By Jonathan Tilove
June 02, 2010
WASHINGTON – The EPA has concluded that formaldehyde is carcinogenic when inhaled by humans. Public concern about the substance grew dramatically in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when many people living in FEMA trailers after the storm reported respiratory and other health problems from prolonged exposure to formaldehyde.
“There is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the upper respiratory tracts, with the strongest evidence for nasopharyngeal and sino-nasal cancers,” the draft assessment made public on Wednesday concludes. “There is also sufficient evidence of a causal association between formaldehyde exposure and lymphohematopoietic cancers, with the strongest evidence of Hodgkin’s lymphoma and leukemia, particularly myleloid leukemia.
The 1,043-page draft also identifies seven other non-cancer health effects from formaldehyde inhalation. They are: “1) sensory irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, 2) upper respiratory tract pathology, 3) pulmonary function, 4)asthma and atopy, 5) neurologic and behavioral toxicity, 6) reproductive and developmental toxicity, and 7) immunological toxicity.”
EPA notes that “formaldehyde is present in a wide variety of products including some plywood adhesives, abrasive materials, insulation, insecticides and embalming fluids. The major sources of anthropogenic emissions of formaldehyde are motor vehicle exhaust, power plants, manufacturing plants that produce or use formaldehyde or substances that contain it (i.e. glues), petroleum refineries, coking operations, incinerating, wood burning and tobacco smoke.”
The draft assessment released Wednesday is the result of a process that began in 1990.
“If this had taken even `only’ ten years to develop regulations, the 120,000-plus families housed in FEMA trailers wouldn’t have had to deal with illnesses from formaldehyde exposure in addition to trying to recover from losing everything in the hurricanes,” Becky Gillette, of Eureka Springs, Ark., formaldehyde campaign director for the Sierra Club, said Wednesday.
The EPA draft is now subject to 90 days of public comment and will also be peer reviewed by an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences, which will have nine months to return its evaluation of the draft to EPA.
That panel is chaired by Jonathan Samet, a pulmonary physician and epidemiologist, who is a professor at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California. The vice chair is Andrew Olshan, chair of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health.
The National Academy panel will hold its first meeting on Monday in Washington. It is open to the public.
Formaldehyde causes cancer, EPA declares
By Jonathan Tilove
June 03, 2010
WASHINGTON — The EPA has concluded that formaldehyde is carcinogenic when inhaled by humans, a finding that could lead to stringent new regulations of the widely used chemical.
Used in the production of countless consumer products, formaldehyde attained a degree of national infamy after Hurricane Katrina when some of those living in the 120,000 trailers provided by FEMA as temporary housing for storm victims reported respiratory and other health problems after prolonged exposure to the chemical, which is contained in wood products in the trailers.
The EPA’s draft assessment of the health perils of formaldehyde, released Wednesday, is now subject to 90 days of public comment and a nine-month peer review by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences, on its way likely to forming the basis for new regulation of formaldehyde levels in myriad products.
“There is sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between formaldehyde exposure and cancers of the upper respiratory tracts, with the strongest evidence for nasopharyngeal and sino-nasal cancers,” the 1,043-page draft assessment concludes. “There is also sufficient evidence of a causal association between formaldehyde exposure and lymphohematopoietic cancers, with the strongest evidence of Hodgkin lymphoma and leukemia, particularly myleloid leukemia.”
The EPA document also identifies seven other non-cancer health effects from formaldehyde inhalation: sensory irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat; upper respiratory tract pathology; pulmonary function; asthma and atopy; neurologic and behavioral toxicity; reproductive and developmental toxicity; and immunological toxicity.
Betsy Natz, executive of the Formaldehyde Council, representing leading formaldehyde producers and users in the United States, took issue with EPA’s findings, contending that there is not a demonstrable link between formaldehyde and leukemia, or a causal link with nasopharyngeal and sino-nasal cancers.
“Any regulatory decision based on incomplete information could cause significant harm to an industry that supplies so many products critical to the home and commercial building, automotive and aerospace industries, as well as defense-related applications and vaccines used worldwide to prevent polio, cholera, diphtheria and other major diseases,” Natz said.
But Becky Gillette of Eureka Springs, Ark., formaldehyde campaign director for the Sierra Club, said the pity of Wednesday’s development was that it was so long in coming.
According to the EPA’s chronology, the process that led to its draft assessment began in 1990.
“If this had taken even ‘only’ 10 years to develop regulations, the 120,000-plus families housed in FEMA trailers wouldn’t have had to deal with illnesses from formaldehyde exposure in addition to trying to recover from losing everything in the hurricanes,” Gillette said.
While the FEMA trailers called attention to the presence of formaldehyde in wood products, EPA identified the major source of formaldehyde emissions as motor vehicle exhaust, manufacturing plants, power plants, petroleum refineries, coking operations, incinerating, wood burning and tobacco smoke.
The National Academy panel will hold its first meeting on the draft assessment Monday in Washington. The panel is led by Jonathan Samet, a pulmonary physician and epidemiologist, who is a professor at the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California. The vice chairman is Andrew Olshan, chairman of the Department of Epidemiology at the University of North Carolina’s Gillings School of Global Public Health.
The new formaldehyde assessment comes as both the House and Senate appear poised to enact legislation, perhaps this month, setting new national standards for formaldehyde levels in composite wood products on a par with those established two years ago by the state of California. That legislation, backed by the Composite Panel Association and other wood industry groups, was reported out of the House Energy Committee last week on a 27-10 vote that included the support of both Reps. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, and Steve Scalise, R-Jefferson, one of three Republicans on the committee to vote yes.
How Senator Vitter Battled the EPA Over Formaldehyde’s Link to Cancer
Toxic Trailors.com – Toxic Court (Louisiana) stacks deck against formaldehyde victims
The high cost of FEMA’s learning curve
Children from FEMA Trailers Battle Serious Health Problems
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) confirms link between formaldehyde and leukemia
TRUTH OUT Sharon Kramer Letter To Andrew Saxon MOLD ISSUE
Action Group Asks U of CA To Take Name Off US Chamber Medico-Legal Publication
New Action Committee – ACHEMMIC- Urges Transparency in EPA Policy Over Mold & Microbial Contaminants
Truth About Mold – the most up to date, accurate, and reliable information on Toxic Mold
Sociological Issues Relating to Mold: The Mold Wars
“Changes in construction methods have caused US buildings to become perfect petri dishes for mold and bacteria to flourish when water is added. Instead of warning the public and teaching physicians that the buildings were causing illness; in 2003 the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, a think-tank, and a workers comp physician trade organization mass marketed an unscientific nonsequitor to the courts to disclaim the adverse health effects to stave off liability for financial stakeholders of moldy buildings. Although publicly exposed many times over the years, the deceit lingers in US courts to this very day.” Sharon Noonan Kramer
