Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). suggestion To increase exposure levels to highly carcinogenic formaldehyde that it considers safe. If successful, experts and advocates say, people would still be exposed to alarming amounts of the toxin in thousands of everyday products used throughout the economy.
Formaldehyde, a colorless gas that is pungent at room temperature, is found in a range of cosmetics, personal care products, household cleaners, craft supplies, leather goods, furniture, clothing, plastics, building materials and other everyday goods. During Joe Biden’s term, EPA scientists took a major step toward curbing broad societal risks by issuing a finding that any level of formaldehyde exposure can cause cancer, and that very low levels cause non-cancerous health damage.
Chemical manufacturers, who usually produce Up to 5 billion pounds of formaldehyde annually in the United States, strongly disagreed with the results of the risk assessments under Biden. Industry leaders who took part in the charge against the EPA’s formaldehyde evaluations in recent years were appointed this year by the Trump administration to run relevant parts of the agency — and now they are attacking the science from within.
the Proposed changes It represents the scenario that many public health advocates fear if Trump hands the EPA over to industry. In simpler terms, the changes will preserve industry profits while rolling back efforts to better protect people’s health.
“When you have ubiquitous chemicals and that toxicity, it really requires strong regulation,” said Jonathan Kalmus Katz, an attorney at Earthjustice, which litigates toxic chemical cases. “You really need the government to do its job and provide protection.”
As well as being well known Carcinogenicand is bound to formaldehyde Respiratory problems, Miscarriage and fertility problems.
More than powerful Opposition to the chemical industry Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency in January finished its assessment of formaldehyde risks Resultswhich is useful in developing regulations that limit or prohibit the use of the substance in consumer goods and in the workplace.
Formaldehyde is ubiquitous in consumer goods in part because it is so versatile. Companies add it to cosmetics, personal care products, paints, and craft products because it is an effective preservative. It is also commonly added as a binder to composite wood, such as particle board, which is used to make furniture, cabinetry, and other household goods. Bamboo products, including cutting boards, are often bonded with formaldehyde glue.
The substance is added to clothing or textiles to help prevent mold growth and deterioration, and is used in plastics, such as kitchen utensils, to help the products resist heat. Furniture and mattress foam producers use it as an adhesive or antimicrobial agent.
Because formaldehyde is off-gassed by products to which it is added, inhaling the chemical is the greatest risk. Risk assessments conducted by the Biden and Trump teams focused on inhalation.
The regulations regarding toxic chemicals have a major flaw, as they do not take into account cumulative exposure to the substances. For example, if regulators consider the risks in formaldehyde in cosmetics, they are not assessing how levels are exacerbated by formaldehyde that may also be in the office, inside a car, or other products that people may also be exposed to during the day.
That’s partly why the EPA’s findings are so important to Biden — they would have reduced exposure almost across the board. Biden’s EPA Found 58 scenarios in which formaldehyde could pose an “unreasonable risk” to human health, and the Trump administration is eliminating five of these scenarios.
The law requires EPA to place restrictions on uses for which the agency finds unreasonable risks. No new restrictions will be imposed for those five scenarios reversed by the Trump administration, which Kalmos-Katz said relate to exposure in industrial workplaces.
For the other 53 scenarios in which Biden’s EPA found an unreasonable risk, weaker risk assessment results would lead to weaker restrictions. Among the consumer product scenarios in which EPA found unreasonable risks of formaldehyde exposure are furniture, wood products, and automotive products.
“Any kind of protection is going to be much weaker than it would otherwise be,” said Maria Dua, director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund, which files lawsuits over toxic chemicals.
The move is part of a broader effort to weaken risk assessments for toxic chemicals, and the industry has waged a war for decades against stricter regulations on formaldehyde.
At the heart of Trump’s EPA reassessments is how the agency’s scientists assess cancer risk. Previously, carcinogens that damage DNA were considered among the most dangerous because any exposure to them posed a risk of cancer.
EPA scientists evaluated the chemicals using a “linear” risk assessment, meaning that a cancer risk is assumed down to “zero” exposure to formaldehyde, or other carcinogens. This approach has long been the EPA standard, and a goal of industry.
The Trump administration’s new approach sets a threshold at which exposure is considered a risk. Any level of exposure below this limit is considered safe. In short, exposure levels now considered a cancer risk will no longer be so if the changes are approved.
The EPA and its Office of Chemical Safety are headed by two former executives from the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents nearly 200 of the nation’s largest chemical makers and has Welcome The agency’s new position.
Nancy Beck is now Deputy Associate Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Lynn DeCleva is Deputy Associate Administrator of EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Until 2022DeCleva helped lead attacks on the EPA’s formaldehyde findings that she is now working from within to retract. The EPA defended DeKleva and Beck’s participation in the new risk assessments, insisting they adhered to federal ethics rules.
The proposed change stems from science Defeat The federal government and Independent researchers Which reached a broad consensus on the dangers of formaldehyde. The proposal also follows the usual industry playbook, claiming there is no consensus on the risks.
Dua, of the Environmental Defense Fund, said the new risk assessment data was “cherry-picked” to reach its conclusions, but a lawsuit could not be filed until the regulatory process was over. Duaa added: “What they are doing is scientifically horrific and incorrect.” “It’s rude.”