Formaldehyde at the heart of proposed rule.

If you manufacture or distribute particleboard, medium density fiberboard or hardwood plywood panels, or if you fabricate or sell products made from these materials, then you must pay attention to what is going on in California.

The outcome of a scheduled Jan. 25 vote by the California Air Resources Board could have serious ramifications on the entire value chain of furniture, cabinets and other wood products made with traditional wood composites containing urea formaldehyde resins. At the very least, approval of the Composite Wood Products Airborne Toxics Control Measure could lead to price hikes of wood composite panels. It also could signal the death knell for some substrates, while giving cause for the accelerated creation of a new breed of "greener" alternatives.

CARB's proposal calls for phasing in separate formaldehyde emission limits starting in 2009 for particleboard, MDF, hardwood plywood made with veneer core and hardwood plywood made with a particleboard or MDF core. The proposed limits are particularly strict for hardwood plywood and could make it technologically and economically prohibitive to manufacture and sell products made with traditional hardwood plywood panels in California.

Meanwhile, most manufacturers of particleboard and MDF believe they can comply with the first phase of the proposed standard that kicks in Jan. 1, 2009, but question whether they will be able to develop commercially viable products that meet phase two's sharply reduced limit of 0.08 parts per million that would be required as of Jan. 1, 2011, for particleboard and Jan. 1, 2012, for MDF.

Groups Clash Over Proposal

CARB's proposal follows four years of meetings and research. It has fostered debates pitting the California Wood Industries Coalition against the Formaldehyde-free Coalition.

The CWIC is led by the Composite Panel Assn. and includes the Hardwood Plywood & Veneer Assn., the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Assn., the American Home Furnishings Alliance and the Formaldehyde Council. Formaldehyde-free Coalition members include the Natural Resources Defense Council, American Lung Assn. of California, Neil Kelly Cabinets and Columbia Forest Products.

Two essential issues at which the two parties are at great odds are the safety of wood products containing urea formaldehyde and the ease, availability and cost-efficiency for the wood products industry to switch to something else.

Formaldehyde was reclassified as a known human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research Cancer in June of 2004. The heightened designation was largely based on IARC's interpretation of epidemiological studies showing a higher than expected incidence of a rare nasopharyngeal cancer among workers exposed to formaldehyde at their jobs.

IARC's listing of formaldehyde as a carcinogen fuels the Formaldehyde-free Coalition's rallying call "to bolster (CARB's) efforts to reduce and ultimately remove an unnecessary and harmful chemical from homes, schools, hospitals, workplaces and ambient air."

The CWIC questions the risk assessment used by CARB to gauge the potential health threat posed by cabinets, furniture and the like made with wood composites emitting low levels of urea formaldehyde. The CWIC also questions if CARB is acting under the premise that there is "no safe level of exposure," especially considering that formaldehyde naturally occurs in all living things, including humans.

The Formaldehyde-free Coalition insists that there would be a sufficient supply of compliant substrates to satisfy Californians' demand for cabinets, furniture, store fixtures, etc. The coalition also quotes CARB's estimate that even if compliance drives the cost of materials up by 50%, that the rule will only add 0.2% to the overall cost of a home.

Obviously, a 50% increase in the core raw material would impact the price of kitchen cabinets, home entertainment units and laminate flooring by a lot more than 0.2%. This assumes that there would be sufficient supplies of compliant raw material to go around within the next two to five years to serve the huge California market, which seems unfathomable.

Because no authoritative study has been done showing a link between exposure to composite wood products and cancer, it would be nearly impossible to measure the regulation's impact, if any, on public health. But the likely economic impact will be considerable in terms of the probable loss of wood product manufacturing jobs and far fewer, more costly choices for consumers.

In the absence of any specific scientific evidence indicating that cabinets and furniture containing urea formaldehyde pose a public danger, CARB would better serve the people of California by letting them make their own purchasing decisions based on the best available information.

In turn, industry would best do its part to serve consumers in California and elsewhere by continuing to reduce emissions in its wood composite panels, while also pushing the envelope to develop innovative substitutes that allow market forces to promote a more orderly course of change.