Originally published by ProPublica, a non-profit news organization dedicated to investigating abuses of power, this article delves into the pervasive and hazardous presence of formaldehyde in our environment. Despite its known toxicity, efforts to regulate this chemical have been consistently obstructed by industries that rely on it.

The Biden administration has made strides in addressing formaldehyde's risks, but a ProPublica investigation reveals that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has significantly underestimated the dangers it poses, particularly its link to myeloid leukemia, a deadly blood cancer affecting approximately 29,000 Americans annually.

Formaldehyde, a cornerstone of American commerce, is utilized in various sectors, from preserving bodies in funeral homes to manufacturing furniture and plastics. Its risks extend beyond workers to the general public, as it contaminates the air and emanates from products long after they've entered homes. A ProPublica analysis found that formaldehyde exposure poses elevated cancer risks universally, regardless of geographic location.

Federal regulators have been aware of formaldehyde's toxicity for over four decades, yet their attempts to curb its use have been repeatedly hindered by companies dependent on it. The EPA is anticipated to introduce new regulations that may limit formaldehyde, but the agency has sidestepped some of its scientists' conclusions on the chemical's potential to cause myeloid leukemia. This has led to a significant underestimation of cancer risks, potentially by as much as four times. The EPA's decision to exclude myeloid leukemia from its cancer risk assessment was based on the uncertainty of the estimate, a move that has been criticized by former government scientists who assert that the risk calculation was accurate.

Jennifer Jinot, an EPA scientist who calculated the leukemia risk, highlighted the inherent uncertainty in estimating chemical health effects but pointed to a lack of courage within the agency. "In the end, they chickened out," she said, reflecting on the agency's decision-making process. The EPA has also backed away from acknowledging other health effects of formaldehyde, such as asthma, respiratory issues, and reproductive harms.

A draft report by the EPA, expected to be finalized soon, identifies numerous instances where formaldehyde poses a public health threat but questions the necessity of addressing most of them. The EPA's response to ProPublica's inquiries indicated that the report is still in progress and undergoing updates.

Historically, the EPA's efforts to limit formaldehyde have been thwarted, with the chemical industry often taking the lead in shaping narratives about its products. The Trump administration further exacerbated this issue, with the president vowing to roll back regulations perceived as anti-business. This approach not only affects formaldehyde protections but also undermines broader government efforts to safeguard public health.

ProPublica's investigation involved months of research into formaldehyde's dangers and the government's struggle to regulate it. They analyzed federal air pollution data, conducted home tests, interviewed over 50 experts, and reviewed thousands of scientific studies and EPA records. The conclusion is that the public health risks from formaldehyde are more extensive than understood, and the prospects for addressing them seem grim.

The EPA has consistently been outmatched by the profitable chemical industry, which has a history of creating favorable narratives about its products. This dynamic intensified over the past four years as the EPA attempted to assess the public health threat of formaldehyde. The regulatory system places the burden of proof on the government to demonstrate a chemical's harm rather than on the industry to prove its safety.

Throughout various administrations, the EPA has employed staff with close ties to chemical companies, and sometimes it is led by industry insiders. The Trump administration's approach to deregulation is expected to significantly impact formaldehyde protections and other environmental efforts. Under Trump, the EPA appointed a chemical industry figure who had defended formaldehyde, leading to the shelving of a toxicity report and a refusal to enforce limits on formaldehyde emissions from wood products until compelled by a court.

The latest attempts to address formaldehyde pollution are likely to face a similar fate, according to UCLA School of Law professor William Boyd, who specializes in environmental governance. He sees formaldehyde as a symbol of the EPA's failure to regulate chemicals effectively. Given its importance in lucrative industrial processes, companies that produce and use formaldehyde have heavily invested in challenging and delaying government efforts to control it.

Formaldehyde is as omnipresent in industry as salt is in cooking, with between 1 billion and 5 billion pounds manufactured in the U.S. each year. Outdoor air often contains formaldehyde gas from various sources, including vehicles, smoke, factories, and oil and gas extraction. This invisible gas increases cancer risks, particularly in certain parts of the country.

This year, the EPA released its most advanced estimate of the probability of developing cancer due to exposure to chemicals in outdoor air across every populated census block in the United States. The assessment reveals that formaldehyde poses the greatest cancer risk among numerous air pollutants. However, ProPublica's analysis of this data uncovers a more concerning reality: formaldehyde's risk significantly exceeds the agency's own targets.

ProPublica found that in every census block, the lifetime risk of developing cancer from exposure to outdoor formaldehyde is higher than the agency's limit of one case per million people. This risk level implies that if a million people in an area are continuously exposed to formaldehyde over 70 years, the chemical would cause at most one additional case of cancer, beyond other existing risks.

According to ProPublica's analysis of the EPA's 2020 AirToxScreen data, approximately 320 million people live in areas where the lifetime cancer risk from outdoor formaldehyde exposure is ten times higher than the agency's ideal. In the Los Angeles/San Bernardino area alone, about 7.2 million people face formaldehyde exposure at a cancer risk level more than 20 times higher than the EPA's goal.

Even these alarming figures understate the actual danger. The EPA admits that its cancer risk calculation does not account for the likelihood of developing myeloid leukemia. If the agency had used its scientists' calculation, the chemical's threat would appear much more severe. Instead of causing 20 cancer cases per million people in the U.S., formaldehyde would be shown to cause around 77.

Setting regulations based on the higher figure could potentially prevent thousands of cases of myeloid leukemia, according to ProPublica's analysis. The diagnosis can dramatically alter lives, as experienced by Mary Faltas, who developed myeloid leukemia in 2019. "It's like having a storm come through," she said. "It's gone, but now you're left with everything else to deal with."

While it's nearly impossible to identify a single cause for cancer, Faltas has spent her life in areas where the EPA's data indicates a cancer risk 30 times the agency's target level. Including the EPA's myeloid leukemia calculation, Faltas has lived in places where the cancer risk from formaldehyde alone is 50 to 70 times the agency's goal.

The outdoor risks we all face are compounded by the even greater indoor threat posed by formaldehyde in furniture, flooring, printer ink, and many other products. The average home has formaldehyde levels more than three times higher than the EPA's recommended level to protect against respiratory symptoms. The agency has indicated that there may not be a feasible way to reduce the average indoor formaldehyde level to a point with no or almost no potential risk.

ProPublica will further explore indoor risks and protection strategies in upcoming reports. The futile attempts to limit public exposure to formaldehyde date back to the early 1980s, shortly after the chemical was found to cause cancer in rats. The EPA planned to act swiftly to mitigate formaldehyde risks, but the effort was halted by a Reagan appointee who argued that formaldehyde posed no significant risk to humans.

A House investigation later revealed that this appointee had met with chemical industry representatives before making his decision. Despite the controversy, the EPA eventually classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen in 1991 and calculated its likelihood of causing a rare throat cancer. However, it became evident that further protection was necessary.

A 2003 study showed that factory workers exposed to high levels of formaldehyde were significantly more likely to develop myeloid leukemia than those exposed to lower levels. "Having human data showing an effect like that ... it's a rare thing," said Jinot, the former EPA statistician and toxicologist. "You want to seize that opportunity."

She and her colleagues at the agency analyzed data, reviewed medical literature, and consulted with other scientists to conclude that formaldehyde was a known carcinogen causing myeloid leukemia, among other cancers. However, their work encountered obstacles, with political interference leading to delays in the EPA's formaldehyde report updates.

The chemical industry capitalized on these delays, funding studies that portrayed formaldehyde as relatively harmless. Despite this, the EPA managed to implement a rule in 2016 limiting formaldehyde emissions from certain wood products. Under Trump, the rule was not enforced until a court order in 2018. Yet, once in effect, many companies complied, finding alternatives to formaldehyde in their products.

Under Trump, the EPA refused to advance other efforts to tighten formaldehyde regulations. When he took office, the agency was preparing to publish the toxicity report that Jinot had been working on. One of Trump's EPA appointments was David Dunlap, a chemical engineer who had previously argued against the EPA's stance on formaldehyde and leukemia while at Koch Industries.

At the EPA, Dunlap oversaw the division working on the toxicity report. Despite ethics rules requiring federal employees to recuse themselves from matters involving former clients for two years, Dunlap participated in internal discussions about formaldehyde's health effects before recusing himself in 2018. He signed his recusal paperwork the same day the EPA abandoned the toxicity report.

This August, the Biden EPA finally succeeded in getting the report reviewed and approved by other agencies and the White House. For the first time, it also established a threshold to protect against breathing difficulties caused by formaldehyde, such as increased asthma symptoms and reduced lung function.

In a draft of another key report on formaldehyde released this year, the EPA identified numerous scenarios where chemical levels could potentially trigger health issues, including workers using lawn and garden products and consumers inhaling the chemical from cleaners, foam seating, and flooring. However, the agency is only required to address risks deemed "unreasonable."

The EPA employed various unusual scientific strategies in its decision-making, including comparing outdoor air formaldehyde levels near polluters to the highest concentration measured by government monitors between 2015 and 2020. This peak level was recorded in Fontana, California, in 2018, leading the EPA to conclude that levels near factories would not be unreasonable if below this record high, despite local scientists noting that the Fontana reading did not meet quality control standards.

Rocky Rissler, a retired teacher in Weld County, Colorado, experiences the consequences of living near oil and gas facilities, which contribute to elevated formaldehyde risks. She endures frequent nausea-inducing pollution, headaches, worsening asthma, and has been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis and COPD—conditions linked to formaldehyde exposure.

Under Biden, EPA scientists have been divided over assessing formaldehyde's dangers, with some working to strengthen the final health assessment expected later this month. However, they face significant external pressure, with 75 trade groups pushing back against the EPA's findings in the past four years.

Scientists with industry ties are urging the EPA to abandon its toxicity calculations in favor of theirs, potentially weakening future chemical limits. "I've seen the industry engage on lots of different risk assessments," said Tracey Woodruff, a professor and director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment at the University of California, San Francisco. "This one feels next level."

The industry's fortunes have shifted with Trump's election. Despite campaign promises of clean water and air, Trump is expected to dismantle numerous environmental protections, including those limiting water and air pollution. He will likely find support in a Republican Congress, some of whom have long sought to rewrite environmental laws, including chemical regulations.

Trump has outlined a plan to require federal agencies to cut 10 rules for every one introduced, a more aggressive approach than his previous term, during which he rolled back over 100 environmental rules. His transition team has also considered relocating the EPA headquarters, a move that would likely result in significant staff reductions.

According to regulatory experts, the incoming administration could interfere with the formaldehyde review in several ways, including changing the EPA's reports on the chemical's health effects. "They can just say they're reopening the risk assessment and take another look at it," said Robert Sussman, an attorney who represents environmental groups and served in the EPA under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Project 2025, a conservative playbook organized by the Heritage Foundation, calls for the EPA's structure and mission to be "greatly circumscribed." It recommends eliminating the division that evaluated the toxicity of formaldehyde and hundreds of other chemicals over the past three decades and aims to defund research on the health effects of toxic chemicals, opening the EPA to industry-funded science.

While Trump distanced himself from Project 2025, some of his surrogates have embraced the document, and he appointed a key figure in the conservative plan to a significant cabinet position. Last month, Trump announced his choice of former U.S. Rep. Lee Zeldin of New York to lead the EPA. Zeldin's appointment suggests a focus on deregulatory decisions to "unleash the power of American businesses."

"The election of Trump is a dream for people who want to deregulate all chemicals," said Woodruff, the University of California, San Francisco, professor. "We are going to continue to see people get sick and die from this chemical."