The EPA has recently released a draft proposal that would nearly double the amount of formaldehyde considered safe to inhale, a move strongly criticized by public health and environmental groups. This change is part of a broader reassessment of how the agency evaluates cancer risks from chemicals.
The draft was published on Dec. 3 and the EPA is asking for feedback on it through Feb. 2.
A few key details of the proposed change include:
- New Proposed Limit: The proposed changes would roughly double the safe inhalation limit compared to an assessment finalized by the Biden administration in early 2025.
- Methodology Shift: The previous EPA approach assumed that formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, posed a “linear” risk, meaning even small exposures could be dangerous. The new draft uses an industry-favored approach that assumes a “threshold” exists below which the chemical poses no risk.
- Ongoing Risk Determination: Despite the change in the inhalation threshold, the EPA maintains that formaldehyde still presents an overall “unreasonable risk” to human health in numerous use cases, especially for workers and consumers.
“This new EPA action opens the door to more pollution and may fundamentally change the agency’s framework for chemical risk assessment,” David Andrews, Ph.D., the Environmental Working Group’s acting chief science officer, said. “This change will enable chemical companies to profit further at the expense of public health.”
Formaldehyde is widely used in building materials, furniture, clothing, and other consumer goods, and is linked to cancer, leukemia, and respiratory illnesses.
The current EPA reference concentration (RfC) from an independent assessment is 0.007 mg/m³ for chronic non-cancer effects. The new draft proposes using a higher point of departure (POD) of 0.3 ppm (or 0.37 mg/m³) based on acute sensory irritation, which critics argue is not protective against long-term cancer risks.
“Doubling the so-called ‘safe’ level of formaldehyde isn’t science—it’s a gift to industry,” Melanie Benesh, EWG Vice President for Government Affairs, said. “The public deserves an EPA that protects them, not one that treats exposure of dangerous chemicals as an acceptable risk.”
COMMENTS