Late last week, the Department of Health and Human Services classified formaldehyde as "a known carcinogen," adding its verdict to two similar reports released by key agencies since 2009.

But despite the growing scientific consensus about how formaldehyde can affect human health, it remains to be seen if the studies will lead to tighter U.S. formaldehyde regulations.

As we've previously reported, the Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to update its chemical risk assessment for formaldehyde since 1998, but has been stalled repeatedly by the chemical manufacturing industry.

EPA assessments are the country's gold standard for how dangerous a chemical is. The formaldehyde assessment would undoubtedly influence the stringency of a rule the EPA is developing on how much of the chemical can safely be released from construction materials that contain it

In 2009, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., maneuvered successfully to delay the assessment by putting a hold on the nomination of a key EPA appointee and forcing the agency to send its draft to the National Academy of Sciences for review.

Vitter has received substantial campaign contributions from the nation's largest formaldehyde manufacturers and users. After the EPA agreed to send its assessment to the NAS, a top industry lobbyist, Charles Grizzle, threw Vitter a fundraising party, requesting donations of $1,000 a plate.

The NAS finished reviewing the EPA assessment in April, sending back a long list of questions and advising the EPA not to finalize the document until it could show exactly how formaldehyde causes cancer, a biological mechanism known as the "mode of action."

Dr. Peter Infante, a former director of the Office of Carcinogen Identification and Classification at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, called the NAS critique "arrogant" because "we don't know the mode of action for most things that cause cancer."

Christopher De Rosa, a former senior toxicologist for the Centers for Disease Control, said the HHS study might "galvanize the EPA's political will to go forward with the risk assessment because it represents a convergence of opinions worldwide in terms of formaldehyde being a known carcinogen."

A spokesperson for the EPA did not respond to questions about how the HHS report will affect the EPA's risk assessment.

The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents the chemical industry, said in a written statement that the HHS report flies in the face of the Obama administration's commitment to sound science.

"We are extremely concerned that politics may have hijacked the scientific process and believe this report by HHS is an egregious contradiction to what the president said early in his administration," said Chemistry Council Chief Executive Cal Dooley.

3 Comments

1. 1. Charlie0057 06:30 PM 6/15/11

   This situation with the politician from Louisana stalling the ruling on formaldehyde is indicative of all that is wrong with the lobbying of Congress. When a lobbyist, paid for by the chemical companies, can influence legislation that will save many lives, the system is BROKEN. Lobbyist money is nothing short of a BRIBE!! Congress will never stop lobbying, because who in their right mind would kill their major source of cash?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. timbo555 in reply to Charlie0057 11:53 AM 6/16/11

   I don't know, I think the political process worked quite well in this case. The inflammatory headline read: "Despite being labeled a carcinogen, formaldehyde may remain loosely regulated".
   
   When we get into the story, we read that while it has be labeled a carcinogen, they just don't know "mode of action". This for me would be kind of an important tidbit of information to have in order to actually prove carcinogenicity.
   
   If I am a manufacturer of formaldehyde, I am going to do everything in my power to see that my ability to make and sell a product at a profit is not impinged upon. Look around you, Charlie, is there a giant plague of cancer deaths from formaldehyde looming over the population? Can you point to even one?
   
   Are you prepared to say at what minimum level of exposure to humans (not rats please) formaldehyde causes cancer? Parts per billion? Parts per trillion? Has risk assessment even been discussed?
   
   Your dilemma seems to be that any time a government scientist says "this causes cancer" Your knee jerk reaction is to blame the manufacturer, because he is making a "profit" off the product.
   
   The Full weight of the Federal Government says that fifty to one hundred million dollars has been spent to date determining the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde, and the best they can come up with is :"Oh yeah, its' a carcinogen all right , we just don't know HOW it's a carcinogen.
   
   For that matter, how many lives will be LOST by further regulation? Or is federal oversight so infallible that it has never once broken the law of unintended consequences? Think Alar. Think DDT.
   
   The CEO of any corporation has to answer to his board, his shareholders and the community he serves. That he paid a lobbyist a few hundred thousand dollars to protect his interests and the interests of his company suggests to me that he is doing the best he can against the bigger menace, The Federal Government of the United States.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. limonoid 10:00 PM 6/21/11

   In fact, although there is evidence that long term exposure to formaldehyde at high levels in air has potential to produce cancer of the nasopharynx, there is no evidence and little support for formaldehyde as a carcinogen via other routes or at low levels with intermittent exposure. Many foods for example naturally contain quite significant levels (100's of mg/kg) of formaldehyde (crustaceans, shitake mushrooms, pears). The careless labelling of naturally occuring substances as carcinogenic simply fuels the rampant chemophobia that pervades our society. That said application of the ALARA principle is valid when considering indoor air quality but this must be balanced with costs and risks of alternatives.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this