Industry Influence on Formaldehyde Regulations Under the Trump EPA

Recent documents reveal that the Trump administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) significantly weakened regulations on formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, following a concerted effort by the chemical industry. This shift has raised concerns about the broader implications for public health and regulatory practices regarding toxic chemicals.

The Guardian

Formaldehyde is widely used in consumer products, including cosmetics and furniture, and has been linked to various health risks, including cancer. In late 2024, the Biden EPA concluded that any exposure to formaldehyde increases cancer risk, establishing a zero-tolerance policy. However, in late 2025, the Trump EPA reversed these findings, asserting that cancer risk only arises at exposure levels above 0.3 parts per million (ppm), a threshold that aligns with sensory irritation levels.

The Guardian

The documents obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) highlight the role of Rory Conolly, a chemical industry scientist whose studies were pivotal in the Trump EPA's justification for the regulatory changes. Critics, including former EPA scientist Maria Doa, argue that the Trump EPA selectively used Conolly's research while disregarding a broader body of evidence that supports stricter regulations. Erik Olson, a senior adviser with the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund, warns that this approach could lead to weakened regulations for other carcinogens as well.

The Guardian

The Trump administration's changes to formaldehyde regulations have been linked to individuals with strong ties to the chemical industry, including Nancy Beck and Lynn Dekleva, both of whom held leadership positions at the American Chemistry Council before joining the EPA. Documents indicate that the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which traditionally provided independent scientific assessments, was undermined under the Trump administration. The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) had previously supported IRIS's conclusion that no level of formaldehyde exposure is safe.

The Guardian

The Trump EPA defended its regulatory changes by claiming that the Biden administration's analyses were flawed and that its new assessment incorporated a wider range of scientific views. A spokesperson stated that the changes strengthen protections by relying on "gold standard science." In contrast, critics argue that the Trump EPA's reliance on outdated studies and selective data undermines public health protections.

The Guardian

Critics of the Trump EPA's actions emphasize the potential dangers of increased exposure to toxic chemicals. Olson has called for congressional investigations into the industry's influence over the EPA, highlighting the real-world implications for public health and financial burdens on taxpayers.

The Guardian

There is a notable discrepancy between the Trump EPA's findings and those of independent scientific bodies. While the Trump EPA claims that a threshold for safe exposure exists, both the Biden EPA and NASEM maintain that any exposure to formaldehyde poses a cancer risk. This conflict raises questions about the integrity of the scientific assessments used to justify regulatory changes.

The Guardian

• “The bottom line is money – and that they want limited regulations on the chemicals they are making,” — Maria Doa, Former EPA Scientist

The Guardian

• “We hear about making America healthy again, but here we have an example of the EPA undermining decades of understanding around a cancer-causing chemical for which there is no safe level of exposure,” — Erik Olson, Senior Adviser, Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund

The Guardian

• “Yes, I agree that formaldehyde should be regulated along the lines of the current EPA position, but I do have to wonder how they got there,” — Rory Conolly, Chemical Industry Scientist

The Guardian

The ongoing debate surrounding formaldehyde regulations underscores the complexities of balancing industry interests with public health protections.

The Guardian