Revisiting Formaldehyde and Vaccines

It's cold and flu season again, and that means here at Formaldehyde Facts, we're dealing with stories in the media about how people are refusing to take vaccines because they contain formaldehyde. Of course, we've dealt with this issue in the past, and suggest that you review our complete archive on the topic by clicking here. For a good primer on formaldehyde and vaccines, click here (PDF) for a fact sheet from FCI's European counterpart, FormaCare.

Formaldehyde Helps Image the Human Genome

At FCI, we spend a lot of time defending the molecule and its legitimate uses across a host of industries. It's all part of the job, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate a story like this one that appeared yesterday in BioITWorld.com and a number of other online publications:

Using a new technique, researchers revealed the first complete view of the 3-D structure of the genome and the way chromosomes arrange themselves in the nucleus. The work was done by scientists at Harvard University, the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, University of Massachusetts Medical School, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and published in Science.

So why did this story catch our eye?

Co-first author Nynke van Berkum, a postdoctoral researcher at UMass Medical School in Dekker's laboratory, explains the process. “We grow cells and we crosslink the cells using formaldehyde so chromatin that are close to each other link, then we fragment the DNA… What happens is you get these molecules in your solution that are crosslinked to each other representing two fragments that were originally close to each other in the nucleus.”

That's right folks, it would have been impossible without the help of formaldehyde.

Drywall: Not Made With Formaldehyde-Based Resins

One of the sources that we regularly run into here at Formaldehyde Facts is InjuryBoard.com, a nationwide network of blogs run by trial attorneys. Earlier this week, Camryn Hansen, a writer for an InjuryBoard.com blog run out of Cherry Hill, N.J. wrote the following about the pending Senate legislation introduced earlier this year concerning the nationalization of the CARB rule (for a look at FCI's position on that legislation, click here):

The Senate is currently considering a bill that would establish federal standards for the levels of formaldehyde allowed in Chinese composite wood products, like drywall and fiberboard, used in American housing construction.

Memo to Hansen and all of her friends at InjuryBoard.com: drywall, Chinese or otherwise, is made out of gypsum, not wood, and hence would not be covered under the proposed Senate legislation. For more on how drywall is manufactured, click here.

San Jose City Council Rejects Linda Kincaid on Formaldehyde Testing

For a number of months now we've been following the activities of Linda Kincaid, an industrial hygienist working in the San Francisco Bay Area who has been testing area homes there for formaldehyde in indoor air. As FCI has already outlined, the industry believes that Ms. Kincaid's testing protocols -- or lack thereof depending on who you talk to -- render any indoor air readings she's taken highly suspect.

To review where FCI stands, it's important to take a look back at the analysis that Larry Newton prepared for FCI concerning Ms. Kincaid's published work. Click here for our last blog post on the topic, and here for the actual paper.

As a reminder, here's part of what Larry wrote in response to the body of Ms. Kincaid's work:

As Industrial Hygienists we are dedicated to protect the well being and health of our employees and community. As accredited professionals we must be ethical in the way we do our work such as collecting exposure information, factually reporting and interpreting the results, and providing the best direction to control or eliminate the hazard. The exposure information gathered in the field must be done following strict protocols. When reporting our findings we must be honest, factual, and clear and indicate when we are expressing our professional opinion and/or recommendation. Unfortunately, your articles reveal no thought other than taking grab samples in questionable locations and under very questionable conditions.

As is the case with most activists, pointing out scientific errors isn't enough to dissuade them -- especially in the case of Kincaid who stands to enjoy a massive financial windfall if she can convince localities in California to require formaldehyde testing in all new homes -- and Ms. Kincaid took her case to the San Jose City Council to require that homes rated under the GreenPoint system should be tested for formaldehyde.

Earlier this week, the Transportation and Environment Committee of the Council basically told Kincaid that they didn't put much faith in her testing regimen, forwarding a report to the full Council that said that testing wouldn't be necessary. Predictably, Kincaid threw a fit in print on Wednesday, writing that the decision showed that the Council had demonstrated a "lack of concern," for their constituents' health.

As for us, we think the Council ought to be applauded for ignoring Kincaid's flawed testing. Meanwhile, a friend of FCI's who we won't name and was in attendance at the meeting earlier this week got in touch with us and passed along some observations. While Kincaid was quick to dismiss the work of the staff at Build it Green, our friend said it was clear that they had been in touch with committee staff well ahead of the hearing, and made sure that all the members were well briefed on their position before they ever stepped to the microphone to testify. That was in sharp contrast to Kincaid, who apparently dropped a 7-page report on the lap of the committee chairman just five minutes before the start of the hearing.

Behavior like that isn't terribly shocking coming from the activist community. When it comes to science, it's very common for activists to spring reports and studies on journalists who don't have the time or expertise to review them adequately. For the most part, that results in articles that simply restate a conclusion contained in an executive summary allowing activists to score cheap points in the media.

Unfortunately, if you do that with a politician, you can't really be surprised when that sort of behavior winds up damaging your cause. How in the world she expected a city councilman to read her report and understand it adequately just five minutes before the start of the hearing is beyond my powers of understanding. I guess she knew that the City Council had been well briefed on the shortcomings of her science and just figured she'd drop off the report to go through the motions and still have a reason to complain when the decision went against her.

Apparently Kincaid's testimony didn't have much impact either. As our friend told us, her testimony, "smacked of a complete lack of engineering and science … yet promoted it as state of the art information."

In any case, we don't think this is the last we'll hear from Kincaid, but it's good to see that the junk science she's peddling didn't find any takers in her own hometown.

FCI Responds to Linda Kincaid Articles at Examiner.com; Publishes Critique of Work

You'll recall that last month that FCI sent a letter to Linda Kincaid, an industrial hygienist working in the Bay Area about a series of articles she had written at Examiner.com about formaldehyde and indoor air.

A couple of weeks ago, Ms. Kincaid responded to our letter, and quite honestly, many of the folks inside FCI continued to be concerned about her testing protocols. To get to the heart of the problem with her methodology, FCI contracted with Larry Newton, an industrial hygienist, to write a detailed critique of her work (PDF). Here's part of what he had to say:

As Industrial Hygienists we are dedicated to protect the well being and health of our employees and community. As accredited professionals we must be ethical in the way we do our work such as collecting exposure information, factually reporting and interpreting the results, and providing the best direction to control or eliminate the hazard. The exposure information gathered in the field must be done following strict protocols. When reporting our findings we must be honest, factual, and clear and indicate when we are expressing our professional opinion and/or recommendation. Unfortunately, your articles reveal no thought other than taking grab samples in questionable locations and under very questionable conditions.

You can read the cover letter that FCI's Executive Director, Betsy Natz, sent to Ms. Kincaid with Newton's report by clicking here. Here's the text in full:

August 11, 2009

Linda Kincaid
Industrial Hygiene Service
20255 Glasgow Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Via Email (nanosafety@gmail.com)

Dear Ms. Kincaid:

When I first contacted you last month, it was a good faith effort on the part of the Formaldehyde Council, Inc. (FCI) to point out what we believed were obvious shortcomings in the testing protocols you have been using to measure levels of formaldehyde in indoor air for your articles at Examiner.com – shortcomings that we suspected rendered your subsequent conclusions invalid.

A review of your letter to FCI on July 20, 2009 detailing your testing procedures merely confirmed what we had already been led to believe: that your standards and practices were technically flawed; the findings scientifically erroneous and unsupportable; and the decision to publish those same findings at Examiner.com ill-advised. Furthermore, the health claims youʼve made in your articles are simply unsupportable.

In an effort to further clarify our position, FCI hired an outside consultant, Larry Newton, to review your articles and offer a critique of your testing procedures. As Mr. Newton points out in the attachment to this letter, your testing amounted to surreptitiously obtaining grab samples of indoor air in homes and then reporting these results as valid, this when established protocol demands that IH professionals spend a minimum of 40 hours preparing a home before testing even begins.

Overall, he offered the following conclusion:

“As Industrial Hygienists we are dedicated to protect the well being and health of our employees and community … The exposure information gathered in the field must be done following strict protocols. When reporting our findings we must be honest, factual, and clear and indicate when we are expressing our professional opinion and/or recommendation. Unfortunately, your articles reveal no thought other than take grab samples in questionable locations and under very questionable conditions.”

Since our last communication, I see that youʼve continued to gain access to Bay Area homes under false pretenses. Your attempt to secretly test homes was needlessly provocative, and as pointed out by Mr. Newton in his report, quite likely a serious ethical lapse that may have put both you and the Examiner at risk for future litigation. Further, your recent testimony before the San Jose City Council where you shared the results of your testing as if they were scientifically valid was equally irresponsible.

To sum up, FCI can only conclude that your testing was flawed, and your conclusions about formaldehyde and indoor air in these homes completely erroneous. Furthermore, we concur with the conclusion offered by Build it Green, manager of the GreenPoint rated system, who in a response to one of your articles wrote: “Ms. Kincaidʼs testing methodology is highly questionable, her conclusions overly simplistic and spurious.”

Sincerely,

Betsy Natz
Executive Director
The Formaldehyde Council, Inc.

CC: Josh Futterman (jfutterman@examiner.com), Examiner.com

Attachment: Critical Review of Linda Kincaid Formaldehyde Articles

As you can see from the letter, FCI referenced another critique of Ms. Kincaid's work, one that comes from Build It Green, the manager of the GreenPoint rated system. In her series of articles, Ms. Kincaid has been particularly critical of GreenPoint rated homes, and the folks at Build it Green had some pretty harsh things to say about her work as well:

Build It Green found the information in the articles quite inflammatory and simplistic, with an elementary perspective on the realities of any green building rating system and the US construction marketplace. Ms. Kincaid also severely misrepresents the standards and intent of California’s regulatory safeguards in place to help protect homeowners from actual risks of formaldehyde offgassing. Ms. Kincaid’s testing methodology is highly questionable, her conclusions overly simplistic and spurious. Her articles do the opposite of supporting the need for good comprehensive information regarding the realistic dynamics occurring in today’s homes.

Furthermore:

In conversations with Ms. Kincaid, Build It Green attempted to provide accurate and meaningful information. Ms. Kincaid mentioned her concerns over the State testing methods and protocols as her results varied from Section 01350 thresholds. It was recommended that she contact CARB to understand how her testing protocols might be inconsistent (or consistent) with their testing protocols as well as gain an understanding of the sampling and certification process for the products. Yet, it seems that she has not followed up with the appropriate authorities to research the correct scientific protocols, but has instead go on her own to inflame the public incorrectly on the reality of these standards, as well as solely and falsely target GreenPoint Rated of “greenwashing.” Build It Green strives to maintain open communication with the public and stakeholders in the building community. It is disappointing that Ms. Kincaid chose to use the communications with Build It Green to engaging in inaccurate, cowardly and sensationalistic journalism.

We'll have more later, as warranted.

Revisiting Formaldehyde and Textiles

Yesterday, I came across an item in NOW Toronto that spent a considerable amount of time dealing with formaldehyde in textiles. It recycles all of the usual charges about the use of formaldehyde resins in wrinkle-free clothing. But just as a reminder, here's a statement from Dr. Phil Wakelyn that was sent to me back in 2008:

It should be noted that the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) extensively studied formaldehyde and textiles in the 1980's at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and elsewhere. After these studies, it was determined that formaldehyde fabric levels and formaldehyde emissions from textiles do not pose an acute or chronic health problem to consumers. Both the CPSC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have already determined that no standard for fabric levels or product emissions is necessary for textiles and apparel.

Still, the fear mongering continues. For our entire archive on formaldehyde and textiles, click here.

FCI Talks to Examiner.com Contributor Over Formaldehyde and Indoor Air

Over the course of several weeks, Linda Kincaid, a contributor to Examiner.com, has written a series of articles concerning formaldehyde and indoor air. Earlier this month, FCI's executive Director, Betsy Natz, sent the following letter to Kincaid regarding her reports:

July 8, 2009

Linda Kincaid
Industrial Hygiene Service
20255 Glasgow Drive
Saratoga, CA 95070
Via Email (nanosafety@gmail.com)

Dear Ms. Kincaid:

As the Executive Director of the Formaldehyde Council, Inc. (FCI), the trade association that represents the leading producers and users of formaldehyde, I have been following your reports on indoor air, formaldehyde and composite wood products with great interest. FCI is dedicated to promoting the responsible use and benefits of formaldehyde and ensuring its accurate scientific evaluation. Therefore, I would like to discuss some of the issues you raise in your articles in more depth.

You report that in the course of your work, you've measured levels of formaldehyde inside drawers, kitchen cabinets and boxes and that these readings should be cause for concern. While your testing parameters are not clear, we are not aware of any industrial hygiene sampling protocol that would suggest the approach you describe.

It seems that it is particularly inappropriate to cite health concerns when the testing method is ambiguous and there is a limited sampling pool. There are rigorous standard protocols for testing product emissions under the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for composite wood products. Furthermore, as I’m sure you are aware, some of the spot samples you have measured (e.g., inside of a drawer) are hardly representative of what people might breathe.

Given your spot testing methods and the types of cabinets tested, the readings you reported are not typical of products produced by responsible U.S. manufacturers. If sourced from U.S. manufacturers, the composite wood products that make up the majority of components used in the assembly of a cabinet are subject to a third-party product emission certification process. One of FCI’s members, the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association (KCMA), sponsors a nationally recognized voluntary testing and certification program for cabinets, ANSI/KCMA A161.1, Performance & Construction Standard for Kitchen and Vanity Cabinets. U.S. government agencies, architects, builders, remodelers, and other specifiers reference this program.

Cabinets that comply and bear the KCMA certification seal are recognized in the marketplace as a quality product after a rigorous battery of tests simulating years of typical household use. Approved third-party independent laboratories perform the tests, which includes random sample selections from unannounced visits to manufacturing plants. Given these standards, we can only conclude that the products you tested may have been sourced overseas from Asia where manufacturing controls (if any) aren’t nearly as rigorous as those in the United States.

In short, FCI supports finished products that are made with compliant third party certified composite wood components. We therefore would like to better understand the scope and nature of your testing program, which suggests the use of noncertified composite wood components. We are quite concerned that you are aimed at identifying worst-case sources of formaldehyde emissions; yet you are casting a wide net that suggests irresponsible practices among U.S. composite wood manufacturers. We ask that you engage in further discussions with us.

Sincerely,

Betsy Natz
Executive Director
The Formaldehyde Council, Inc.

CC: Josh Futterman (jfutterman@examiner.com), Examiner.com

Last week, Kincaid spoke to FCI, and she's agreed to engage in a dialogue with the trade association over her reports. We'll be sure to pass along progress reports as they are warranted.