Let's talk about Formaldehyde Poisoning
"Methanol breaks down into formic acid and formaldehyde in your body. Many experts believe formic acid is the problem but the real problem is the formaldehyde, which is a deadly neurotoxin and carcinogen. An EPA assessment of methanol states that methanol "is considered a cumulative poison due to the low rate of excretion once it is absorbed. In the body, methanol is oxidized to formaldehyde and formic acid; both of these metabolites are toxic."2
Visit our Aspartame page for more information
What is Formaldehyde?
- Formaldehyde is a colorless, flammable, strong-smelling chemical that is used in building materials and to produce many household products. It is used in pressed-wood products, such as particleboard, plywood, and fiberboard; glues and adhesives; permanent-press fabrics; paper product coatings; and certain insulation materials. In addition, formaldehyde is commonly used as an industrial fungicide, germicide, and disinfectant, and as a preservative in mortuaries and medical laboratories. Formaldehyde also occurs naturally in the environment. It is produced in small amounts by most living organisms as part of normal metabolic processes.
- How is the general population exposed to formaldehyde?
According to a 1997 report by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, formaldehyde is normally present in both indoor and outdoor air at low levels, usually less than 0.03 parts of formaldehyde per million parts of air (ppm). Materials containing formaldehyde can release formaldehyde gas or vapor into the air. One source of formaldehyde exposure in the air is automobile tailpipe emissions.
During the 1970s, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) was used in many homes. However, few homes are now insulated with UFFI. Homes in which UFFI was installed many years ago are not likely to have high formaldehyde levels now. Pressed-wood products containing formaldehyde resins are often a significant source of formaldehyde in homes. Other potential indoor sources of formaldehyde include cigarette smoke and the use of unvented fuel-burning appliances, such as gas stoves, wood-burning stoves, and kerosene heaters.
Industrial workers who produce formaldehyde or formaldehyde-containing products, laboratory technicians, certain health care professionals, and mortuary employees may be exposed to higher levels of formaldehyde than the general public. Exposure occurs primarily by inhalingformaldehyde gas or vapor from the air or by absorbing liquids containing formaldehyde through the skin. - What are the short-term health effects of formaldehyde exposure?
When formaldehyde is present in the air at levels exceeding 0.1 ppm, some individuals may experience adverse effects such as watery eyes; burning sensations in the eyes, nose, andthroat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation. Some people are very sensitive to formaldehyde, whereas others have no reaction to the same level of exposure. - Can formaldehyde cause cancer?
Although the short-term health effects of formaldehyde exposure are well known, less is known about its potential long-term health effects. In 1980, laboratory studies showed that exposure to formaldehyde could cause nasal cancer in rats. This finding raised the question of whether formaldehyde exposure could also cause cancer in humans. In 1987, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified formaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen under conditions of unusually high or prolonged exposure (1). Since that time, some studies of humans have suggested that formaldehyde exposure is associated with certain types of cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies formaldehyde as a human carcinogen (2). In 2011, the National Toxicology Program, an interagency program of the Department of Health and Human Services, named formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen in its 12th Report on Carcinogens (3).
Safety of Formaldehyde
"Formaldehyde is highly toxic to all animals, regardless of method of intake. Ingestion of as little as 30 mL (1 oz.) of a solution containing 37% formaldehyde has been reported to cause death in an adult human.[27] Water solution of formaldehyde is very corrosive and its ingestion can cause severe injury to the upper gastrointestinal tract.
Occupational exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation is mainly from three types of sources: thermal or chemical decomposition of formaldehyde-based resins, formaldehyde emission from aqueous solutions (for example, embalming fluids), and the production of formaldehyde resulting from the combustion of a variety of organic compounds (for example, exhaust gases). Formaldehyde can be toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic.[4] Because formaldehyde resins are used in many construction materials it is one of the more common indoor air pollutants.[28] At concentrations above 0.1 ppm in air formaldehyde can irritate the eyes and mucous membranes, resulting in watery eyes.[29] Formaldehyde inhaled at this concentration may cause headaches, a burning sensation in the throat, and difficulty breathing, and can trigger or aggravate asthma symptoms.[30][31]
A 1988 Canadian study of houses with urea-formaldehyde foam insulation found that formaldehyde levels as low as 0.046 ppm were positively correlated with eye and nasal irritation.[32] Although many studies have failed to show a relationship between formaldehyde and asthma, a recent review of studies has shown a strong association between exposure to formaldehyde and the development of childhood asthma.[33] Chronic exposure at higher levels, starting at around 1.9 ppm, has been shown to result in significant damage to pulmonary function, resulting in reduced maximum mid-expiratory flow and forced vital capacity.[34] There is also research that supports the theory that formaldehyde exposure contributes to reproductive problems in women. A study on Finnish women working in laboratories at least 3 days a week found a significant correlation between spontaneous abortion and formaldehyde exposure, and a study of Chinese women found abnormal menstrual cycles in 70% of the women occupationally exposed to formaldehyde compared to only 17% in the control group.[34] There have been no studies done on the effect of formaldehyde exposure on reproduction in men."
Reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde
Occupational exposure to formaldehyde by inhalation is mainly from three types of sources: thermal or chemical decomposition of formaldehyde-based resins, formaldehyde emission from aqueous solutions (for example, embalming fluids), and the production of formaldehyde resulting from the combustion of a variety of organic compounds (for example, exhaust gases). Formaldehyde can be toxic, allergenic, and carcinogenic.[4] Because formaldehyde resins are used in many construction materials it is one of the more common indoor air pollutants.[28] At concentrations above 0.1 ppm in air formaldehyde can irritate the eyes and mucous membranes, resulting in watery eyes.[29] Formaldehyde inhaled at this concentration may cause headaches, a burning sensation in the throat, and difficulty breathing, and can trigger or aggravate asthma symptoms.[30][31]
A 1988 Canadian study of houses with urea-formaldehyde foam insulation found that formaldehyde levels as low as 0.046 ppm were positively correlated with eye and nasal irritation.[32] Although many studies have failed to show a relationship between formaldehyde and asthma, a recent review of studies has shown a strong association between exposure to formaldehyde and the development of childhood asthma.[33] Chronic exposure at higher levels, starting at around 1.9 ppm, has been shown to result in significant damage to pulmonary function, resulting in reduced maximum mid-expiratory flow and forced vital capacity.[34] There is also research that supports the theory that formaldehyde exposure contributes to reproductive problems in women. A study on Finnish women working in laboratories at least 3 days a week found a significant correlation between spontaneous abortion and formaldehyde exposure, and a study of Chinese women found abnormal menstrual cycles in 70% of the women occupationally exposed to formaldehyde compared to only 17% in the control group.[34] There have been no studies done on the effect of formaldehyde exposure on reproduction in men."
Reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde
Incidents of Formaldehyde Poisoning/Exposure after disasters
FEMA trailer incidents
Hurricanes Katrina and RitaIn the U.S. the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided travel trailers, recreational park trailers and manufactured homes starting in 2006 for habitation by residents of the U.S. gulf coast displaced by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Some of the people who moved into the trailers complained of breathing difficulties, nosebleeds, and persistent headaches. Formaldehyde-catalyzed resinswere used in the production of these homes.
The United States Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) performed indoor air quality testing for formaldehyde[55] in some of the units. On February 14, 2008 the CDC announced that potentially hazardous levels of formaldehyde were found in many of the travel trailers and manufactured homes provided by the agency.[56][57] The CDC's preliminary evaluation of a scientifically established random sample of 519 travel trailers and manufactured homes tested between December 21, 2007 and January 23, 2008 (2+ years after manufacture) showed average levels of formaldehyde in all units of about 0.077 parts per million (ppm). Long-term exposure to levels in this range can be linked to an increased risk of cancer and, at levels above this range, there can also be a risk of respiratory illness. These levels are higher than expected in indoor air, where levels are commonly in the range of 0.01–0.02 ppm, and are higher than the Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry (ATSDR, division of the CDC) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) of 0.008 ppm.[58] Levels measured ranged from 0.003 ppm to 0.59 ppm.[59]
FEMA, which requested the testing by the CDC, said it would work aggressively to relocate all residents of the temporary housing as soon as possible. Lawsuits are being filed against FEMA as a result of the exposures.[60]
Iowa floods of 2008
Also in the U.S., problems arose in trailers again provided by FEMA to residents displaced by the Iowa floods of 2008. Several months after moving to the trailers, occupants reported violent coughing, headaches, as well as asthma, bronchitis, and other problems. Tests showed that in some trailers, levels of formaldehyde exceeded the limits recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency andAmerican Lung Association.[61][62] The associated publicity has resulted in additional testing to begin in November.[63]
2008 Sichuan earthquake
After an earthquake hit Sichuan, China, a large number of survivors were housed in trailers made with medium-density fiberboard that emitted up to 5 times China's maximum allowable formaldehyde levels. In April 2009, 100 miscarriages were recorded in this community, which may have been linked to exposure to high levels of formaldehyde found in the trailers used for housing after the disaster.[34]
Reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde
Hurricanes Katrina and RitaIn the U.S. the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided travel trailers, recreational park trailers and manufactured homes starting in 2006 for habitation by residents of the U.S. gulf coast displaced by Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. Some of the people who moved into the trailers complained of breathing difficulties, nosebleeds, and persistent headaches. Formaldehyde-catalyzed resinswere used in the production of these homes.
The United States Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) performed indoor air quality testing for formaldehyde[55] in some of the units. On February 14, 2008 the CDC announced that potentially hazardous levels of formaldehyde were found in many of the travel trailers and manufactured homes provided by the agency.[56][57] The CDC's preliminary evaluation of a scientifically established random sample of 519 travel trailers and manufactured homes tested between December 21, 2007 and January 23, 2008 (2+ years after manufacture) showed average levels of formaldehyde in all units of about 0.077 parts per million (ppm). Long-term exposure to levels in this range can be linked to an increased risk of cancer and, at levels above this range, there can also be a risk of respiratory illness. These levels are higher than expected in indoor air, where levels are commonly in the range of 0.01–0.02 ppm, and are higher than the Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry (ATSDR, division of the CDC) Minimal Risk Level (MRL) of 0.008 ppm.[58] Levels measured ranged from 0.003 ppm to 0.59 ppm.[59]
FEMA, which requested the testing by the CDC, said it would work aggressively to relocate all residents of the temporary housing as soon as possible. Lawsuits are being filed against FEMA as a result of the exposures.[60]
Iowa floods of 2008
Also in the U.S., problems arose in trailers again provided by FEMA to residents displaced by the Iowa floods of 2008. Several months after moving to the trailers, occupants reported violent coughing, headaches, as well as asthma, bronchitis, and other problems. Tests showed that in some trailers, levels of formaldehyde exceeded the limits recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency andAmerican Lung Association.[61][62] The associated publicity has resulted in additional testing to begin in November.[63]
2008 Sichuan earthquake
After an earthquake hit Sichuan, China, a large number of survivors were housed in trailers made with medium-density fiberboard that emitted up to 5 times China's maximum allowable formaldehyde levels. In April 2009, 100 miscarriages were recorded in this community, which may have been linked to exposure to high levels of formaldehyde found in the trailers used for housing after the disaster.[34]
Reference: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde
Toxic Textiles by Walt Disney
"The Walt Disney Corporation, in a letter to Greenpeace in 2003, said that “the Walt Disney Company is always concerned with quality and safety”.
Greenpeace decided to test that statement, so – as part of their campaign to show how dangerous chemicals are out of control, turning up in house dust, in household products, food, rain water, in our clothes……and ultimately in our bodies – they decided to test Disney’s childrenswear for the presence of toxic chemicals.
Disney garments, including T-shirts, pajamas and underwear, were bought in retail outlets in 19 different countries around the world and analyzed by the independent laboratory Eurofins, an international group of companies which provides testing, certification and consulting on the quality and safety of products and one of the largest scientific testing laboratories in the world.
Greenpeace asked Eurofins to test the Disney childrenswear for:
1. Phthalates
2. Alkylphenol ethoxylates
3. Organotins
4. Lead
5. Cadmium
6. Formaldehyde
We don’t have the space to fill you in on why each of these six chemicals is of grave concern, but please believe us – they’re not good. Any one of these chemicals can interfere with a child’s neurological development, for example, or can set the path for a cascade of health problems as they age.
This is what they found:
1. Phthalates: Found in all the garments tested, from 1.4 mg/kg to 200,000 mg/kg – or more than 20% of the weight of the sample.
2. Alkylphenol ethoxylates: Found in all the garments tested, in levels ranging from 34.1 mg/kg to 1,700 mg/kg
3. Organotins: found in 9 of the 16 products tested; the Donald Duck T shirt from The Netherlands had 474 micrograms/kg
4. Lead: Found in all the products tested, ranging from 0.14 mg/kg to 2,600 mg/kg for a Princess T shirt from Canada. With Denmark’s new laws on the use, marketing and manufacture of lead and products containing lead, the Princess T shirt from Canada would be illegal on the Danish market. Canada has set a limit of 600 mg/kg for children’s jewelry containing lead – why not Disney T shirts?
5. Cadmiun: Identified in 14 of the 18 products tested, ranging from 0.0069 mg/kg in the Finding Nemo T shirt bought in the UK to 38 mg/kg in the Belgian Mickey Mouse T shirt.
6. Formaldehyde: Found in 8 of the 15 products tested for this chemical in levels ranging from 23 mg/kg to 1,100 mg/kg.
One sample stands out: a German Winnie the Pooh PVC raincoat. This contained an astounding 320,000 mg/kg of total phthalates, or 32% by weight of the raincoat! This raincoat also contained 1,129 micrograms/kg organotins.
Greenpeace urged Disney to take responsibility for avoiding or substituting harmful chemicals in their products and to demand that their licensees implement a chemical policy that protects children’s heath. Disney reacted by stating that their products are in line with the law. The only action taken was to put labels on some products with a warning that those clothes contain toxic chemicals – but only in the UK (which has more stringent laws regarding chemical use than does the US), and only on a few items. Greenpeace Toxics Campaigner Oliver Knowles said, “”Their complete disregard for children’s health smacks of a Mickey Mouse company, and it’s now down to us to let the public know that these pyjamas contain dangerous chemicals.
“Perhaps it would be more apt if Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase became “To infertility and beyond!”
Read More:http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/toxic-textiles-by-walt-disney/
Greenpeace decided to test that statement, so – as part of their campaign to show how dangerous chemicals are out of control, turning up in house dust, in household products, food, rain water, in our clothes……and ultimately in our bodies – they decided to test Disney’s childrenswear for the presence of toxic chemicals.
Disney garments, including T-shirts, pajamas and underwear, were bought in retail outlets in 19 different countries around the world and analyzed by the independent laboratory Eurofins, an international group of companies which provides testing, certification and consulting on the quality and safety of products and one of the largest scientific testing laboratories in the world.
Greenpeace asked Eurofins to test the Disney childrenswear for:
1. Phthalates
2. Alkylphenol ethoxylates
3. Organotins
4. Lead
5. Cadmium
6. Formaldehyde
We don’t have the space to fill you in on why each of these six chemicals is of grave concern, but please believe us – they’re not good. Any one of these chemicals can interfere with a child’s neurological development, for example, or can set the path for a cascade of health problems as they age.
This is what they found:
1. Phthalates: Found in all the garments tested, from 1.4 mg/kg to 200,000 mg/kg – or more than 20% of the weight of the sample.
2. Alkylphenol ethoxylates: Found in all the garments tested, in levels ranging from 34.1 mg/kg to 1,700 mg/kg
3. Organotins: found in 9 of the 16 products tested; the Donald Duck T shirt from The Netherlands had 474 micrograms/kg
4. Lead: Found in all the products tested, ranging from 0.14 mg/kg to 2,600 mg/kg for a Princess T shirt from Canada. With Denmark’s new laws on the use, marketing and manufacture of lead and products containing lead, the Princess T shirt from Canada would be illegal on the Danish market. Canada has set a limit of 600 mg/kg for children’s jewelry containing lead – why not Disney T shirts?
5. Cadmiun: Identified in 14 of the 18 products tested, ranging from 0.0069 mg/kg in the Finding Nemo T shirt bought in the UK to 38 mg/kg in the Belgian Mickey Mouse T shirt.
6. Formaldehyde: Found in 8 of the 15 products tested for this chemical in levels ranging from 23 mg/kg to 1,100 mg/kg.
One sample stands out: a German Winnie the Pooh PVC raincoat. This contained an astounding 320,000 mg/kg of total phthalates, or 32% by weight of the raincoat! This raincoat also contained 1,129 micrograms/kg organotins.
Greenpeace urged Disney to take responsibility for avoiding or substituting harmful chemicals in their products and to demand that their licensees implement a chemical policy that protects children’s heath. Disney reacted by stating that their products are in line with the law. The only action taken was to put labels on some products with a warning that those clothes contain toxic chemicals – but only in the UK (which has more stringent laws regarding chemical use than does the US), and only on a few items. Greenpeace Toxics Campaigner Oliver Knowles said, “”Their complete disregard for children’s health smacks of a Mickey Mouse company, and it’s now down to us to let the public know that these pyjamas contain dangerous chemicals.
“Perhaps it would be more apt if Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase became “To infertility and beyond!”
Read More:http://oecotextiles.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/toxic-textiles-by-walt-disney/
Flame Retardants in Kid's PJ's
What are the health risks?
Besides the relatively low incidence of burn injuries in pajamas, there are serious health hazards to flame retardant chemicals.
Tris, one of the first flame retardants used on sleepwear, was banned after a few years because it caused cancer.
PBDEs, a class of flame retardant chemicals used more in mattresses or foam furniture rather than clothing, nonetheless may cause problems with neurodevelopment and hormone regulation.
They have been banned in Europe and are slowly being 100% phased out in the states. (source)
Flame retardants have been found in household dust, human breastmilk, and even grocery store food. Can we really trust that whatever is in our children’s PJs is safe? I’d rather take a chance with a “small, open flame,” to be honest.
For those of you who share my concern, here are 3 ways you can battle the chemicals so your kids aren’t breathing in the fumes from their flame retardant sleepwear all night long.
1. Hang for a Year
Pardon the lack of source here, but back when I first started looking into this problem when my daughter was passing the 9-month mark, I found a source that said the chemicals should off-gas simply by hanging up the pajamas for an entire year. I’m always thrilled to buy secondhand for this reason, and I’ve asked the grandparents to buy any new fuzzy jams a size too large. [Note: some disagree in the comments, so I think I'll stick with no. 3 plus this one if I can.]
2. Wash in Soap
The CPSC standards state that the flame retardant quality must remain in effect for 50 washes in detergent, but if you read the tag on any sleepwear that isn’t tight-fitting, you notice a few things:
- “Flame Resistant” – your cue you don’t want to buy it if you can help it.
The first thing I did with this year’s Christmas gift pajamas was to soak them in castille soap and hot water. So there, flame retardant chemicals! (Note: Not everything that says “soap” is a soap. Charlie’s Soap is a natural laundry option that I’ve tried out, but it is actually a detergent.)
- “To retain flame resistance, wash in detergent only, do not use soap” – Eureka! I read that as instructions to beat the system, don’t you?
UPDATE: More good points in the comments, that the soap almost certainly diminishes the effect of the flame retardant chemicals, but most likely does not actually remove them from the fabric. Moving on to number three…
3. Soak in Acid
I was tweeting about my success with soap when another option popped up on my screen. The brilliant Lisa of Mama Says, whose husband has to wear flame retardant clothing for work, shared that any acid is also not supposed to come in contact with the fabric. She recommended soaking in Coca Cola, which apparently cuts industrial oil stains when added to the wash. (And I let my husband drink that stuff? Gah!)
I chose vinegar as a less expensive and clear acid and soaked all the evil PJs for about two days in a 50/50 solution with water. You could also use lemon juicein a ratio of 1 cup to a gallon of water. (source)"
Read More: http://green.yourway.net/3-ways-to-get-the-flame-retardant-out-of-your-kids-fuzzy-pajamas/
Formaldehyde in diet coke more dangerous than chinese pyjamas
From Tuesday, August 21, 2007
"Formaldehyde is one of the synthetic sweetener aspartame's by products, and is an even greater health threat than formaldehyde in imported clothing according to Soil & Health.
"Formaldehyde produced in childrens bodies from the aspartame in Diet drinks, some chewing gum and cereals and many processed foods, is likely to be an even greater health hazard than that in the unregulated clothing market," according to Soil & Health spokesperson Steffan Browning, "Cancer and many other health issues come from the junk additives that the regulated food industry is allowed to use."
The Ministry of Consumer Affairs says it is urgently looking into the extent of the imported clothing problem and will soon begin analysing clothing samples. It is looking into whether the allegations are true and if stricter controls are needed at the border.
"However, the same sort of concern should be shown by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, the Prime Minister, Health and Food Safety Ministers, and the legions of scuttling bureacrats around the formaldehyde being swilled down in the schools and streets of New Zealand in Diet drinks and chewing gum," said Browning.
The cancer causing, mostly genetically engineered chemical sweetener known as 951, Equal, aspartame and NutraSweet, is found in over 6000 products internationally including 'Diet' drinks, effervescent vitamin tablets, chewing gum, and sweets.
Aspartame has been linked to many health symptoms, including those expressed as ADHD, anxiety, depression, irritability, confusion, memory loss, insomnia, dizziness, migraines, cramps, abdominal pain, numbness or tingling of extremities, rashes, chronic fatigue, and personality changes.
"Recently released European Ramazzini Foundation research (1), showed that offspring of rats fed aspartame, developed tumours much earlier than those fed the carcinogen later in life.
Earlier research from the University of Barcelona (2) showed clear evidence that formaldehyde when transformed from aspartame spreads throughout the kidneys, liver, eyes and brain."
Read More: http://www.organicnz.org.nz/node/345
Further Reading
Oz Worry - 'Chinese Formaldehyde In Our Clothes' Excerpt from Today Tonight
http://rense.com/general78/ozz.htm
http://rense.com/general78/ozz.htm