It is not a surprise. Formaldehyde is one of the most exhaustively used, and therefore studied and regulated, chemicals. Scientists lament that it keeps being a political football due to misunderstandings of one of the most basic tenets of chemistry; the dose makes the poison. For example, various environmental groups insisted for decades that formaldehyde in vaccines was 'probably' a key cause of autism diagnoses, along with many other things, while scientists tried in vain to note that a single pear has 120X the formaldehyde found in a vaccine, and you're only taking a vaccine once. Yet if you ignore science and only believe epidemiology, formaldehyde is used more than 40 years ago and vaccine diagnoses went up so they insist the chemical must be causing it.
It does not work that way. You simply are not getting enough to harm you unless you fall into a vat of it and drown. It's a chemical intermediate, so it becomes converted into other chemicals in processes that lead to a final product. Just because it is in products does not mean you are ingesting formaldehyde. So little formaldehyde remains in products you have to believe in homeopathy to think you are getting enough to matter. Nearly all of it is instead found in nature so humans would have alarming health issues if it were a problem.
You're not getting enough in vaccines or food or flooring to worry about; unless you think a pinch of salt in 120 Olympic-sized swimming pools is changing your hormones.
CH2O. Not so scary when you ignore the hype and look at the science.
The downside to having it in use is nothing. The upside is that it makes a lot of products affordable in a way alternatives cannot. Formaldehyde is a chemical chemical in a chain of 1,500,000 jobs and $1,600,000,000,000 in manufacturing.
Because of its importance, and its ubiquity, it is important that it be reviewed regularly. Not in a 'scientists need to keep reviewing it until they agree with Sierra Club' way that some administrations have done, but in a thoughtful, rigorous manner. Using science, not just epidemiological correlation in surveys or dead mice.
That is why the EPA taking another look at formaldehyde is a win for public trust in science, especially during the period since 2009 when people are unsure what it science and what is politicization of science. Activists try to claim that an examination of a chemical means it must be risky. It does not. It only means it is popular.
Here are the important things to know:
1. Does it cause cancer? No. EPA has never said it does nor has any science body.
2. Is it harmful in air? No. You are fine even living next to a chemical plant that makes it. And no one lives that close.
3. Is it harmful in water? No. The alcohol in alcoholic beverages is harmful, not the formaldehyde which occurs naturally in alcoholic beverages. Even Korean Soju, which used to be the delight of adventurous Americans because it contained 'embalming fluid', only has as much as the pear mentioned above, and less than wine.
4. Are unprotected workers at risk? Yes, if they don't wear masks. EPA cautions about that because while they know companies mandate protective gear, they do not know that workers will always use it.
5. Are unprotected consumers at risk? Yes. Like most chemicals, there are warnings about eye irritation when this is used at high levels without protective gear.
So why is EPA looking at it again? The last assessment of formaldehyde delighted environmental lawyers but was controversial in the science community. Instead of using rigorous, transparent methods they abdicated the work to their Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, an administrative group created to help EPA do research and then bizarrely (and illegally, if government were not so bloated it has bigger problems to solve) began to issue its own risk assessments.
The group has never been respected by scientists, they are like that uncle who spouts food coloring conspiracy theories at Christmas dinner, but they are not usually anti-science fifth columnists like they have been for the last few years. The National Academies of Science (NAS) has criticized IRIS for “recurring problems with clarity and transparency of the methods” they use in making their claims while the Government Accountability Office (GAO) doesn't think IRIS has any value at all.
GAO is right. For example, IRIS created a reference dose for acetone that defies scientific comprehension. If IRIS had any authority, human breast milk would be banned because the acetone produced by mothers is twice their reference dose. Government would have to ban orange juice due to methanol.
Back to formaldehyde. IRIS created a safety standard of 0.008 parts per billion (ppb).Human breath is 8 ppb. With each breath humans are exposing themselves to 1000X the IRIS safe level. If IRIS had any standing, human breath would be banned even faster than human breast milk.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration's EPA was in an overt war on science. Not just weedkillers, where they did strange things like go to court against their own scientists to undo science-based regulations and replace them with epidemiology. They also began the process to create a de facto ban on formaldehyde by using IRIS beliefs rather than science.
A spreadsheet created using surveys is not how science should be done but because it was done, EPA now has to go and do the science all over again.
Comments