It's talc. Why on earth would someone put asbestos in talc? It would defeat the purpose of reducing friction.
Well both is a mineral, although one comes in form of a fibre. Wikipedia (german:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbest#Entdeckung_der_Gesundheitsgefahren) states that talc containing asbest was at least some time used in cables and tire manufacturing and refers to TRGS 517 (also german, just listing talc containing asbest in cable-, tire and rubber goods manufacturing as possibly used).
Anyway the claim was that the baby powder caused ovary cancer. In case of asbest, the long time from exposure to development of cancer can be 20 years and usually you´d assume that there has to be a carcinogen. On the other hand... you can find the asbest fibres (which the body can not dissolve, therefore getting fibrous) in the middle of the tissue, i consider that a simple proof, maybe it just failed to proof that it was part of that powder.
How big the problem is, depends on the length of the fibre, because asbest < 5µm length, > 3µm diameter and length/width < 3:1 are not counted as asbest fibres per WHO, but rather asbest mineral. So the method of how this powder is ground probably also plays a role, as there are some ambigous definitions on which type of rock can contain asbest fibres because not all forms contain it.
I personally like to filter all this through the filter of my cigarette and try not to lick or inhale cables.