 1946, there were no national occupational exposure limits.
  • The ACGIH 1946 maximum allowable concentration for talc of 20 mppcf was based on exposure levels associated with no pneumoconiosis in the Dreessen and Dalla Valle (1935) study of Georgia talc workers
  • In July 1974 the Bureau of Mines/MESA issued its first independent asbestos standard for metal and non-metal mines, distinguishing asbestiform from non-asbestiform mineral varieties
  • In January 1977 OSHA (Morton Corn) rescinded the 1974 Stender letter. OSHA then treated a tremolite particle meeting its fiber size definition as asbestos regardless of whether it was asbestiform or non-asbestiform
  • OSHA's June 1986 final asbestos rule stated that all forms of tremolite, anthophyllite and actinolite should be regulated under the asbestos standard
  • In 1992 OSHA removed non-asbestiform tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite from the scope of its asbestos standard
  • In 1983 ACGIH recommended an exposure limit of 2 mg/m3 for 'talc (containing no asbestos fibers)'
  • OSHA's 1989 lowering of the talc limit was vacated, and the OSHA limit for 'talc (not containing asbestos)' reverted to the 1972 standard of 20 mppcf
  • In December 1977 the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned consumer patching compounds and artificial emberizing materials containing respirable free-form asbestos
  • The Consumer Product Safety Commission noted that the ban applied only to consumer patching compounds containing intentionally added asbestos, not to products with unavoidable trace amounts
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that regulatory standards for industrial talc were often inconsistent and unclear both between and within individual agencies, particularly in the 1970s
• Limitations the authors state:
  • The review was limited to literature originally in English unless translations were available
  • The discussion of health studies was not intended to be a comprehensive review; it covered only studies relied on by agencies
  • Cosmetic talc was not reviewed

Topics

The National Library of Medicine indexes this study under subjects our site covers: Talc and vermiculite.

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Industrial Talc, Talc, Asbestos, Occupational Exposure, Mineralogy.

Related studies

• History of knowledge and evolution of occupational health and regulatory aspects of asbestos exposure science: 1900-1975 — C.A. Barlow, J. Sahmel, et al. (2017)
• Occupational exposures to cosmetic talc and risk of mesothelioma: an updated pooled cohort and statistical power analysis with consideration of latency period — G.M. Marsh, A.M. Ierardi, et al. (2019)
• Talc: occurrence, characterization, and consumer applications — R. Zazenski, W.H. Ashton, et al. (1995)
• Industrial-grade talc exposure and the risk of mesothelioma — B. Price (2010)
• Analysis of particles from hamster lungs following pulmonary talc exposures: implications for pathogenicity — E. Sato, S.A. McDonald, et al. (2020)
• Perineal talc use and ovarian cancer risk: a case study of scientific standards in environmental epidemiology — M. Huncharek, J. Muscat (2011)

Browse more research in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, or return to medical research.