TCS0045

Written evidence submitted by Tracey Logan and Richard Szwagrzak

Executive Summary

We were exposed to formaldehyde fumes thirteen times the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) safety limits for this known carcinogen, when we had new MDF cabinets and wardrobes fitted in 2017.  Our evidence, which addresses formaldehyde emissions from consumer articles alone, includes air quality tests conducted by BRE scientists as well as a review of the literature concerning formaldehyde’s toxicity and current EU regulation of formaldehyde. Although we are just one case study, involving a single small firm, we believe that what happened to us may point to a more widespread public health hazard.  We were shocked to discover, with the help of our MP and direct experience, that no UK authority can be relied upon to stop such unsafe products being sold and distributed. The government places no legal limit on formaldehyde emissions from consumer articles such as our bedroom cabinets.  It is thus not surprising that Trading Standards failed to act when presented with our evidence. The company whose furniture exposed us to toxic formaldehyde emissions may be continuing to do so, two years on.

Key points we wish to make in our evidence include:

• Fitted MDF-based furniture can expose consumers to dangerously high levels of airborne formaldehyde, a known human carcinogen. Formaldehyde is released by MDF, lacquers and paints used in furniture construction.

• There is no UK limit on formaldehyde emissions from consumer articles made with MDF panels. Current EU standards for formaldehyde emissions from MDF boards do not protect consumers from toxic exposure when those boards are combined with formaldehyde-emitting paints and lacquers in finished cabinets.

• Trading Standards cannot be relied upon to protect the public from dangerously high formaldehyde emissions in consumer products. 

• A new UK safety authority is needed to conduct surveillance of toxic chemicals, including formaldehyde, in consumer products.

• Consumers should be empowered to protect themselves from formaldehyde exposure by consumer test kits, or devices, manufactured to a recognised UK/EU standard. This would also put pressure on furniture suppliers to build healthier products.

• Formaldehyde fumes are a risk to UK workers, too. Along with Irish workers, their ‘safe’ exposure limits for formaldehyde are at least four times higher than those in other European nations.

Introduction

1. We live in a small, terraced house in Chiswick. Our toxic furniture installation occurred in April 2017. It involved built-in cabinets and wardrobes in our bedroom, which made our eyes sting for 10 days following installation. The furniture firm told us this was normal.  Eleven days after installation, a BRE air quality investigator sampled the air in our bedroom. This showed our bedroom air to contain more than thirteen times the WHO’s safety limit for formaldehyde, over eighteen times the Building regulations for VOCs and four times over the WHO limit for styrene.  Emissions were significantly higher inside a new wardrobe. [1]  The furniture was removed on the next working day, and subsequently a second BRE air quality test found that ‘[l]evels of volatile organic compounds and formaldehyde in the … bedroom had greatly reduced, indicating that the source had been removed.’[2] A further BRE test six weeks later, after the furniture had been aired in a barn, indicated that had it remained in our bedroom the furniture would still have polluted the air to four times the WHO limit for formaldehyde.[3] In February 2019, our case was reported in The Guardian newspaper.[4]

2. Our focus here is on the formaldehyde results, because they represent an under-appreciated public health risk which consumers may be exposed to unawares. Formaldehyde is easily confused with the smell of fresh paint, which householders expect during renovation.

3. The International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC) states that ‘formaldehyde is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1).’[5]

4. Despite a complaint about the company to Trading Standards, offering our BRE tests, the safety authority did not respond or ask for our evidence for more than a year.[6] By this time, we now know Trading Standards considered our case to be too old to investigate.  We approached Trading Standards in the interests of public health.  We now find that a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman can only be entertained if it demonstrates that we have been harmed personally.  There is no authority that can be appealed to in the public interest.  We believe that consumers should benefit from a similar, nationally-funded health and safety authority such as the HSE, but with wider powers to research and test safer alternative chemicals as well as a public education remit.

5. We told Trading Standards of our concern for the furniture company’s workers and our BRE reports were passed to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) for investigation. However, we were surprised to find that it would take double the concentration of formaldehyde that was measured in our bedroom air to breach the UK workplace exposure limit (WEL) for this substance (WEL = 2,500 microgrammes/m3 vs our bedroom = 1,303 microgrammes/m3).  Because of this, the HSE was not empowered to conduct a full investigation of the company’s activities.[7]

Why are toxic chemicals used?

Q1.  Why are toxic chemicals used in consumer products?  What benefit do they offer?  How are levels of toxicity measured?

6. Urea Formaldehyde is used to bind wood particles together in MDF.[8]  It is also a component of acid-cured lacquers, such as that used on our furniture.[9] These are harder wearing than other lacquers.[10] There is no reason why bedroom furniture should be coated with hard wearing lacquer. 

7. The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) considers acid-cured lacquers to have almost completely been replaced because they are ‘a potentially high emitting source.’[11] Not so in the UK where, according to an HSE Inspector, who visited our furniture supplier, they are ‘commonly used for this type of furniture.’[12]

8. Although the lacquer used on our furniture contains formaldehyde it is at such low levels that, even as a substance hazardous to health, it does not need to be included in the safety data sheet for the AC lacquer.’[13]

9. Following our 2017 complaint, an HSE Inspector reported that Morrell’s, the company which supplied the acid-cured lacquer used on our furniture, ‘commissioned BRE tests to calculate emissions levels from the curing paint.’[14] A summary of this report indicated ‘steadily falling formaldehyde emissions over a period of several weeks.’[15]  Room concentration levels , he said, will depend on the surface area of the furniture and the level of ventilation. [16]   We are unaware of any calculations which sought to ascertain whether formaldehyde emissions from our furniture - either its MDF or finishing components - would be safe considering the furniture to be installed, the size of our bedroom, and rate of its ventilation.

10. Toxicity testing of formaldehyde emissions in air has been conducted by the IARC using in vitro, laboratory animal tests, human cohort and case control studies, and meta-analyses as outlined in the IARC’s Monograph on Formaldehyde in 2018.[17]

Q2.  What new technologies and materials are being developed to reduce the use of toxic chemicals? Are they widely available and affordable for producers?

11. The EU considers that current measures are adequate to protect consumers from formaldehyde emissions of MDF-based consumer products, and so the costs of complying with proposed new legislation would be negligible.  So our answer to this question is two-fold: 

12. A current consultation on the restriction of ‘formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers’ across all EU Member States, seeks to regulate in the interests of consumers like us.[18]  Voluntary agreements are in place across the EU to produce only wood panels releasing formaldehyde at a concentration of 0.124 mg/m3 (just over the WHO safety limit).  As far as we know, there is no EU-wide voluntary agreement which similarly restricts the formaldehyde emissions of finished consumer products.

13. Since a voluntary EU-wide industry agreement on wood panels already exists, it is assumed that the economic impact of currently proposed restrictions on formaldehyde emission limits for consumer ‘articles’ (e.g. MDF furniture) will be ‘negligible.’[19] This does not make sense, since finished consumer articles are made with additional formaldehyde-emitters, as well as MDF. We believe additional testing of finished consumer products is needed and that this will cost extra.

14. New zero added formaldehyde (ZF) MDF is available, such as ‘Medite Ecologique,’ in the 18mm thickness typical of that used in bedroom cabinets.[20]  Such panels cost approx. 65% more than conventional Medite MDF.[21]

15. Q.3 Which toxic chemicals post a significant risk to human health?  How pervasive is the risk?  Who is most at risk? How do producers make consumers aware of health risks identified in their products?

16. ‘There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde.  Formaldehyde causes cancer of the nasopharynx and leukaemia.  Also, a positive association has been observed between exposure to formaldehyde and sinonasal cancer.’[22]

17. We are unaware of scientific studies, beyond our own case study data, into concentrations of formaldehyde in indoor air following MDF furniture installation. We know that our case was not a ‘one-off’ since the furniture company stated it had used the same products for 15 years. 

18. Without the necessary research we cannot assess the public health risk from MDF furniture. However, its widespread use for flexible storage in kitchens, living rooms, bedrooms, nurseries, libraries and offices suggests this may be significant and dependant on the quantity of MDF used in the furniture and the formaldehyde emissions of finishing products applied to it. The design website Houzz.co.uk lists 1,105 cabinet makers. We expect most construct their furniture with MDF.  There will be many more across the UK.

19. We fear that new social housing is likely to use MDF furniture to maximise storage.  This would be concerning if such installations exceed the ECHA’s Loading Factor (the amount of MDF in a room) of 0.75 m2/m3.[23] For comparison the Loading Factor of our bedroom furniture was 0.98 m2/m3 and we do not consider our installation to be atypical.

20. Anyone living in homes containing substantial quantities of MDF furniture may be at risk from its formaldehyde emissions. 

21. Experts and industry bodies acknowledge the challenges of formaldehyde emissions from MDF-based cabinetry and produce information concerning this.[24]  Cabinet-makers themselves, seem in denial about the potential health risks of formaldehyde emissions of MDF panels.[25]  To our knowledge, cabinet makers do not advise clients of the dangers of formaldehyde fumes from MDF.

Q.4 How does the government measure the health risks of toxic chemicals?  What actions does the government take to limit consumers’ exposure to toxic chemicals?  Should maximum residue limits (MRLs) be applied to toxic chemicals in consumer products? Are current trading standards sufficient to monitor toxic chemicals in consumer products (e.g. children’s toys and food)?

22. The government neither measures nor limits consumers’ exposure to formaldehyde in MDF-based furniture.  Therese Coffey, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has confirmed that ‘[F]ormaldehyde is not restricted in articles such as MDF panels.’[26] 

23. The government, through the HSE, set limits to workers’ exposure to formaldehyde in air. These are unusually high in the EU context. [27]

24. MRLs are not applicable here.

25. Current Trading Standards are not sufficient to monitor toxic chemicals in consumer products.  In his response to a written question by Ruth Cadbury, MP, Andrew Griffiths, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy) stated that Trading Standards have powers to take action against any unsafe goods, under the General Product Safety Regulation (2005).[28] However, Trading Standards have refused to investigate our case.[29]  A December 2018 survey by CHEMTrust demonstrates that our experience is not unusual.[30]  It found that ‘35% of councils (58 councils) did not test any products at all for hazardous chemicals.’[31]

Environmental Concerns

Q.5  What is the environmental risk from toxic chemicals?  As part of its commitment in the 25 Year Environment Plan what measures is the government taking to reduce harmful chemicals in the environment?  Will these measures be effective?

1. Our evidence concerns the indoor environment, specifically the pollution of indoor air with carcinogenic formaldehyde.  We outlined the environmental risk in paragraphs (10) and (11) above.  Formaldehyde clears quickly outdoors. Indoors it can persist, especially so in increasingly well-insulated homes without mechanical ventilation. The 25 Year Environment plan does not address indoor environment and so does not address the environmental risk from formaldehyde emissions in indoor air.

Q.6  How are flame retardant treated products currently disposed of and what problems have been identified with these methods of disposal?  What is international best practice for disposal?

2. Not applicable to formaldehyde emissions from MDF furniture .

Q.7  Is current legislation on producer responsibility and management of waste sufficient for recyclers to identify toxic chemicals in products?  Should materials treated with flame retardants be available for use as recycled material in consumer products?

3. Not applicable to formaldehyde emissions from MDF furniture.

Q.8 Are the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire Safety) Regulations, 1988 (as amended in 1989, 1993 and 2010) fit for purpose?  If not, which aspects should be updated? 

4. Not applicable to formaldehyde emissions from MDF furniture.

Q.9  Does the government’s plan to target £9bn in savings through regulation by 2022 pose risks for chemical regulation?

5. Considering our experience of the inadequacy of regulation and its enforcement it would be ludicrous to suggest that any savings in chemical regulation could do anything but increase the public health risk from toxic chemicals in consumer products. 

Q.10 What risks or opportunities does Britain exiting the EU pose to regulation and import of these chemical substances or products containing these substances?  What is the likely status of the UK’s continued participation in the RAPEX system in the event of Britain leaving the EU?

6. We believe that environmental protections are likely to decline, not increase, unless the UK commits to dynamic alignment with EU chemical regulation after Brexit. 

7. We would hope that, through such alignment, the UK government would also continue to influence EU chemical regulations after Brexit.  For example, the current ECHA proposals for restrictions on ‘formaldehyde and formaldehyde releasers’ do not reflect the specificities of the UK context, especially with regard to the refurbishment of very old and very small dwellings in cities (such as our 1876 terraced house).[32]

Q.11 How should substances of very high concern (SVHC) be regulated after the UK leaves the EU?  How should the government manage risk from newly identified toxic chemicals after the UK has left the EU?

8. We believe that the UK should aim to stay in REACH after Brexit.

Q.12  What steps can the Foreign and Commonwealth Office take to influence other countries to reduce the manufacturing and improve control of toxic chemicals in consumer products?

9. The Foreign Office should do everything protect the UK from imports of consumer articles which emit high levels of formaldehyde and also to work with the EU and others to improve the safety of manufactured products in this area.

April 2019