Tell the EPA: Don’t Weaken Formaldehyde Protections

🧪 What’s happening?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a major change to how it evaluates cancer risk from formaldehyde, a chemical linked to leukemia and other cancers and found in building materials, furniture, consumer products, and indoor air.

For nearly 40 years, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the EPA has used a model that treats DNA-damaging carcinogens (like formaldehyde) as risky at ANY exposure level—even very small amounts. Under this long-standing approach, there is no truly “safe” dose.

Now, the EPA is proposing to switch to a “safe threshold” model, which assumes formaldehyde is harmless until exposure reaches a specific cutoff. This change would nearly double what the agency considers “safe” to inhale and could weaken future protections—not just for formaldehyde, but for other carcinogens as well.

The EPA is accepting public comments before making this decision final. This is a key moment for public input.

🗓️ Deadline to comment: February 2, 2026

🗣️ Speak up! Submit a Public Comment

Anyone can submit a comment. You do not need to be a scientist, lawyer, or policy expert.
Personal, clear comments are especially valuable.

SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT HERE

(Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0438)

You may submit anonymously, but adding your city/state can help show broad public concern.

✍️ Comment template (copy & paste, or add your own thoughts)

Feel free to edit this in your own words. Original comments carry more weight.

To the EPA,

I am writing as a very concerned citizen about the EPA’s proposal to change how cancer risk from formaldehyde is evaluated.

Formaldehyde is a well-established carcinogen, and for decades the EPA has treated DNA-damaging carcinogens as posing risk even at low levels of exposure. Shifting to a “safe threshold” model, which assumes no risk below a certain exposure level, raises serious public health concerns.

I urge the EPA to maintain a health-protective approach that accounts for cumulative, real-world exposure and protects vulnerable populations, including children, workers, pregnant people, and those with respiratory conditions.

Please clearly explain the scientific basis for this proposed change, how it IMPROVES public health protection, and how it will avoid weakening safeguards for other carcinogens in the future.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[City, State]

🧠 Key concerns you can mention (optional)

You can reference one or more of these points in your comment:

The proposed “safe threshold” approach conflicts with decades of EPA practice for DNA-damaging carcinogens.
Even low-level, everyday exposures matter when exposure is widespread and continuous.
The science on formaldehyde’s cancer risk has not fundamentally changed. (Only the risk-calculation method has.)
This decision could set a precedent for weakening protections for other carcinogens currently under EPA review.
Once the EPA finalizes a rule, states are legally barred from setting stronger protections for the same chemical, which is very concerning.
Risk evaluations should reflect real-world cumulative exposure from indoor air, consumer products, and workplaces, NOT isolated sources.

🔥 Even spicier add-ons (optional)

If you want to go further, you could also mention:

This proposal is inconsistent with the administration’s stated goal of “Make America Healthy Again,” as it weakens long-standing cancer protections rather than strengthening them.
Public health decisions like this influence how I evaluate the priorities of elected officials and shape how I will vote in future elections.
The appearance of industry influence over public health decisions is deeply concerning. It damages confidence in the regulatory process and undermines public trust in the EPA as an independent, science-based agency.