Formaldehyde Added to List of Cancer-Causing Chemicals

[mzmolly]

Formaldehyde Added to List of Cancer-Causing Chemicals
Friday, June 17, 2011


David Vitter, the formaldehyde senator

The Department of Health and Human Services has classified formaldehyde as a known carcinogen, but it remains to be seen if another part of the federal government will do its part to limit the chemical’s exposure to the public.

Health experts want the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish tough new regulations for formaldehyde, and the agency has tried to move in that direction since 1998. But one U.S. senator in particular, Republican David Vitter of Louisiana, has thwarted those efforts.

Two years ago, Vitter successfully delayed the EPA’s new assessment on formaldehyde by tying up the nomination of a key agency appointee and forcing the EPA to send its draft to the National Academy of Sciences for review.

Vitter has close ties to the chemical industry, which has raised large contributions for the senator.

More ... http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Formaldehyde_Added_to_List_of_Cancer_Causing_Chemicals_110617">ALLGOV.COM

[Scuba]

1. Did David and Charles OK it?

[mzmolly]

5. Nope.

;)

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. Am I the only one who marvels at the way amoral idiots like this one get away with everything?

He didn't have to resign and he pulls stunts like this one no doubt to benefit in some way from someone in the formaldehyde industry.

[KT2000]

3. the Koch brothers

they own Georgia-Pacific, the number one producer of formaldehyde
One of the brothers served on the board the approves the desigation of "cancer causing" chemicals. Needless to say the Koch brother stonewalled it.

[mzmolly]

4. Yep. They've been funding the anti-science behind the "formaldehyde is safe" campaign.

http://www.truth-out.org/ralph-nader-koch-brothers-led-fight-defend-formaldehyde-despite-carcinogenic-evidence/1308070723

http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/09/koch-brothers-behind-healthy-formaldehyde-campaign/

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. Why don't people like me know about these things?

What is necessary to find out all the corrupt, disgusting things being done by Republicans? Does one have to spend 24/7 researching everything?

[KT2000]

8. No - it just happens to be

my specialty. I keep up on environmental health news and it was in emails I got a few days ago. Everyone was rejoicing because the Koch brother left the board which cleared the way for this to happen.
I am way behind on many other topics though.

[mzmolly]

12. No.

I guess when a person lacks a conscious, there is no need for accountability. :shrug:

[Mnemosyne]

6. Will they have it removed from vaccines now? n/t

[BadgerKid]

9. (For the record) Why is formaldehyde in some vaccines?

Formaldehyde has a long history of use in the manufacture of certain viral and bacterial vaccines. It is used to inactivate viruses (e.g., influenza, polio) and to detoxify bacterial toxins, such as the toxin used to make diphtheria vaccine. Formaldehyde is diluted during the manufacturing process, but residual quantities of formaldehyde may be found in some current vaccines. The average quantity of formaldehyde to which a young infant could be exposed to at one time through vaccines is very small and is considered to be safe. Although high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA (the building block of genes) and cause cancerous changes in cells in the laboratory, formaldehyde is an essential component in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein). Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation. In addition, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been found to be safe in animals.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

[mzmolly]

10. Free formaldehyde differs

from bound, which the studies noted above do not take into consideration. < This per a toxicologist I've discussed the issue with. Also, just because we've "always" used formaldehyde in vaccination, doesn't make it wise. There are alternatives.

[NickB79]

13. When injected into the body, small amounts of free formaldehyde quickly reacts

To bind to enzymes known as aldehyde dehydrogenases, the same enzymes that are always present to police formaldehyde production from natural biological processes. <This per my biochemistry professor from college.

[mzmolly]

14. Thank you. I'd be interested in learning what constitutes a "small amount"

in an infant/toddler? (on edit I found some information below.)

To my understanding, the primary concern regarding so called small amounts in various products, is due to the potential impact on DNA?

THE TOXICOLOGY OF FORMALDEHYDE - Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs report, indicates -

Formaldehyde appears to be capable of binding to DNA, a well known mechanism by which chemicals cause cancer. Formaldehyde appears to be both an initiator and a late stage cancer causing chemical.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/220/4593/216.abstract

Cultured bronchial epithelial and fibroblastic cells from humans were used to study DNA damage and toxicity caused by formaldehyde. Formaldehyde caused the formation of cross-links between DNA and proteins, caused single-strand breaks in DNA, and inhibited the resealing of single-strand breaks produced by ionizing radiation. Formaldehyde also inhibited the unscheduled DNA synthesis that occurs after exposure of cells to ultraviolet irradiation or to benzopyrene diolexpoxide but at doses substantially higher than those required to inhibit the resealing of x-ray-induced single-strand breaks. Therefore, formaldehyde could exert its mutagenic and carcinogenic effects by both damaging DNA and inhibiting DNA repair.

I was able to find this snippet.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0165121883900800

Abstract

We have found formaldehyde to be mutagenic for human cells in culture. At concentrations above 130 μM or 4 parts per million by weight (2 h exposure at 37°C), formaldehyde induces the appearance of F3TdR-resistant mutants in the diploid human lymphoblastoid TK6 line. This finding suggests but does not prove that formaldehyde is a mutagenic hazard for humans.

Along with the following statement from Jack Thrasher, Ph.D. Toxicologist, Immunotoxicologist, Fetal toxicologist

Recent peer reviewed published research has demonstrated some pertinent information. It has demonstrated that certain genes are responsible for the metabolism and detoxification of formaldehyde. Some humans have abnormalities in these genes and are more susceptible to the adverse effects of formaldehyde. Therefore, there can be no safe standards. The so called 0.1 ppm by various agencies will have be reduced to account for this genetic variability in humans. ~ Jack Thrasher, Ph.D.

Obviously not everyone is impacted by exposure to the same chemicals in the same amounts. So (cancer aside) why not find an alternative now that we know formaldehyde can be dangerous?

Note page 345 indicates that small amount of formaldehyde (0.05ppm in some cases) can produce neurophysiological effects.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/2009/November/Formaldehyde_BD_Final.pdf

[mzmolly]

11. Doubtful, given all the formaldehyde apologists

industry ultimately creates with their propaganda.

[Warpy]

15. It wasn't just Diaper Dave. They had another Dave to contend with

and I'm talking about David Koch on the NIH board. That's the scumbag who blocked this for years because his companies rely so heavily on formaldehyde in their products.

[mzmolly]

16. Yes indeed.

Science isn't "science" when it's bought and paid for by the Koch brothers.

[srobens]

17. toothpaste

Now isn't this what they put in our water and toothpaste? Yikes.

[sense]

18. Splenda = Formaldehyde

Yummy!

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/formaldehyde-officially-cancer-causing-58190.html