New Formaldehyde Emissions Law

Article - July 19, 2010

President Obama recently signed the Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Act into law. What does this mean? Basically, the man-made products used to build furniture (plywood, MDF, particle board, etc..) contain certain amounts of formaldehyde. Generally speaking, the cheaper the manufacturing cost, the higher the level of formaldehyde. So if your house is full of inexpensive furniture or building materials from overseas, you could very well be exposed to a significant amount of off-gassing formaldehyde.

This new law establishes health standards to both domestic products and foreign imported materials. By January 1, 2013, all products sold in the US will have to meet a formaldehyde emission standard of 0.09 parts per million. On the surface, its sounds like a great idea. The fewer nasty chemicals the better, right? But these new stringent requirements will likely affect furniture prices across the board as compliance requires some re-tooling and experimentation. And of course, any forced change is a great excuse to charge more for a product. But I digress….

Fortunately, from what I’ve read, US companies have been implementing changes to decrease formaldehyde for a while now. As usual, California is ahead of schedule and if these companies want to sell products in California, they are already working on solutions. Tool-Rank.com has an article on how the California law is affecting companies like SKIL and Festool who use MDF in their products. But I won’t even pretend to know the ultimate affect this law will have on our domestic building materials companies. Will the increased production costs push them over the edge or will this simply level the playing field since the cheaper imports are subject to the same standards? I definitely don’t know the answers but I would love to hear your perspectives on this new law. Sound off! And please, no political rants.

Want to read a little more on this topic? Check out these related articles:
USA Today
American Chronicle

Discussion

Kaleo July 19, 2010 11:09 am

I personally think this is a great thing. It will drive up prices for the average consumer. But it might also drive that consumer to a individual furniture builder with whom they know what is being used. I think that by signing this law, it will help educate the public about what they are buying and putting into there homes. This is the number 1 job of any furniture maker, teach your customer why you are better then IKEA, Room and Board or Kathy Ireland. If they all have to raise there prices for new tools and better material, then my prices to the general public won’t look so high.

Reply
Xett July 19, 2010 11:15 am

This is like the Skil-fingers lawsuit a while back. Everything kills you, mdf, saws, dust, eggs, fried food, drywall from china, lead paint, etc, etc. Is Formaldehyde a tasty chemical? Certainly not. We should always wear respirators when slicing up MDF/ply. But I really have to wonder how many people have been seriously, adversely affected by the off gassing of their furniture.
Remember; everybody who has ever eaten a carrot is dead.

Reply
- PickeringMike July 19, 2010 11:51 am
  
  It’s not that we won’t die anyway, it’s providing the opportunity to remove one more thing that will help us on our way to that great woodshop in the sky.
  
  The narrowing of the price gap between custom furniture and mass produced furniture can only help the local business-person as well.
  
  Reply
  - matt July 25, 2010 10:21 am
    
    except that the price gap won’t narrow like you seem to think it will. remember, the cost of plywood go up for us too.
    
    Reply
    - Al K. August 20, 2010 11:03 pm
      
      Only if you’re using crappy plywood in the first place…
- Kathryn Hall October 16, 2010 1:39 pm
  
  Just a note, albeit very late, responding to your post. I cannot tell you how much my life has changed since my husband became seriously affected by formaldehyde on the cabinets in our “dream home”. Our whole lives are affected, as we own a house we cannot live in. Can we sell it? That is yet an unknown. So just know that three lives have been forever damaged by formaldehyde. Mine, my husband and son. Nothing will ever be the same, as we hope our health and finances will someday recover. They may never, as this nightmare seemingly has no end in sight.
  
  Reply
- AJ Buller November 12, 2011 8:09 am
  
  Working for a law firm I had a lot of unpleasant phone calls with sick people who lived in trailers built after Hurricane Katrina that reaked of formaldehyde. These thousands of trailers were built by several manufacturers and actoss he board they tested very high for formaldehyde. I like this law; it’s a reasonable demand for manufacturers.
  
  Reply
Billiam July 19, 2010 11:18 am

Good to hear that the US is ahead of schedule on this and that there shouldn’t be any signifigant changes needed to produce these products. I fear that it won’t keep prices from climbing though.

Reply
Aggie83 July 19, 2010 11:25 am

Every time someone off-gasses in my house I get blamed anyway.

Reply
Eric Wolf July 19, 2010 11:48 am

Just out of curiosity, a lot of bent lamination pieces have urea resin glues that contain formaldehyde as well don’t they? How does this law effect that? A lot of high end furniture would be subject to this law too.

Reply
Vic July 19, 2010 12:28 pm

My wife deals with rather extreme sensitivity to many environmental hazards, including the off gassing of formaldehyde products. If she’s painting with a formaldehyde paint, and isn’t mixing in enough fresh air, she can be sick for several days. That said, I’m still not happy with a new regulation that should be the choice of the consumer. Besides Eric’s point about glues like Unibond 800, which will affect the furniture business, the products for many steps in the process of building a house will likely increase, as a large majority of the housing market currently is using formaldehyde products. I’m proud to say I managed not to rant!

Reply
- Al K. August 20, 2010 11:16 pm
  
  You really think the average consumer is aware of the dangers of off-gassing from their furniture? And even if they were, how would they choose between two pieces of furniture based on their VOC off-gassing specs? It’s not like there’s a label that tells you how much CH2O is in a particular piece of furniture…
  
  This blind, blanket anti-regulation attitude is really pernicious (if you don’t believe so, ask the people who lost their life savings to the unchecked casino that is now Wall Street.) Regulations are not universally bad
  
  Reply
- Clevelana December 20, 2011 9:54 pm
  
  A friendly reminder that not all consumers have a choice. Like children whose parents buy furniture products conatining a known carcinogen that has yet to be permanently and fully revoked form the marketplace. The key to sustaining fiscal opportunity when much needed regulations are finally put in place is to adapt. Non-VOC, non carcinogenic materials are the way of the future, they need to be for us to live healthy lives.
  
  Reply
John Elliott July 19, 2010 1:13 pm

I highly support the reduction of Formaldehyde in wood products. I used to live in range of the chemical plants in Midland, Michigan. And there were days you could hardly stand being out doors and this was from making Styrofoam for insulation, cups, plates, etc. All in the area were happy when they cut the use of it. Also I think have oversea products meet our standards is good for our economy. It will also help equal out the price of mass made “furniture” with that made by hand.

Reply
Jonathan Szczepanski July 19, 2010 2:11 pm

First, industry always finds a way to make it faster and cheaper, but they don’t always find ways to make them safer unless the market or regulation forces them that way. I doubt this new law will increase the cost of mass produced furniture, because the customers at Walmart and Target are used to paying low prices. If it does go up, so be it. There is more incentive to use solid wood.

Reply
Jesse Toland July 19, 2010 3:18 pm

I’m glad to see a reduction in the amount of formaldehyde in composites. That stuff is NASTY. Not only does that mean less pollutants going to the enviornment, it also means less crap in my lungs from dust hanging around in my shop. As for a price in increase, I doubt the average comsumer will notice a significant change.
Jonathan’s got it right – more incentive to use solid wood!

Reply
Dustin July 19, 2010 4:13 pm

I think it’s a good start. It seems like a no-brainer to just cut out those products all together. I actually had no idea formaldehyde was in such products as MDF. For me personally, I will never buy another particle/press/MDF board again. I’ll be switching all my templates over to hardwood ASAP. I’d rather pay more for a clean product than save a few bucks to put harmful chemicals in the air.

If we all just stopped buying it (particle furniture), would it all just go away?

Thanks Mark for the insight.

Reply
Frank Kovach July 19, 2010 4:14 pm

This is me not ranting.

Reply
Brian July 19, 2010 4:33 pm

mmmmmm…. sounds like solid wood is going to be the way to go. me like.

Reply
Marilyn July 19, 2010 5:27 pm

So I’ve been in the environmental field for 25 years and discovered that new products/chemicals and their uses completely overwhelm the capacity to evaluate health effects of these combinations. I also know that they have recently discovered an allergic reaction to things such as Isocyanates (a common paint ingredient). Continued exposure creates an increasing response. I?m personally glad that they would remove this chemical.

Reply
Dave July 19, 2010 6:00 pm

Mark,
This legislation looks similar to the CPSIA on the consumer goods (toys, children’s product) side of things. Furniture makers should be keeping a close eye on the rulemaking process from the EPA. There is a specific requirement in this legislation that requires the EPA to create rules surrounding 3rd party testing. This could very well mean that any piece of furniture created with plywood, MDF, etc.. would need to be 3rd party tested (read very expensive testing) to insure that it meets the law. Only time will tell how well this is enforced.

Reply
Ryan July 19, 2010 6:12 pm

My mom is chemically sensitive and gets severe migraines from exposure to certain chemicals. For people like her, this is good news. In fact they built their new house using as many formaldehyde free and chemical free products as they could. The insulation in their house is actually old denim, all of the plywood is formaldehyde free and even the paint they used is VOC free. They then filled the house with solid wood furniture – none of the veneer over MDF stuff for them! Since the new house, my mom’s migraines have been greatly reduced in both strength and frequency. Of course, I’m sure the HEPA filters on the air handlers help with other airborne particles too.

As for the logging and furniture industries, time will tell if this is good or not.

Reply
Rob Horton July 19, 2010 7:44 pm

Cynic here: It strikes me as naive to think that this will bring about a renaissance of interest in quality hardwoods, to say nothing of actually knowing how to work such things. If prices on MDF and cheap plywood are rendered artificially more expensive, it’ll just be a matter of time before someone comes up with an even more wretched form of sheet material that leaves us all wishing for the “good old days” of junky plywood at the local borg.

Reply
Jared July 19, 2010 7:58 pm

While the arguments about why formaldehyde should be used less makes sense, making it a federal law is absolutely ridiculous. In the midst of a depression/recession, implementing regulations that makes things more expensive; reduces jobs in an environment where the unemployment is already sky high. I mean where is the common sense?

How many people suffer from “formaldehyde poisoning” really, to make this such a huge concern for our concerned president? Give me a percentage please and if it stands up to other leading causes of death, I’ll stand corrected.

Reply
Tim Prins July 19, 2010 8:14 pm

I think this is a good thing. Though I’m sure the implementation will be sufficiently bungled, with houses being built tighter these days it is important to reduce the chemicals inside as much as possible.

As far as pricing goes, demand drives prices down.

Reply
- Jason Brown July 19, 2010 11:10 pm
  
  “demand drives prices down”- NOT at constant supply— price will go UP, not down.
  
  Reply
Glenn Folley July 19, 2010 8:23 pm

I have a fear that this will drive up the cost of the hardwood that we use and make it harder to get. I think this will be short lived until they come up with a way make the manufactured products without the hazardous chemicals. I think this will help us justify the cost of our handmade furniture. Time will tell what the end effect of this law will have on the industry and our hobby.

Reply
DC July 19, 2010 10:33 pm

I have lots of experience with lots of different chemicals, and i would support any type of laws to “green” up our world. Many, many people have sensitivity to chemicals and many dont even realize it. I think this law can be good if applied correctly meaning if the industry responds by actually trying to find alternative processes instead of finding a loophole in the law. Much like our dependence on oil, i support any way we can be more forward thinking (50 to 100 years instead of 10-20), because i think this gives us an opportunity to innovate in a way that americans would definitely excel!

Reply
Jason Brown July 19, 2010 11:07 pm

From the American Chronicle link above: “The domestic wood products industry has already adopted voluntary standards to limit formaldehyde, but domestic products face competition from cheaper imported wood products that may contain high concentrations of formaldehyde. These imports have increased dramatically in the past decade, with China as the principal source. ”

…

“In addition to establishing the national standards, this law: Requires third-party testing and certification to ensure that products with formaldehyde comply with the national standards”
…
“North American manufacturers of composite wood products have put in place rigorous programs to meet the California rule, and nearly 100 percent of U.S. production is already California compliant.”

So, I guess to comply, don’t use foreign plywood/ composite wood products. It is unclear to me if a domestic woodworker/ small shop would be required to have 3rd party testing and certification under this law to sell any products. This could add significantly to the cost of custom furniture. OTOH, sensitive folks might be willing to pay the premium to ensure that the new table you just built for them in formaldehyde-free.

Reply
Duane July 20, 2010 1:16 am

I am in favor of making our homes and work safe places to be. How will this impact the furniture market tuff to say but I believe you will see an increase in the cost of low end furniture and to re capture the profits lost there you will see them tapp into the next level up and hurt the average craftsman with a shop making great furniture for a living and he will slowly go out of business.

This is how Walmart works so why not our current government. Demand does drive prices down but to have demand you must have people with the ability to pay the prices for what will be more expensive furniture and I just don’t see that right now. People are making less and paying more these days and to make them pay a little more for furniture will not drive up demand it will drive up yard sales.

Reply
Jambe July 20, 2010 5:00 am

Seems like this is basically squaring up imports with the stuff Americans have been making for a long time. That’s a good deal ? forces the overseas competitors to up their game a bit.

Your average consumer probably won’t notice this, though. How often to people buy boxed entertainment centers, wardrobes, etc? And really, I can’t see this having a significant effect on the cost of cheap housing.

Reply
Gary July 20, 2010 6:09 am

It is not easy to determine the country of origin on sheet goods, will there be a requirement to label them better.

Reply
Bill AKins July 20, 2010 7:01 am

Taking in more formaldehyde means less work for the morticians. But seriously, I’m for taking any chemicals out of my shop, or home. The only funky thing I like is shellac. Mmmmmmm, shellac.

Reply
Sharon July 20, 2010 7:12 am

that IS great news.

and to all those that complain – it is steps like this to remove/diminish health hazards that has raised human life expectancy from 30-40 to what we have today (80-90).

disclaimer – the numbers are general for the sake of making a point as real numbers are region dependent.

Reply
Aluminum Extrusions July 20, 2010 1:15 pm

Thanks for sharing the new law with us. It is something that we all need to be aware of!

Reply
Scott July 20, 2010 7:39 pm

I live in California and we have not seen a dramatic increase in sheet good costs as a result of the greener regulations . I am in favor of making these products less harmful, especially for those of use who machine these products. I have a good friend who is a cabinet maker and has gone thur hell the past two years due to cancer. His doctors feel that the sheet good dust in his shop for the past 25 years has at least contributed to his illness. Green is good and as long as the improted junk has to comply with the new regs, we at least keep the playing field even.

Reply
Jeff July 20, 2010 7:46 pm

Wow. It looks like I’m in the environmental minority here…but this is actually a fairly tough law for California businesses to absorb…and particularly in this economy.

It is thankfully enacted in phases with stricter and stricter requirements over time such that raw materials inventory can be naturally swapped out with CARB compliant materials.

However, let’s say a company has an inventory of a unique specie of 1/4″ plywood with an MDF or PB core which does not sell very often – and almost certainly not NOW in this economy – it is this kind of expensive material that is rendered completely useless to be sold in California. It hurts the small guys.

So, ok…there are “exceptions” to everything. The point is that I believe the lawmakers did not insert proper provisions into the law regarding inventory that may have been purchased years ago, which has already out-gassed sufficiently and will likely cause other environmental and certainly economic damage as it literally gets thrown away or scrapped.

Let the beatings begin and please pass the shellac!

Reply
nate July 21, 2010 8:15 am

I honestly can say that I would rather not have the EPA involved in this. For those that think this is good for the small manufacturing shop, think again. This group is the most at risk of being slapped with a nasty fine that ruins their business. The larger manufacturers and importers will just lobby to get loopholes and exceptions passed – that’s how it works with the EPA or any large federal regulatory agency.

Look, I don’t like the nasty things in MDF and chipboard either, and I just refuse to use them in the shop. So, I vote with my wallet. Frankly, there are better materials for most things anyway. However, things like this have to be taken care of in court. Otherwise, large companies get exceptions written into the law and small companies pay the fines. If we want to truly rid our homes and workplaces of formaldehyde-off-gassing MDF, a class action lawsuit would be the best way to make sure that stuff disappears for good.

Now, the real question is, why hasn’t there been one to date?

Reply
Len July 21, 2010 5:52 pm

So I guess we need to boycott HD and Lowes. They have racks and racks of MDF just sitting there off-gassing us to death.
No, wait – we could just all wear power resperators.

Reply
Shane July 22, 2010 9:18 pm

Justifying unsafe business practices with cheaper cost is absurd. Did the cost of putting childproof caps on medicine cripple the medical industry? Woodworking is not a cheap hobby/profession to get into, as anyone buying fine furniture or tools should know. Besides that, people will still want beautiful things. That demand isn’t going to go away just because of a modest price increase. Cigarettes are around $10 a pack in NYC and yet smoker’s still continue to smoke. New cell phones come out with $600 price tags, but people still buy them. Nice cars, rare foodstuffs, fancy clothes: There are a plethora of frivolous things people buy everyday, and will continue to do so despite the cost. The market is never stable; that’s just one of the costs of living in capitalism.

There’s also currently a law pertaining to safer cosmetics going through congress. I know a few soap makers who are up in arms about the legislation, but as someone who breaks out in rash using many common name brand shampoos and soaps I am all for more regulation. I mean, we don’t put lead in paint anymore, right? You wouldn’t feed your kids something you found in an unmarked bottle you found under your sink (at least I hope you wouldn’t). You wouldn’t rub a strange chemical over your face or cure any unknown wood finishes in your dining room, would you? I struggle to see how this is any different.

I wonder if people put up the same fight against outlawing asbestos once mesothelioma came to light, if maybe the first wave of people who got sick from it got the run around because they couldn’t prove it was the asbestos. Bottom line, formaldehyde is toxic and should not have any easy way to get near my family or pets. ‘Nuff said.

Reply
- chris hall August 14, 2010 5:59 am
  
  thank you for stating the bottom line on formaldehyde: it is toxic and a known carcinogen; that is, it is KNOWN to cause nasal and throat cancer. After exposure to even low levels, some experience respiratory problems. Higher concentrations produce neurological symptoms such as dizziness, loss of memory and confusion, all of which may be permanent. Read my comment below for my story. We still do not know if my husband’s symptoms will be temporary or permanent and all because we bought our “dream house”.
  
  Reply
- Bill Wheaton January 7, 2011 6:21 pm
  
  I like how you think Shane.
  
  Here is an easy experiment.
  Wipe some denatured alcohol on a small piece of aluminum flashing and hold it in your warm hand, and then wipe the same amount on your other palm.
  
  Which one disappears first? The amount on your skin. So whatever amount is leftover on the aluminum at that time has actually soaked into your skin and into your body on your second hand.
  
  Alcohol? Not a problem so much… Formalin? MEK? Laquer thinner? mineral spirits? naptha? You really want that kind of thing to get inside your body?
  
  Neah, me either. Good law.
  
  Reply
nate July 23, 2010 6:04 am

Shane – that’s your choice whether you want to buy the stuff or not. And, people who are injured should sue the manufacturers out of business. But, the regulation will just distort the market. BTW, lots and lots of paint still has lead in it, for very good reason too. If you own any large woodworking machinery like a cabinet saw, etc, you might be surprised that there’s lead in the industrial paints still. Just don’t gnaw on it in. :-)

Reply
- Shane July 23, 2010 1:35 pm
  
  Yes, and it should be your choice whether or not you want to buy crack or heroin too, right? Just don’t let any of it get into your blood. The market should speak for itself right? Why not just legalize child prostitution, because frankly, making it illegal is cutting into my motel profits. :)
  
  Have you ever actually been involved in a class action law suit with a major corporation? It doesn’t happen overnight, costs lots of money you may not get back, and in the meantime, assuming it is dangerous, it’s not the profiteers that end up paying the price. It’s the victims. That’s broken fairytale logic at best. If you want the public to shoulder the cost of progress and stand willingly in the way of potential dangers for YOUR profit then they should be getting a part of those profits, too, whether or not they get hurt. How do you think THAT would affect biz?
  
  Further, who here has actually read The Formaldehyde in Composite Wood Products Act? Or is everybody freaking out based on typical sensationalistic reporting practices and generalized political ideals?
  
  Reply
  - nate July 23, 2010 1:52 pm
    
    Way to run to extremes here. I’m just stating my opinion that the federal regs will likely have several loopholes for large corps and end up hurting smaller manufactures instead. I’d rather see a lawsuit since that typically sets precedent that scares large manfs into submission more, thus making it a level, stable playing field for all. That’s what I’m saying.
    
    There’s no reason to run off and assume I want any of the other things you mentioned. That is defamatory and shows your lack of respect for your fellow countrymen and your intolerance of speech, as well as your lack of basic listening skills. We should be more civil than that in the woodworking community.
    
    Reply
    - Shane July 23, 2010 3:09 pm
      
      I don’t doubt there will be all the usually political scramblings that take place, but if I understand your comment, and feel free to clarify if I got it wrong, you are insinuating that the market should be regulated by lawsuit and that any attempt at regulating is fatalistically flawed.
      
      I’m sorry if you don’t understand the value of debate, it’s only the very essence of democracy. As it’s your right to believe in unencumbered free market, it’s my right to be able to state that letting lawsuit dictate our moral application of technology is like legalizing child prostitution and waiting for the children to sue the pimps out of business. If you don’t like my extrapolation of logic feel free to disagree, but let the record show that you, my friend, were the first to resort to an ad hominem attack.
    - noumenon February 11, 2011 9:18 am
      
      Shane is right on! He is only giving extreme examples like child prostitution to show that regulation is needed in society and that you can’t rely solely on the market to regulate itself. For those of who think the market will regulate itself need to realize that most people aren’t informed of what goes into the products they buy nor do they have there own lab to test products and that’s why we rely on the EPA. I don’t know about everyone else but by the time I work 8 to 10 hours a day and then come home to take care of everything else needed to run a house hold I don’t have the time to research the chemical makeup of every product that goes into my home. Ask 10 people if they know their house is made and filled with products that contain a toxin which off gases and causes cancer along with other health problems and see how many say yes. The market might regulate itself more if companies had to put big warning labels on products that are harmful. If you walked into walmart and a piece of furniture had a big label that said contains formaldehyde which off gases and is known to cause cancer and other health problems then you can make an informed decision. There is still a problem in the fact that if the product is going into a home with a child they don’t get a say that there new bedroom set is full of toxins.
      
      For those who are naysayers and who care more about costs then affecting others need to wake up and think about if it was your family that was directly affected. It’s easy for some people not to care when it’s not directly affecting them or someone they care about. There tune changes real quick when your the one footing the medical bills or having to move out of your house or having to take care of your sick child because they are affected by a chemical. I would also argue that the money that is saved allowing these harmful products is spent 10 fold back in medical costs which affects us all.
      
      As far as costs go you might get a small spike until the industry adjusts. Once they start using other glues in production of sheet goods those glues will come down in price. The companies producing those glues will hire more people and buy more equipment to expand their production. In the end we will benefit because the formaldehyde free products will be cheaper and safer for us.
      
      A lot of us cringe when we here about government regulation, but we’ve all benefited from it. We drive safer cars, have safer homes, etc. Even when regulation has an negative affect on something it’s usually revisited and changed quickly thats the power of a democracy. As an American I’m glad that we are still leading the way for a safer and more conscious planet.
nateswoodworks July 31, 2010 8:14 pm

Before all the lead paint I would have just overlooked this, but now I have a very differently outlook, thanks for your time and all the information!
Nate

Reply
chris hall August 14, 2010 5:47 am

I have a personal story of formaldehyde devastation in our home and lives: We bought our dream house, an 8yr old 4,000 sq ft with all upgrades we thought we wanted, two months ago. A few days after moving in, my husband began to experience respiratory and neurological problems. After thousands of dollars out of pocket, we learned the formaldehyde levels in our new house are dangerously high and toxic. We were forced to move out and are still unable to live in our dream house as of today. Our family has been devestated and our lives have been without any normalcy since, not to mention the thousands of dollars we have spent out-of-pocket.
Harsh and uneccessary legislation? You might think so until you experience this nightmare. We are still unable to live in our house and the mortgage payments just keep coming. You can never know how horrible this experience is until you live it. I only wish we had standards years ago and we might have not been in this situation.

Reply
Bruce October 16, 2010 5:07 am

How many of you cabinet makers and wood workers have health and lung problems that the Dr, cant explane .I was a cabinet maker for 28 yrs but now have a lung disease that has taking 50% of my lungs and my bosys immune system is attacking itself .If this sound like something you have let us know .
Thanks

Reply
Casey December 6, 2010 1:51 am

Late reply I know, but I only just found this site, which I now follow the RSS feed.

I’m an environmental toxicologist, and I’ve worked plenty in direct contact with formaldehyde, glutaraldeyde and other aldehydes. These are indeed nasty chemicals, and I’m glad that their use is being limited. To put things in perspective, these chemicals tan (as in leather) your tissue, and through the same process causes cancer.
They do have very low vapor pressures and off gas easily, increasing long term exposure risk. Sadly, HEPA filters, like most other air filters, do not remove these chemicals from the air.
Although migraines are a relatively common result of exposure, they are only a symptom of sensitization to repeated exposure, much like how people can develop latex allergies. I’ve mostly worked with glutaraldehyde in a professional fume hood but I still developed a sensitivity to all aldehydes from it. Although painful, the headaches are really not that much of a concern as other potential effects.

Reply
Bill Wheaton January 7, 2011 6:04 pm

This is a good thing.
Off-gassing formaldehyde was one of the major problems with the temporary housing trailers deployed after the Katrina disaster, and caused a lot of damage to those inhabitants.

Good governance makes our country better and this is a good example.

Reply
Brenda Rogers December 8, 2011 8:25 am

I think this is great. I am at present in an apartment that I rented 3 months ago. I have been sick ever since I moved in. I have ascertained that the cause is formaldehyde. I cannot explain the desperation of being this sick. Severe headaches, sore throat, burning, red, achey eyes. I feel as if I am going to die from this. I have removed a recliner, a bed frame, some cardboard boxes, that all are emitting the gases. Some relief from doing this. It is 5 degrees out side and I have to keep a window cracked to have fresh air. Does not help my energy bill much. I will probably have to move to obtain any remediation of this situation. Since I am low income this is going to be a real hardship. As I said I can not explain the desperation. I live in hud subsidized housing. I say thumbs up to Obama. He is on the right track.

Reply
Connie March 9, 2012 9:17 am

If a bedroom set I bought has a tag that has a sticker with a # plus formaldehyde complaint, does it mean that the product has formaldehyde or that it has been tested and it passed?

Reply
- thewoodwhisperer March 9, 2012 9:19 am
  
  I would guess in today’s market, they wouldn’t be proud of their formaldehyde. :) I don’t know for sure but I would say that is a compliance stating a low amount of formaldehyde.
  
  Reply
Reticuli November 12, 2013 3:51 pm

What about the cotton sheets you put on the bed treated with anti-wrinkle finishes? Any regulations about them?

Reply
Phrank October 27, 2014 3:25 pm

I just recently bought a Bunk Bed for my Grand kids when they visit. After all the pieces were taken out of the box, I noticed a tag on one of the headboards. It said this bed contained Formaldehyde under the California code, and was Phase 2. The internet says Phase 2 is Better than Phase one…but is it safe, because it comes from Viet Nam..I’m wondering if they,(VietNam), are on board with Ca. health codes?. What should I do?
captphrank

Reply
- Marc Spagnuolo October 29, 2014 5:43 am
  
  Honestly I’d have to research the subject to give you an informed opinion. This is not something I am well-versed in.
  
  Reply
MM. Brown December 1, 2016 6:09 pm

It worries me that, especially in California, we are pushing towards solid wood in everything and thereby using more of our forests. We have lost trees due to beetles, drought, fire and now closer to home, the trees in our own cities and yards because of water restrictions. I just heard that the city of LA is in a rush to fix all our sidewalks damaged by tree roots and such. How will they fix those? Cut down more trees? I hope that some sort of “reforestation” is taking place prior to and well before we implement the total ban on MDF materials and cause a mass extinction of hardwood trees. Just wondering if this has been factored in anywhere?

Reply

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

New Formaldehyde Emissions Law

Advertisers