Chemical Watchdog Bends to Industry, Puts Millions at Risk

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a controversial decision to downgrade the risks associated with formaldehyde, a chemical known to cause cancer. This move comes despite strong evidence linking formaldehyde to serious health issues like cancer, miscarriages, and asthma.

Key Points

• 58 Unreasonable Risks Identified: The EPA identified 58 situations where formaldehyde poses an unreasonable risk but reduced the threat level in key areas, such as wood product manufacturing.
• Corporate Influence Suspected: This decision has raised eyebrows, as it mirrors past instances where corporate lobbying has influenced regulatory outcomes.

Formaldehyde Exposure

Formaldehyde is ubiquitous—found in car interiors, building materials, textiles, and household products. Studies show:

• Outdoor levels exceed EPA's cancer-risk thresholds by 10 times.
• Myeloid leukemia risk (a type of blood cancer linked to formaldehyde) is 77 times the EPA's acceptable limit.

Regulatory Capture

The EPA's actions are part of a larger pattern of regulatory capture, where corporate interests take precedence over public health. Key developments include:

• Sidelining IRIS: The EPA has sidelined its own Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a program designed to assess chemical toxicity. Out of 55 scientists who worked on IRIS assessments, only eight remain after recent reorganizations.
• Preventing Stricter State Regulations: The EPA is pushing to prevent states from enacting stricter regulations, which would lock in corporate-friendly standards nationwide.

Broader Implications

This shift in stance on formaldehyde sets a dangerous precedent for other carcinogens. The EPA is currently evaluating chemicals like 1, 2-dichloroethane and 1, 3-butadiene, used in plastics manufacturing. If the same threshold approach is applied, corporations could effectively legalize unsafe exposure levels, putting millions more at risk.

Public Comment and Future Concerns

The public comment period on the EPA's formaldehyde assessment is closing soon. Advocates are concerned that this could mark the beginning of a broader deregulatory push, prioritizing corporate profits over public health. Meanwhile, Project 2025, a blueprint for a potential second Trump administration, calls for dismantling IRIS and relaxing radiation exposure limits, further benefiting industry interests.

Conclusion

The EPA was established to protect human health, not to shield corporations from accountability. However, its actions in the formaldehyde saga suggest otherwise. This situation highlights the need for stronger political will to prioritize public health over corporate profits. The question remains: how many more lives will be put at risk before meaningful change occurs?