Quick Summary
• The EPA determined that formaldehyde poses an “unreasonable risk” to human health, particularly for workers and consumers exposed through everyday products.
• Formaldehyde exposure can cause cancer, reduce lung function, and worsen asthma, with risks coming from items like building materials, car products, and textiles.
• The EPA’s report found that 58 out of 63 exposure scenarios pose a significant health risk, yet the agency weakened protections for workers compared to an earlier draft.
• Environmental groups criticized the EPA for failing to address health risks faced by fence line communities living near industrial plants emitting formaldehyde.
• The American Chemistry Council called the report “flawed” and warned that stricter regulations could hurt the U.S. economy and increase product prices.
• House Republicans, led by Rep. Pete Sessions, have urged the incoming Trump administration to invalidate the EPA’s formaldehyde findings.
• Despite the EPA’s risk determination, it is unclear whether formaldehyde regulations will move forward under the new administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that formaldehyde, a chemical widely used in industrial and consumer products, poses an “unreasonable risk” to human health, particularly to workers and consumers exposed to it in everyday environments. However, the agency’s report, released Thursday, downplayed the threat formaldehyde poses to residents living near industrial facilities that emit large quantities of the carcinogen into the air.
The release of the EPA report comes after a ProPublica investigation found that formaldehyde causes more cancer cases than any other toxic air pollutant in the U.S., triggering severe health issues such as asthma, miscarriages, and fertility problems. Despite the health risks, industry groups are resisting stricter regulations, claiming that regulating formaldehyde would harm the economy.
The EPA’s report assessed 63 scenarios in which workers and consumers encounter formaldehyde and found that 58 of those situations contribute to the chemical’s unreasonable risk to human health. The chemical is present in numerous products, including car waxes, crafting supplies, ink and toner, photographic materials, building materials, and textiles.
“Formaldehyde presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health, specifically to workers and consumers,” the EPA stated. The agency noted that long-term exposure to the substance can cause cancer, reduce lung function, and worsen asthma.
Formaldehyde is one of the most common chemicals in commerce. It is used in manufacturing plastics, resins, textiles, and preservatives. Due to its ubiquity, people are routinely exposed to the chemical from multiple sources in both indoor and outdoor environments.
The EPA’s finalized risk assessment contains weaker protections for workers than a previous draft released in March 2024. The earlier draft proposed stricter limits on workplace exposure, but the final version increased the allowable exposure levels for workers.
“This is a less protective standard that would leave workers at risk,” said Maria Doa, senior director of chemicals policy at the Environmental Defense Fund and a former EPA chemist. She noted that the EPA’s report indicates that roughly 450,000 workers could remain vulnerable to formaldehyde’s harmful effects.
According to Katherine O’Brien, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, the EPA’s decision to weaken worker protections is deeply concerning. “Despite calculating very high cancer risks for people in their homes and also fence line community residents, EPA has completely written off those risks, and set the stage for no regulation to address those risks,” O’Brien said. “That’s deeply disappointing and very hard to comprehend.”
Formaldehyde emissions are especially concerning for residents living near industrial facilities, known as fence line communities, who are at higher risk of cancer and respiratory issues. According to ProPublica’s analysis of the EPA’s AirToxScreen data from 2020, about 320 million people live in areas where the lifetime cancer risk from formaldehyde exposure is 10 times higher than the agency’s acceptable threshold.
Indoor exposure is also a significant issue, as formaldehyde continues to emit from furniture, building materials, and consumer products long after they are installed or purchased. ProPublica’s analysis showed that cancer risk from outdoor formaldehyde exposure exceeds the EPA’s ideal threshold in every census block across the U.S.
The chemical industry has pushed back against the EPA’s findings. The American Chemistry Council, a major lobbying group for the chemical industry, criticized the report, claiming it is based on “flawed” assessments. The group argued that formaldehyde is essential for many products and that stricter regulations could lead to higher prices, reduced economic output, and a loss of U.S. competitiveness.
“Without robust formaldehyde manufacturing in the United States, we could face increased product prices, reduced economic output, and a loss of the U.S.’s competitive edge,” the group said in a statement.
Some Republican lawmakers have also voiced opposition to the EPA’s findings. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) called on the incoming Trump administration to prioritize reversing the EPA’s formaldehyde regulations. In a letter to Trump’s pick for EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, Sessions claimed that the report was based on “unscientific data” and would hinder economic growth.
The formaldehyde issue will be one of the first regulatory tests for the incoming Trump administration. During his first term, Trump’s administration delayed the release of a previous formaldehyde risk assessment. The report, which was set to be published in 2017, was shelved after a Trump-appointed official in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development — a former employee of Koch Industries, a company that produces formaldehyde — intervened. The report was not released until August 2024, long after the appointee left the agency.
On the campaign trail, Trump has stated his support for clean air but also vowed to roll back regulations he views as burdensome to businesses. The American Chemistry Council has signaled that it will lobby the new administration to overturn or weaken the EPA’s formaldehyde risk assessment.
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA is legally obligated to draft regulations to eliminate the unreasonable risks posed by formaldehyde. However, it is unclear whether the incoming Trump administration will follow through on that requirement or attempt to reverse the Biden-era findings.
Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, emphasized that the EPA’s legal obligation to regulate formaldehyde remains. “Having made that unreasonable risk determination, [the Toxic Substances Control Act] requires EPA to issue a rule that fully eliminates formaldehyde’s unreasonable risks,” he said.
The FDA is also involved in regulating formaldehyde in certain products, such as hair straightening treatments. The FDA previously indicated plans to ban formaldehyde in these products, but the proposed rule has not yet been finalized. It is unlikely that the ban will be implemented before the Trump administration takes office.
Environmental advocates argue that the EPA’s current risk assessment does not go far enough to protect fence line communities and workers.
“EPA correctly found that formaldehyde presents unreasonable risk to human health,” said Kalmuss-Katz. “But the agency did not find unreasonable risk to fence line communities. That will result in a rule that fails to fully address formaldehyde’s unreasonable risks and leaves too many people exposed to serious harm.”
Maria Doa echoed those concerns, calling on the EPA to adopt stricter workplace protections and address the risks faced by residents near industrial plants.
The EPA’s formaldehyde risk assessment marks a critical step toward regulating a chemical that has long been linked to serious health risks, including cancer. However, the report’s weakened protections for workers and fence line communities have drawn criticism from environmental groups and public health advocates.
As Kalmuss-Katz noted, the stakes are high: “The EPA has identified formaldehyde as a serious health risk. Now, it’s a question of whether those in power will take the necessary steps to protect the public or bow to industry pressure.”
COMMENTS