Exposing the Formaldehyde Myth

An unfortunate misunderstanding is happening globally concerning many cosmetic products, including some nail products.  Some groups are incorrectly claiming that “formaldehyde” is an ingredient in cosmetics.  Advocacy groups are even loudly proclaiming that formaldehyde is a known carcinogen and are demanding manufacturers remove this cancer-causing ingredient from cosmetics. Actually, if these groups understood formaldehyde’s basic chemistry, they would see their claims are absolutely wrong.  They’d also know that formaldehyde is not a cosmetic ingredient and never has been!

Advocacy groups incorrectly claim that formaldehyde is an ingredient found in nail hardeners, nail polish and preservatives used to prevent bacterial and fungal growth in products such as lotions, creams and shampoos.  How can I be so sure about that formaldehyde has never been a cosmetic ingredient? Because formaldehyde is a gas, not a liquid or a solid. A gas cannot be added to cosmetics as an ingredient, since it would rapidly escape from the product. Interestingly, formaldehyde is a naturally occurring gas that must be kept absolutely bone dry.  In the presence of even tiny amounts of moisture, it instantly transforms into completely different substances. This is why it quickly breaks down and doesn’t accumulate in the environment.  As you can imagine, this is yet another reason why formaldehyde can’t be used in cosmetics; it wouldn’t be stable for more than 1000th of a second after contact with moisture.

How did this misunderstanding begin? Sometime in the early 1900s formaldehyde manufacturers began mixing this gas with water to create a liquid substance called “formalin”.  These manufacturers mistakenly assumed that the added formaldehyde was simply dissolving in the water, so this is how formalin was sold. They didn’t realize the truth; formaldehyde does not dissolve in water, but instead instantly reacts with the water to change into a completely new and different substance called methylene glycol. Not only is it completely different, methylene glycol belongs to an entirely separate chemical family. Formaldehyde is a gas and methylene glycol is a liquid with very different chemical properties.

Here’s what caused most of the confusion.   United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and many other countries require labeling with ingredient name listed in the “INCI Dictionary”.  INCI stands for “International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients”.  This dictionary repeated the original misinformation and required cosmetic manufacturers using formalin to put the name “formaldehyde” on product labels.  About 1.5% formalin is often in used nail hardeners and these labels carried the incorrect “formaldehyde” ingredient name for many years, even though they contain almost undetectable trace levels of true formaldehyde amounting to around 0.0010%. Manufacturers of these products had no reason for concern until it was discovered that inhaling relatively high concentrations of formaldehyde gas for long periods in rare instances may cause an unusual form of nasal cancer.  Suddenly, advocacy groups began to erroneously claim that nail hardeners, polish and other cosmetics contain a dangerous cancer causing ingredient. They obviously did not realize that the label name was incorrect.  When the Nail Manufacturer’s Council (NMC) discovered that nail technicians and their clients were being given incorrect information, we decided to clear up the situation once and for all. As Co-chair of the NMC, I worked with others in this industry group to officially correct the INCI naming error, which was finally approved in December 2008 and is now in effect.  Manufacturers using formalin in nail hardeners can now use the correct name for this ingredient, “methylene glycol”.  If you find “formaldehyde” on a cosmetic label, you will know this is an incorrect name and you can be sure that formaldehyde was NOT added to the product. You can also be sure that the formaldehyde related cancer risks claimed by these advocacy groups doesn’t apply to cosmetics.

Some advocacy groups also claim formaldehyde is a nail polish ingredient, which is also completely incorrect.  Here are the facts: a major ingredient used in nail polish is called “tosylamide formaldehyde resin”.  This resin is originally made using several substances, including formaldehyde gas, but the resin is totally different. It is very thick, sticky, doesn’t evaporate and has completely different properties from formaldehyde gas.  This resin can contain tiny trace amounts of formaldehyde residuals, but those levels are well below those found in nature. Formaldehyde is created in many naturally-occurring processes.  Yes, formaldehyde is a natural and organic substance that is normally found in many foods up to 0.0098%. Trace amounts naturally occur in even organically grown pears, apples, carrots and tomatoes.  In nail polish, the trace formaldehyde residuals are about the same as what naturally occurs in some foods. Also, scientific studies done in salons have proven that nail products don’t increase levels of formaldehyde in the salon air, so why the concern? Unless these advocacy groups think organically grown apples and carrots are also dangerous, they must be greatly over exaggerating the health risks.

The third incorrect claim is that certain preservatives used in some lotions, creams, shampoos, body washes, etc. release so much formaldehyde gas that they can cause cancer. What is the scientific truth? The most effective preservative ingredients for these types of cosmetics will very slowly release even lower amounts of formaldehyde than what is found in foods.  In general, they release about 100 times lower levels or about 0.0001%.   As you now know, this will immediately mix with water in the product and instantly convert into methylene glycol, so there’s virtually no chance of inhaling harmful levels of formaldehyde gas.  The same thing happens to the trace levels of formaldehyde that naturally occurs in food, which is why formaldehyde gas inhalation isn’t a problem with cosmetics. Remember, formaldehyde gas only rarely causes nasal cancer and when it does, these problems are only found in people who inhale significantly large dosages for long periods of time, e.g. formaldehyde manufacturing plant worker. These extremely beneficial preservatives can help ensure the safety of cosmetic products, so it’s important to not to unfairly slander them.  These preservative may occasionally cause skin irritation and allergic sensitivity in a small percentage of the population, but show no adverse effects for the overwhelming majority of people who use products protected by these important ingredients.

You can see that when the science behind this issue is examined, it becomes clear and obvious that the claims about formaldehyde in cosmetics causing cancer are not only incorrect; the entire issue has been dramatically exaggerated and overstated. Next time you hear that “formaldehyde” is a cancer causing ingredient in cosmetics, you’ll know this is NOT true!  You’ll also know that whoever made this statement doesn’t understand the facts. Please set them straight. Save this article so you can give it to them.  Educators, please share this information with your students.  It hurts the entire beauty, cosmetic and personal care industry when misinformation like this goes uncorrected. We need to set the record straight and you can help.

Be Sociable, Share!

More about the author:  To change this standard text, you have to enter some information about your self in the Dashboard -> Users -> Your Profile box. Read more from this author


Related posts:

  1. Doug Schoon Responds to Misleading Claims by Oregon OSHA That “Methylene Glycol” Is a Synonym For “Formaldehyde”
  2. April is National Formaldehyde Month
  3. The Hair Smoothing Controversy
  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Exposing the Formaldehyde Myth | Personal Care Truth or Scare -- Topsy.com

  • Dene Godfrey

    An excellent article, Doug! As I myself was only made aware of the true story behind “formaldehyde” by you a few weeks ago, I am embarrassed by my lack knowledge, but I suspect that the majority of the industry are similarly ignorant. Given this poor starting point (even within the industry!), it will certainly be an uphill struggle to get this information accepted by a wider audience. However, it has to start somewhere, and I have already had this conversation several times with customers. I hope your article gets the wider publicity it deserves!

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Isn’t it though Dene? I talked to Doug on the phone this week and it was the first time I was made aware of the truth behind “formaldehyde”. I found myself in awe listening to Doug and knew that this story had to be shared on PCT.

    Here again is scientific proof, not fear. Love it!

  • http://www.sterlingminerals.com/ Katherine

    The question is though, how do we disseminate this to the wider audience? The EWG and CFSC are famous for using antiquated data and more recent studies refuting their disinformation, is not readily acknowledged, let alone accepted. Any ideas?

  • http://www.cactusandivy.com Lisa M. Rodgers

    Other than twitter and facebook to the masses, hopefully people will share on their blogs and send people to PCT. When we are in front of media whether it’s TV, print or radio, we need to make sure they have the most up-to-date information.

  • http://greenskincareblog.com/ Kristin Fraser Cotte

    Fabulous article Doug. Thanks so much for your contribution and setting the scientific record straight.

  • http://www.facebook.com/ButterflyEffectSarasota Shayna Teicher

    What a great article! As the owner of a holistic natural bath and beauty boutique I’m always trying to find the purest product for my clients and doing tons of research that goes with that. I had done research all over the internet and had NO IDEA!

    A question for you if you have the time…what about claims that certain ingredient in nail laquers continue to off-gas (like VOCs) even after the polish is dry?

    Thanks for a great, and educational article.

  • Anonymous

    Hi Dene,
    Thanks, this is a much bigger issue than just cosmetics and personal care products. This error is confounding medical research. All around the world, researchers are feeding formalin (methylene glycol) to rats and incorrectly reporting the results as being caused by “ingestion of formaldehyde”. Clearly this issue has wide reaching consequences and must be addressed.

    • Tonymiller01

       Thank you,Doug, for your tireless effort to stand for scientific truth. I have spent MANY hours of research on the subject of formaldehyde and I agree with you. Much more scary is the witch hunt hysteria that seems more interesting to the public. It should be noted that ‘fear mongering’ HAS been clinically proven to cause illness See The Nocebo Effect ” But placebos have a flip side, the Nocebo effect;: some people claim to feel worse
      after taking the inert chemicals. They complain of headaches, fatigue,
      insomnia, stomach­aches, nausea, dizziness, weakness, and other
      symptoms—…http://harvardmagazine.com/2005/05/the-nocebo-effect.html
      Two wise statements come to mind “Man has nothing to fear but fear itself” and the antedote to fear ” Know the truth and the truth will set you free” ….thank you again for confirming the latter.

  • Anonymous

    Hi Shayna,
    If the nail polish is dry, then there certainly isn’t very much to “outgas” and any traces of out gassing would not contain formaldehyde gas. Nail polish has a very long history of safe use. We all make formaldehyde in our bodies and breathe some out with every breathe. This is part of the normal, healthy processes in the body. So people naturally outgass formaldehyde, and nail polish does not.

    This explains why a study performed under the auspices of the State of California found only normal environmental levels of formaldehyde in nail salons and these levels were NOT elevated by the products used or services performed.

    Nail polish has never contained formaldehyde. Nail polish at one time used a polymer resin that contained the word formaldehyde (tosylamide formaldehyde resin), but this isn’t the same as formaldehyde gas. Sadly, the facts about this useful ingredient were distorted by irresponsible fear-based advocacy groups who forced manufacturers into abandoning use of this very safe and useful ingredient.

    • Day4Dreams

      I’m not sure how many times you’ve had your nails done Doug, but they outgas for hours afterwards.  I’m also not sure how you can say nail polish has a “very long history” of safe use since pretty much every woman I know felt sick; headachy, nausious, dizzy, etc. while sitting in the nail salon getting a mani/pedi until very recently, when the industry introduced polishes without the “three” ingredients targeted as toxic, and made available soy-based instead of acetone polish removers.  Maybe people didn’t drop dead on the spot like being poisoned, but it was very much an unpleasant, sickening, “price” many woman paid for trying to look more attractive.  Personally…the side effects were too much for me and until recently when these new product lines were introduced, I went 20-something years without getting my nails done professionally.  I don’t care what you ‘call’ the ingredient the polishes are now without, when labeled ’formaledhyde -free’ – it was an ingredient that made people sick.

      • Doug Schoon

        Hi Day4Dreams,
        I have spent many, many hundreds of hours in salons, but more that that I’ve tested these products and know exactly how they behave.
        The California State Attorney General also agrees that any traces that may be released are not a health risk and said so, “…the evidence is clear that exposures to consumers and salon customers from nail polish to toluene and formaldehyde do not pose a sufficient risk to require a warning, even under the strict standards imposed by Proposition 65.” 
        BTW: Prop 65 standards are the most restrictive in the world!  Baby poop is also unpleasant and has quite strong smell, but most people aren’t afraid to change diapers. My point is that it’s a myth that you can tell if something is dangerous because it has a strong or unpleasant odor. If that were correct, I’d have to start burning my socks.

  • http://twitter.com/RealizeBeautyEd AmandaFoxon-Hill

    Excellent article Doug, logical and easy to follow. I’ll be sending a few people over for a look.

  • Average Consumer

    acutally “Quimica Akeman LTDA- Esmalte Endurecedor para Unas” contains formaldehyde. here are the ingredients copied word for word, puncuation for punctuation off the box.

    1- Tosylamide
    2- formaldehyde resin
    3- formaldehyde  
    4- Camphor
    5- Nitrocellulose
    5- Castor Oil
    6- N-Butyl Alcohol
    7- MEK
    8- ETHYLL Acetate
    9- Butyl Acetate
    10- Amyl Acetate

    OK SO INGREDIENT #3 IS formaldehyde.. not formadehyde resin but just formaldehyde. is this product considered toxic?

    • Dene62

      It would be toxic if you drank enough of it, but applying it on the nails would not be a toxic route (in a reasonably ventilated area), so the answer to the question is no!

    • Doug Schoon

      This is easy!  The product is not proper labeled and they didn’t even take the time to check their spelling.

    • bgirl

      Thats kinda the whole point of the article that you WILL see ingredients in cosmetics labeled formaldehyde but that this is incorrect.. That’s exactly what the article was saying. That many things are “labeled” Formaldehyde but that it’s impossible for this to be the case as formaldehyde is a chemical that does not liquify and is bone dry.It specifically said if you find formaldehyde on a label that it is incorrect. Because formaldeyhde is a gas not a solid or a liquid. 

  • Average Consumer

    ** Quimaca Alemana 

    sry that was a typo

  • Pingback: I Love the Smell of Formaldehyde in the Morning! « Princess Witchface

  • Jess

    I know nothing about Formalin but I do know that gases can be disolved in liquid. You seem to be using the fact that formaldehyde is a gas as an argument against it being posible for it to be an ingredient.

    • Anonymous

      It’s not an ingredient. It is mixed with something else to form an ingredient. As the article points out, whatever formaldehyde gas that may be released from a cosmetic in much lower than what we would encounter in the natural world itself.

  • Pingback: JOON - Earth Friendly Skincare for Girls

  • Doug Schoon

     Hi,

    Jess- When a gas reacts with
    water to create a new substance, that’s different than when something like
    oxygen or carbon dioxide dissolves in water. These remain as oxygen and carbon
    dioxide gas after dissolving and they don’t chemically change, however formaldehyde
    is very different. It reacts to create an entirely new substance.

    Average Consumer- Ingredients
    are added to a product to perform a function. Some ingredients are made of
    hundreds of other substances, e.g. botanicals, but the individual components of
    these ingredients are NOT considered ingredients in their own right and would
    not be listed on the label. You’ll notice other mistakes on that label, e.g.
    MEK and Ethyll Acetate are incorrect INCI names, so I wouldn’t put much faith
    in that label. This product is imported into the US and in that case, this is
    not uncommon problem for imported cosmetics.

    Jess- When a gas reacts with
    water to create a new substance, that’s different than when something like
    oxygen or carbon dioxide dissolves in water. These remain as oxygen and carbon
    dioxide gas after dissolving and they don’t chemically change, however formaldehyde
    is very different. It reacts to create an entirely new substance.

    Average Consumer- Ingredients
    are added to a product to perform a function. Some ingredients are made of
    hundreds of other substances, e.g. botanicals, but the individual components of
    these ingredients are NOT considered ingredients in their own right and would
    not be listed on the label. You’ll notice other mistakes on that label, e.g.
    MEK and Ethyll Acetate are incorrect INCI names, so I wouldn’t put much faith
    in that label. This product is imported into the US and in that case, this is
    not uncommon problem for imported cosmetics.

  • Way – concerned reader

    An intriguing
    article from an author, albeit apparently eminently qualified, who is some what
    ill suited to offer himself as an objective scientific author for this article considering
    he has worked the majority of his career for the very industry he is defending
    here.

    Before I go on,
    I will state I am not a scientist – however I do suffer from formaldehyde sensitivity
    and have been forced to conduct extensive research over the years to identify
    what products, including personal hygiene, which contain pure Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde
    emitting preservatives so I can avoid them.

    Of note this was
    the first thing a leading dermatologist said to me after delivering my
    diagnosis. “It’s just as well you are not a woman as Formaldehyde use in
    cosmetics is rife”. Now before Mr Schoon retorts with accusations of self
    interest against this specialist, this is a scientist who has no
    personal agenda other than the health and safety of the patients he treats and
    has no stake, either personal or financial, in the continued permissible use of
    Formaldehyde in any products.

    Mr Schoon can talk
    at length about Formaldehyde occurring only in gas form and not being able to
    be converted to a liquid or other states, however if this was the case it would
    not be the preferred chemical preservative in use in so many industries and in
    so many different forms. It should also be noted that Formaldehyde is produced by
    a variety of chemicals as they break down, emitting Formaldehyde as they do so.

    The correct
    labelling of products which contain Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde emitting
    chemicals is essential to permit the consumer to choose for themselves whether
    they wish to expose themselves to a chemical which research is demonstrating has
    very concerning links to a variety of cancers, serious respiratory illness as
    well as severe contact dermatitis.

    Should you ever
    wish to see the results of someone who suffers from Formaldehyde sensitivity
    contact your nearest Dermatologist for some objective information regarding its
    effects. I am not denigrating your right to earn a living just the self
    interest which is evident in this 
    article and which is being used to provide information which is
    mis-leading.

  • Way – concerned reader

    An intriguing
    article from an author, albeit apparently eminently qualified, who is some what
    ill suited to offer himself as an objective scientific author for this article considering
    he has worked the majority of his career for the very industry he is defending
    here.

    Before I go on,
    I will state I am not a scientist – however I do suffer from formaldehyde sensitivity
    and have been forced to conduct extensive research over the years to identify
    what products, including personal hygiene, which contain pure Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde
    emitting preservatives so I can avoid them.

    Of note this was
    the first thing a leading dermatologist said to me after delivering my
    diagnosis. “It’s just as well you are not a woman as Formaldehyde use in
    cosmetics is rife”. Now before Mr Schoon retorts with accusations of self
    interest against this specialist, this is a scientist who has no
    personal agenda other than the health and safety of the patients he treats and
    has no stake, either personal or financial, in the continued permissible use of
    Formaldehyde in any products.

    Mr Schoon can talk
    at length about Formaldehyde occurring only in gas form and not being able to
    be converted to a liquid or other states, however if this was the case it would
    not be the preferred chemical preservative in use in so many industries and in
    so many different forms. It should also be noted that Formaldehyde is produced by
    a variety of chemicals as they break down, emitting Formaldehyde as they do so.

    The correct
    labelling of products which contain Formaldehyde and Formaldehyde emitting
    chemicals is essential to permit the consumer to choose for themselves whether
    they wish to expose themselves to a chemical which research is demonstrating has
    very concerning links to a variety of cancers, serious respiratory illness as
    well as severe contact dermatitis.

    Should you ever
    wish to see the results of someone who suffers from Formaldehyde sensitivity
    contact your nearest Dermatologist for some objective information regarding its
    effects. I am not denigrating your right to earn a living just the self
    interest which is evident in this 
    article and which is being used to provide information which is
    mis-leading.

  • Doug Schoon

    Hello Way-concerned reader,

    Thank you for your comments.  To be clear, I
    am not defending anything or anyone. I am only representing the scientific
    facts.  My role is not one of a “Defender”.  I am the “Explainer”.  I’ve done this intentionally and will continue
    to do so.  I believe it is important to provide
    unbiased factual information so that people can make better informed decisions
    and wiser choices. That is my only goal. 
    You are an example of who I’m attempting to help. I’m sorry to hear of
    your illness. I suspect your research has been difficult. There is an incredible
    amount of conflicting and confusing information about formaldehyde throughout
    the medical and scientific literature and all because of mistaken chemistry
    based on a 100+ year old myth.This chemical mistake adversely affects medical and environmental research, as well. Instead, the scientific facts are being denied
    by government regulations- resulting in misinformation-run-rampant. That bothers
    me and it should bother everyone!

    I’m not advocating
    the use of any products or services; I’m addressing the issues and providing
    answers based on well-established chemistry and scientific principles. I’m the
    one arguing we should listen to the “science”, not the politics, marketing
    or advocacy groups. As a dedicated Explainer, I’ve personally provided this information
    to advocacy groups, government regulators, associations, manufacturers, educators,
    product users, product wearers, their friends and family and lawyers and the
    media and always with the same intention.

    I certainly agree with you that anyone who believes they
    have a medical problem that is related to a formaldehyde sensitivity should
    contact a qualified medical doctor for objective information and a proper
    diagnosis. That’s always good advice.

    Thank you for your comments.  To be clear, I
    am not defending anything or anyone. I am only representing the scientific
    facts.  My role is not one of a “Defender”.  I am the “Explainer”.  I’ve done this intentionally and will continue
    to do so.  I believe it is important to provide
    unbiased factual information so that people can make better informed decisions
    and wiser choices. That is my only goal. 
    You are an example of who I’m attempting to help. I’m sorry to hear of
    your illness. I suspect your research has been difficult. There is an incredible
    amount of conflicting and confusing information about formaldehyde throughout
    the medical and scientific literature and all because of mistaken chemistry
    based on a 100+ year old myth.This chemical mistake adversely affects medical and environmental research, as well. Instead, the scientific facts are being denied
    by government regulations- resulting in misinformation-run-rampant. That bothers
    me and it should bother everyone!

    I’m not advocating
    the use of any products or services; I’m addressing the issues and providing
    answers based on well-established chemistry and scientific principles. I’m the
    one arguing we should listen to the “science”, not the politics, marketing
    or advocacy groups. As a dedicated Explainer, I’ve personally provided this information
    to advocacy groups, government regulators, associations, manufacturers, educators,
    product users, product wearers, their friends and family and lawyers and the
    media and always with the same intention.

    I certainly agree with you that anyone who believes they
    have a medical problem that is related to a formaldehyde sensitivity should
    contact a qualified medical doctor for objective information and a proper
    diagnosis. That’s always good advice.

  • Doug Schoon

    Hello Way-concerned reader,

    Thank you for your comments.  To be clear, I
    am not defending anything or anyone. I am only representing the scientific
    facts.  My role is not one of a “Defender”.  I am the “Explainer”.  I’ve done this intentionally and will continue
    to do so.  I believe it is important to provide
    unbiased factual information so that people can make better informed decisions
    and wiser choices. That is my only goal. 
    You are an example of who I’m attempting to help. I’m sorry to hear of
    your illness. I suspect your research has been difficult. There is an incredible
    amount of conflicting and confusing information about formaldehyde throughout
    the medical and scientific literature and all because of mistaken chemistry
    based on a 100+ year old myth.This chemical mistake adversely affects medical and environmental research, as well. Instead, the scientific facts are being denied
    by government regulations- resulting in misinformation-run-rampant. That bothers
    me and it should bother everyone!

    I’m not advocating
    the use of any products or services; I’m addressing the issues and providing
    answers based on well-established chemistry and scientific principles. I’m the
    one arguing we should listen to the “science”, not the politics, marketing
    or advocacy groups. As a dedicated Explainer, I’ve personally provided this information
    to advocacy groups, government regulators, associations, manufacturers, educators,
    product users, product wearers, their friends and family and lawyers and the
    media and always with the same intention.

    I certainly agree with you that anyone who believes they
    have a medical problem that is related to a formaldehyde sensitivity should
    contact a qualified medical doctor for objective information and a proper
    diagnosis. That’s always good advice.

    Thank you for your comments.  To be clear, I
    am not defending anything or anyone. I am only representing the scientific
    facts.  My role is not one of a “Defender”.  I am the “Explainer”.  I’ve done this intentionally and will continue
    to do so.  I believe it is important to provide
    unbiased factual information so that people can make better informed decisions
    and wiser choices. That is my only goal. 
    You are an example of who I’m attempting to help. I’m sorry to hear of
    your illness. I suspect your research has been difficult. There is an incredible
    amount of conflicting and confusing information about formaldehyde throughout
    the medical and scientific literature and all because of mistaken chemistry
    based on a 100+ year old myth.This chemical mistake adversely affects medical and environmental research, as well. Instead, the scientific facts are being denied
    by government regulations- resulting in misinformation-run-rampant. That bothers
    me and it should bother everyone!

    I’m not advocating
    the use of any products or services; I’m addressing the issues and providing
    answers based on well-established chemistry and scientific principles. I’m the
    one arguing we should listen to the “science”, not the politics, marketing
    or advocacy groups. As a dedicated Explainer, I’ve personally provided this information
    to advocacy groups, government regulators, associations, manufacturers, educators,
    product users, product wearers, their friends and family and lawyers and the
    media and always with the same intention.

    I certainly agree with you that anyone who believes they
    have a medical problem that is related to a formaldehyde sensitivity should
    contact a qualified medical doctor for objective information and a proper
    diagnosis. That’s always good advice.

  • Doug Schoon

    Hello Way-concerned reader,

    Thank you for your comments.  To be clear, I
    am not defending anything or anyone. I am only representing the scientific
    facts.  My role is not one of a “Defender”.  I am the “Explainer”.  I’ve done this intentionally and will continue
    to do so.  I believe it is important to provide
    unbiased factual information so that people can make better informed decisions
    and wiser choices. That is my only goal. 
    You are an example of who I’m attempting to help. I’m sorry to hear of
    your illness. I suspect your research has been difficult. There is an incredible
    amount of conflicting and confusing information about formaldehyde throughout
    the medical and scientific literature and all because of mistaken chemistry
    based on a 100+ year old myth.This chemical mistake adversely affects medical and environmental research, as well. Instead, the scientific facts are being denied
    by government regulations- resulting in misinformation-run-rampant. That bothers
    me and it should bother everyone!

    I’m not advocating
    the use of any products or services; I’m addressing the issues and providing
    answers based on well-established chemistry and scientific principles. I’m the
    one arguing we should listen to the “science”, not the politics, marketing
    or advocacy groups. As a dedicated Explainer, I’ve personally provided this information
    to advocacy groups, government regulators, associations, manufacturers, educators,
    product users, product wearers, their friends and family and lawyers and the
    media and always with the same intention.

    I certainly agree with you that anyone who believes they
    have a medical problem that is related to a formaldehyde sensitivity should
    contact a qualified medical doctor for objective information and a proper
    diagnosis. That’s always good advice.

    Thank you for your comments.  To be clear, I
    am not defending anything or anyone. I am only representing the scientific
    facts.  My role is not one of a “Defender”.  I am the “Explainer”.  I’ve done this intentionally and will continue
    to do so.  I believe it is important to provide
    unbiased factual information so that people can make better informed decisions
    and wiser choices. That is my only goal. 
    You are an example of who I’m attempting to help. I’m sorry to hear of
    your illness. I suspect your research has been difficult. There is an incredible
    amount of conflicting and confusing information about formaldehyde throughout
    the medical and scientific literature and all because of mistaken chemistry
    based on a 100+ year old myth.This chemical mistake adversely affects medical and environmental research, as well. Instead, the scientific facts are being denied
    by government regulations- resulting in misinformation-run-rampant. That bothers
    me and it should bother everyone!

    I’m not advocating
    the use of any products or services; I’m addressing the issues and providing
    answers based on well-established chemistry and scientific principles. I’m the
    one arguing we should listen to the “science”, not the politics, marketing
    or advocacy groups. As a dedicated Explainer, I’ve personally provided this information
    to advocacy groups, government regulators, associations, manufacturers, educators,
    product users, product wearers, their friends and family and lawyers and the
    media and always with the same intention.

    I certainly agree with you that anyone who believes they
    have a medical problem that is related to a formaldehyde sensitivity should
    contact a qualified medical doctor for objective information and a proper
    diagnosis. That’s always good advice.

  • Miafrieda

    This blog is ridiculous and this article is ridiculous. If you all (because I suspect all the other “experts” in here are claiming the same as you) aren’t the “defenders”, why you care what these advocacy groups are doing and claiming? They’re just in an attempt to care about people’s health, whether they’re doing it well or wrong is not relevant because they won’t harm anyone by doing it wrong, but you all, actually can. For us, the normal people, is very simple actually, we have read in the National Cancer Institute’s site that formaldehyde is a carcinogen and, as they state, exposure also occurs by absorbing products with formaldehyde through the skin, so then, we want to avoid it. A group supports us on our choices of not using “cancer-causing chemicals” and we’re all happy and safe. We won’t die because we avoid products with formaldehyde, methylene glycol or whatever, we won’t die because we make switches from regular personal care products to natural and organic products, we won’t die because we stop using makeup, perfumes or deodorants, I do even believe that most of these things, like makeup or perfumes, are completely unnecesary. But what if you, the science people, make one mistake, what can happen?  We all know that science is not fail-proof.
    So then, to do a blog like this one, to contradict that people that is just trying to care for us and open a whole new world of alternatives, to do such a hard work to encourage people keep buying the products they were always using, you definitely have to be a “defender” or work for some random cosmetic company or maybe feel that because all this movement, you’re losing your jobs because people is not interested anymore on science-based personal care products. That’s the only reason to “show us the light”.
    This shouldn’t be relevant for you all, dedicate your time on seeking a cure for cancer, I don’t know, spend your time on something more productive, because definitely, this is not productive or helpful, only for the cosmetic companies.

    • Dene62

      Miafrieda, you appear to believe that any group who purports to be “defenders of the health” should not be argued with in any way. You also claim that they do no harm. So you seem to suggest that these groups should never be contradicted, simply because they do no harm ,even if they are wrong. Don’t you care about the truth?

      May I suggest that you take a step back and read the article again? There is no dispute about whether formaldehyde is a carcinogen, just about whether any formaldehyde presence in cosmetics is being represented correctly. It seems to have escaped your notice that this is a site for cosmetics, not cancer research, and your last paragraph seems a little bizarre to me. You seem to be suggesting that all scientists should stop what they are doing and spend all their time searching for a cure for cancer. Why? There are thousands of scientists already doing this – it doesn’t mean that other scientists are wasting their time if they are not doing this – there ARE other things in life for scientists to do.

      Are you denying people the right to defend what they believe to be the truth? From what you are saying here, this seems to be very much the case!

    • Doug_Schoon

      Hi Miafrieda,
      When you digest food, your body creates formaldehyde and you breath that out each time you exhale. Does this mean you are causing cancer when you breath on people? Substances aren’t automatically dangereous. It’s all about exposure. There is no substance on earth that is harmful at any concentration. It’s all about how much exposure occurs. Just because something “can” happen, doen’t mean it “will”.

  • Liz

    If you want to be taken seriously as “asking for truth” and “demanding evidence” you really should be including citations in posts like this. You’re posturing as a scientist but asking people to accept your arguments on faith.

  • DG

    what are you talking about?!  I just bought two bottles of nail polish in an Ontario drugstore and reading the label when I got home, found the second ingredient after toluene to be formaldehyde.  The product is “Sinfulcolors”, made in USA.

    • Doug_Schoon

      Read the article and if you have a question after that, let me know.

  • Fran

    I had nasalpharyngeal cancer which effects the back of your throat..nasal area. there is significant evidence that formaldehyde causes this cancer. Found to be in medical and dental office. Used when taking biopsies.

  • http://www.kensingtondental.com/cosmetic_smile_smiledesign.shtml cosmetic dentist london

    nice post and lot of information……..you write very clean 

  • Dlssjy

    I’ve been using Quimeca Alamena as a nail hardener for several months.  I love the product, but I find that if I get some on the skin around my nail, the nail starts aching me.  If you say that there is no formaldehyde in the product, why am I getting this ache in my fingers?

    • Dene62

      I have no idea what is causing the ache in your fingers, but it won’t be due to any formaldehyde that may, or may not be present, that is for certain. Formaldehyde is so reactive, it would affect your skin (if present in sufficiently high concentrations) by causing an irritant response – but not an aching sensation.

  • Doug_Schoon

    Hi Dissjy,
    You’re problem is that you’re exposing your living skin to a product that should not be contacted to the living skin. I suggest you be more careful and follow directions exactly.
    If you are having an adverse skin reaction, it could be too many things, since many substances can affect the skin, so the fact that you’re having a skin reaction doesn’t indicate what is in the product.
    Also, nail hardeners aren’t designed to be used continuously for several months. They are designed for use on weak, overly flexible nail plates. Once your nail plate reaches the desired degree of rigidity, you should discontinue use until the nails begin show signs of returning to their overly flexible state. If you use a nail hardener on a brittle nail, the nail will become more brittle and they same can happen if the product is over used.
    Doug