{"id":2592,"date":"2013-03-26T06:22:05","date_gmt":"2013-03-26T11:22:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/?p=2592"},"modified":"2026-03-14T13:51:18","modified_gmt":"2026-03-14T18:51:18","slug":"the-chemical-industry-says-formaldehyde-and-styrene-dont-cause-cancer-only-one-of-52-scientists-agree","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2013\/03\/26\/the-chemical-industry-says-formaldehyde-and-styrene-dont-cause-cancer-only-one-of-52-scientists-agree\/","title":{"rendered":"The chemical industry says formaldehyde and styrene don\u2019t cause cancer. Only one of 52 scientists agree."},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Richard Denison, Ph.D.<\/em><em>,<\/em> is a Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n<p>Last week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) held a\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www8.nationalacademies.org\/cp\/meetingview.aspx?MeetingID=6483&amp;MeetingNo=2\">joint meeting of its two panels<\/a>\u00a0that are charged with reviewing the listings of\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www8.nationalacademies.org\/cp\/projectview.aspx?key=49510\">formaldehyde<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www8.nationalacademies.org\/cp\/projectview.aspx?key=49511\">styrene<\/a>\u00a0as carcinogens in the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/ntp.niehs.nih.gov\/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15\">12<sup>th<\/sup>\u00a0Report on Carcinogens<\/a>, which was released in June 2011.<\/p>\n<p>The 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC) is\u00a0the latest edition of a Congressionally mandated report developed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP).\u00a0 It upgraded formaldehyde to the status of \u201cknown to be a human carcinogen,\u201d and for the first time listed styrene as \u201creasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.\u201d\u00a0 That put the chemical industry into a real tizzy, what with the threat these listings pose to its profits from the huge volumes of these\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/2011\/06\/13\/acc-resorts-to-smear-tactics-to-defend-its-cash-cows-formaldehyde-and-styrene\/\">cash cows<\/a>\u00a0sold each year, not to mention the huge potential liability it faces.<\/p>\n<p>Never one to go down lightly, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has launched an all-out assault on the NTP and the RoC.\u00a0 It is waging battle not only with the executive branch, but also\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/2012\/05\/21\/labor-and-public-health-advocates-to-the-chemical-industry-stop-bullying-federal-scientists\/\">in the courts<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/switchboard.nrdc.org\/blogs\/drosenberg\/swift_boating_science_who_will.html\">in Congress<\/a>.\u00a0 In late 2011, it managed to get its allies in Congress to slip into the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2012, without any debate, a rider that mandated the NAS reviews of the formaldehyde and styrene listings in the 12<sup>th<\/sup>\u00a0RoC that are now underway.<\/p>\n<p>ACC also pushed legislation in the last Congress to shut down all funding for the RoC until the reviews are completed; failing on that front,\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/chemicalwatch.com\/downloads\/ACCComments.pdf\">earlier this month<\/a>\u00a0it demanded that NTP cease all work on the next (13<sup>th<\/sup>) edition of the RoC.\u00a0\u00a0(For more background, see previous blog posts by\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/2012\/09\/05\/hands-off-the-report-on-carcinogens\/\">EDF<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/switchboard.nrdc.org\/blogs\/jsass\/science_show_trial_house_repub.html\">NRDC<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<p>Lost in all this kerfluffle, however, are these salient facts:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The formaldehyde and styrene listings are the outcome of one of the most extensive scientific assessment processes on the planet, entailing reviews by four separate groups of expert scientists for each chemical.<\/li>\n<li>ACC as well as the public had at least three separate formal opportunities for providing input to these expert bodies.<\/li>\n<li>Of a total of 52 votes cast by these scientific panels on the NTP\u2019s recommended listings,\u00a0<strong><em>51 of those votes supported the recommendations and only one opposed them<\/em><\/strong>.<span id=\"more-2592\"><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>At last week\u2019s joint panel meeting, Dr. John Bucher, head of the NTP, spent two hours laying out the process NTP uses to:\u00a0 (a) determine which chemicals get selected for possible inclusion in the RoC, (b) compile and assess the evidence to reach recommendations on the potential for those chemicals to cause cancer in humans, (c) solicit and consider public comments at each stage of the process, and (d) peer review NTP\u2019s recommendations, first, by independent scientific experts, then by scientists drawn from multiple agencies across the federal government, and finally by another group of independent experts, the NTP\u2019s Board of Scientific Counselors.<\/p>\n<p>Here\u2019s a schematic that summarizes NTP\u2019s process; note the multiple rounds of scientific review and solicitation of public comment:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/files\/2013\/03\/12th-RoC-process.gif\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"aligncenter size-full wp-image-2594\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/nanotechnology\/files\/2013\/03\/12th-RoC-process.gif\" alt=\"\" width=\"795\" height=\"568\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>And here are the vote tallies from the expert groups:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Recommendation to list formaldehyde as \u201cknown to be a human carcinogen\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>Expert panel:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a09 yes to 0 no<\/li>\n<li>Interagency scientific review group:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a08 yes to 0 no<\/li>\n<li>NIEHS\/NTP scientific review group:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a09 yes to 0 no<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Recommendation to list styrene as \u201creasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen\u201d\n<ul>\n<li>Expert panel:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a010 yes to 0 no<\/li>\n<li>Interagency scientific review group:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a08 yes to 0 no<\/li>\n<li>NIEHS\/NTP scientific review group:\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a07 yes to 1 no<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>For those of you keeping score, that\u2019s\u00a0<strong>51 yes votes to 1 no vote<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly, two members of the interagency scientific review group for styrene actually thought that NTP\u2019s recommendation was too weak and should be upgraded to \u201cknown to be a human carcinogen.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>None of this virtual unanimity among scientific experts has had any discernible effect on the hysterics of the chemical industry:\u00a0 It dominated the NAS\u2019s joint panel meeting, flying in its own \u201cexperts\u201d from all over the country.\u00a0 Of 11 public comments provided to the panelists, eight were from paid industry consultants or staff from ACC or its members companies.<\/p>\n<p>Bracketing these loud industry voices, however, were a couple others.\u00a0 The first public comment of the day came from the president and founder of a small personal care products company that is a member of the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/asbcouncil.org\/\">American Sustainable Business Council<\/a>\u00a0(ASBC).\u00a0 She noted how critical it is for small businesses making consumer products to have access to timely, objective information on the hazards of chemicals, so that they can take steps to reduce or eliminate them.\u00a0 She also pointed to a\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/asbcouncil.org\/toxic-chemicals-poll\">recent national poll of small business owners<\/a>\u00a0that found widespread support \u2013 regardless of party affiliation \u2013 for greater access to information about toxic chemicals and stricter regulation.<\/p>\n<p>My colleague at NRDC, Dr. Jennifer Sass, and I were the last two public commenters of the day.\u00a0 In\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/docs.nrdc.org\/health\/files\/hea_13032001a.pdf\">her comments<\/a>, Dr. Sass asked the obvious question:\u00a0 \u201cWhy is the [NAS] reviewing the styrene and formaldehyde assessments, which have both already undergone years of public and scientific review?\u201d\u00a0 She also provided critical rebuttal to the industry\u2019s claims that NTP somehow got it wrong.<\/p>\n<p>I made two points in my comments:\u00a0 First, delays in reaching decisions about toxic chemicals \u2013 in this case spurred by the chemical industry\u2019s political attack on independent government science \u2013 have real-world consequences:\u00a0 They mean we continue to needlessly expose millions of people to these chemicals\u2019 harmful effects.\u00a0 Industry interference has kept the federal government from completing its\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.nrdc.org\/health\/files\/IrisDelayReport.pdf\">assessment of formaldehyde\u2019s risks for 15 years<\/a>\u00a0and counting.\u00a0 Had those delays not occurred, we might well have avoided the national scandal that arose when\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.edf.org\/content\/denison-testimony-tsca-february-2009\">victims of Hurricane Katrina were poisoned<\/a>\u00a0after being housed in those infamous FEMA trailers that were laced with formaldehyde-emitting plywood.<\/p>\n<p>Second, I urged the members of the NAS panels, when carrying out their charge to ensure the science behind NTP\u2019s listings is sound, to avoid demanding \u201cperfect\u201d science and raising the bar so high before government can act that they inadvertently contribute to even more delay in securing critical health protections for workers, people of color and lower socioeconomic status and others who disproportionately bear the impact of toxic chemical exposures.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: medium;\">\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist. Last week, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) held a\u00a0joint meeting of its two panels\u00a0that are charged with reviewing the listings of\u00a0formaldehyde\u00a0and\u00a0styrene\u00a0as carcinogens in the\u00a012th\u00a0Report on Carcinogens, which was released in June 2011. The 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC) is\u00a0the latest edition of a Congressionally mandated report developed &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5009,56093],"tags":[39150,5016,39171,39164,5021,39160,39199,5017,8099],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2592","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health-science","category-industry-influence","tag-american-chemistry-council","tag-carcinogenic-mutagenic-or-toxic-for-reproduction-cmr","tag-exposure-vs-hazard","tag-formaldehyde","tag-chemical-industry-tactics","tag-national-academy-of-sciences-nas","tag-national-institutes-of-environmental-health-sciences-niehs","tag-risk-assessment","tag-styrene"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2592","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2592"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2592\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13642,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2592\/revisions\/13642"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2592"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}