VIP panel weighs in on CARB action.

I have written extensively about formaldehyde studies, health-risk classifications and regulations during my 20-plus years with Wood & Wood Products. My experience includes:

* Interviewing scientists who participated in studies in which mice subjected to extremely high concentrations of formaldehyde developed nasal tumors;

* Reading through numerous research studies and reports, including the International Agency for Research Cancels June 2004 report in which it elevated formaldehyde to a known human carcinogen;

* Attending (and in one case, moderating) workshops in which the potential health risks of formaldehyde have been thoroughly debated; and

* Sifting through the Federal Register when new regulations to restrict formaldehyde emissions have been proposed by the Occupational Safety & Health Administration and other government agencies.

While I am not a scientist--nor did I stay at a Holiday Express fast night--I remain unconvinced by the existing evidence that the low levels of formaldehyde in the kitchen cabinets, home entertainment system and other utilitarian wood products in my home pose a cancer threat to my family or me. Maybe sometime down the road a groundbreaking study on composite wood products will convince me otherwise, but until that day comes, I have myriad more pressing concerns to deprive me of sleep.

That said, I applaud and encourage the wood panel industry's efforts to continually reduce urea formaldehyde emissions and to develop products that use alternative resin systems. I think offering consumers a wider range of choices is good and proper. But as I opined in my November 2006 column, I take exception to the action being contemplated by the California Air Resources Board to place extremely lower formaldehyde emission restrictions on products made or sold containing particleboard, MDF or hardwood plywood.

What VIP Panelists Say

Having written so much about formaldehyde, including two columns about the GARB proposal last year, I was curious to learn what our readers think about the potential of stricter emission limits on composite wood products.

A survey was e-mailed to our Woodworking VIP Panel in mid-December. It elicited 256 responses, of which two-thirds pleaded ignorance to being aware of the GARB action. Of the one-third of respondents who are aware of the proposal, 63% indicated they were opposed to the proposed standard, while 37% said they favored it.

Of those in favor, the predominant commentary centered around safeguarding employees and consumers. For example, an executive for a California-based architectural woodwork firm said, "We do not understand well enough the long-term health effects of such substances on the health of humans, even at low rates of exposure."

The president of a New York residential furniture manufacturing company said, "I believe that formaldehyde is responsible for more employee illness than any other single factor. In my experience, limiting exposure improves employee health and therefore production."

A cabinetmaker from the state of Washington quoted a Joni Mitchell song: "'Don't it always seem to show, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone: Do we have to totally destroy the earth's habitat before we realize what we have done in the name of financial success?"

Many of the VIP panelists opposed to the GARB proposal also were hardly at a loss for words to support their opinions. Several noted that there are already satisfactory formaldehyde emission standards in place; some fretted that any new restrictions will unfairly drive up their cost of doing business.

A production manager for a commercial cabinet firm in Michigan said, "The emissions from these products are often the same or less than other materials or levels found naturally in the environment. The cost of resins containing no formaldehyde is cost-prohibitive and unnecessary."

"I believe in free-market, not government-regulated action," said the executive of a Minnesota kitchen cabinet company. "If CARB wants to change the emission standards, they should do it through an ad campaign to get people to change their buying habits. It should not be done through legislation; this is not how our country works."

"All evidence I have seen to date leads me to the conclusion that formaldehyde at current emission levels (in composite wood panels) is not carcinogenic," said a Tennessee cabinetmaker. "My father worked with formaldehyde and formalin solution for 50 years along with many of his contemporaries--nothing! The formaldehyde scare is a crock."

CARB is scheduled to vote on its proposed Composite Wood Products Airborne Toxics Control measure on April 26. If that holds true, expect a report in our May issue with more immediate coverage on www.iswonline.com.

As always, I welcome your comments. E-mail me at [e-mail].