New reporting from ProPublica found that under the incoming Trump administration, regulations to curb formaldehyde are under threat. Formaldehyde is one of the most widespread toxic pollutants and causes more cancer than any other air pollutant. Under President Biden, the Environmental Protection Agency will release its final health assessment of formaldehyde by the end of this month. The EPA is expected to use that assessment for creating new rules that could restrict formaldehyde.
SHARON LERNER; sharon.lerner@propublica.org, @fastlerner
Lerner is a reporter covering the environment for ProPublica.
Lerner told the Institute for Public Accuracy: “By the end of December, the EPA has to issue a final version of the Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA). After they have a risk assessment, the EPA can go on and use that assessment to make a rule that could restrict formaldehyde in various ways. That task will fall to the Trump administration.
“The Trump administration has a few options here. It could go ahead and look back at the HHRA that will soon be finalized under Biden and alter it, or they could go back to the Integrated Risk Information System, which was done by another branch of the EPA and was finalized in August. The Trump administration could announce that they are reconsidering or changing that [report] as well. Even if they don’t do that, it will be up to [the new administration] to issue a rule that would theoretically reduce formaldehyde. I don’t have a crystal ball, but we know that the first Trump administration rolled back [over 100 environmental rules]. They let industry have its way in terms of chemical regulation. It is highly unlikely that if they do issue a rule that it will be protective.”
Trump has also announced a more aggressive approach than his last time in office, laying out a plan to require federal agencies to cut 10 rules for every one they introduce.
“There has been a major push by industry to weaken any efforts to restrict formaldehyde,” Lerner said. “It is an important chemical to industry. Seventy-five trade groups wrote to the EPA weighing in about it; overwhelmingly, they pick apart the agency’s science and independent science that links formaldehyde to cancer and other problems. They also say that if you restrict formaldehyde, it will be devastating for [trade groups]: to agriculture, construction. Many trade groups say that the consequences of regulation would be dire. That is why it seems highly unlikely that Trump, who has been responsive to industry in the environmental realm, would do anything this time. I would be pleased to be wrong on that.”
The EPA’s goal for air pollutants is to limit the risk of getting exposure to a pollutant to one incidence of cancer in a million people. “There are one or two toxins that climb above one [incidence per million], but very few,” Lerner added. “Officially, formaldehyde is 20.68 per million. But that is an underestimate by four-fold: it’s really between 77 and 79. Because this is an important and widespread and toxic chemical, people have been trying to rein it in for decades. But if you’re not paying attention to this space, it’s easy not to know that. Formaldehyde is by far the biggest driver of cancer in terms of individual air pollutants. Besides asbestos, it’s the biggest driver overall. It’s been virtually impossible to regulate, and it’s so significant commercially that the fight around it has been huge and effectively disabling for EPA.
“Will the Biden EPA take the side of industry? We don’t know. But even if it does a great job with this, and is attentive to public health and aims to protect people from formaldehyde, it’s unlikely that the rule that comes out of it would be protected under the new administration… This is a time of waiting. We will have to see how this plays out in the coming weeks––and months and years. It’s frustrating, charting the efforts to [curb formaldehyde] since 1979. The battle has gone on since then; people keep coming close, falling behind, and then coming close again. Any time they get really close, they’re thwarted.”