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


  • 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.

      • Luci

        There might also not be very good ventilation in these salons? Even with resin for making jewellery, it is advised to keep windows and doors open so that air can circulate. If there isn’t fresh air circulating than of course breathing in the fumes is going to have an accumulative effect, and give people headaches.

  • 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.

      • Lara

        To make a salad dressing I add red wine vinegar and olive oil. I then put in a number of seasonings including red pepper, salt, black pepper, and basil.
        If I put my salad dressing on a salad does that mean pepper was never an ingredient of that salad because it was first used to make a salad dressing and not put on the salad directly?
        Or maybe you could explain

        • Doug_Schoon

          Not quite an appropriate analogy, but
          I’ll play along. Pepper was never an ingredient of the lettuce, but it is an ingreidient
          of the dressing. Even so, none of these were chemically changed when they were
          mixed together. If the salt were to somehow decompose the pepper to the point
          that there was virtually no pepper left in the mixture, it would be
          disingenuous to say the salad contained pepper… Don’t you agree? And it would
          be deceptive to advertise that the product contained 10% pepper, when actually
          it contained 0.001% pepper. This is what is happening and why the testing
          methods are incorrect. What’s actually
          “present”, is what should be reported. Unfortunately, common test methods for
          formaldehyde create far more formaldehyde then ever existed in the product and
          more than would ever exist under any condition of use. These test methods over
          report formaldehyde by 800+ times. All
          this does is needlessly frighten people and does not provide them with factual
          and appropriate information.

  • 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”.

      • Tony Miller

        Since Maifreda wishes to silence the voices of truth perhaps it is HER that is exposing us to formaldehyde. Her breath contains .3 to .6 ppm and that is more exposure than any cosmetic or keratin treatment. Duck tape perhaps?

        http://www.docstoc.com/docs/96874349/Formaldehyde-in-Indoor-Air

        In addition, human breath contains formaldehyde; concentrations of 0.3 to 0.6 ppmV have been reported in breath from healthy women (Ebeler 1997).

  • 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.

    • Dschoon

      Hi Fran,
      I do agree with part of your statement. My understanding is that this relatively “rare” form of cancer  can be associated with formaldehyde exposure… and other things as well.  However, note the word “rare”. If formaldehyde were nearly as dangerous as many believe, such cancers would not be rare, especially given the fact that formaldehyde occurs naturally, is everywhere and we breathe some every day. These types of cancers may be caused by long term exposure to very high levels of formaldehyde gas, e.g. well above the OSHA standards. However, what is found in medical offices is formalin, not formaldehyde gas.

  • 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

  • Remark0921

    are you out of your mind to think that formaldehyde is only found in gas form! it is also a liquid and can be found in science to preserve organs and animals for study. it is found in nail products as i am dia gnosed as allergic to the stuff. My eyes will swell and thne I get dermatitis where my eyes will get a crusty edge on them and my skin will get very dry. when i use polish claimed to have NO formaldehyde I do not exhibit these symptoms. You better go back and research the facts on this material. you obviuosly have a alot to learn.

    • Dschoon

      Hi Remark,
      Thank you for your concern for my mental health, but you can rest assured  that I am not “out of my mind”.  In fact, what I am saying is established scientific fact that is  recognized by scientists around the world, so I’m not alone in what I am saying. 

      As far as your problem goes, I suggest you speak with a medical doctor that is qualified to test for allergies, so that you can understand what is causing your symptoms.

  • Rianna

    I have a bottle of Sally Hanson nail polish and the seventh ingredient on the back is formaldehyde…

    • Dschoon

       Hi Rianna, Are you sure it’s not tosylamine/formaldehyde resin? That’s something completely different. It’s a solid polymer made using many substances including formaldehyde, but it is NOT “formaldehyde” gas. This solid, film forming ingredient is also caught up in the confusion.
       ”Formaldehyde” may is still in use on cosmetic labels. The International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) dictionary tells manufacturers what name “must” be used on cosmetic labels. Until recently, manufacturers were forced  to use the name formaldehyde, even when formaldehyde was not added. This is a fact, but this is changing slowly. INCI dictionary now allows manufacturers to use the name methylene glycol, but with all the confusion no one really knows what to do now.
      Unfortunately, there are dozens of different substances that are all called “formaldehyde” and that is wrong.  Scientific facts and truths will eventually win out over the misinformation. It will take time to undo this 100+ year old error. Fear based advocacy groups don’t want the truth reveal because they’ve spent many millions creating “formaldehyde fear”  and government regulators don’t like to change things unless they are forced to do so.  Even so, the science will eventually win over the bureaucrats and fear mongers.

  • Kayakitty26

    So, you are debunking the existence of formaldehyde-releasers in personal care products?  Are you really saying there is no such thing as a formaldehyde-releasing chemical that would release a formaldehyde gas?

    • Dschoon

      Hi Kayakitty26,
      You make it sound as if I’ve committed an unholy act… LOL.
      I hope my answer above addresses your question. 
      Thanks,
      Doug

  • obviously not a scientist

    Thank you for a wonderful article. I had no idea. I actually believed that the class of preservatives known as “formaldehyde donors” actually briefly released formaldehyde-like substance before breaking down and becoming harmless. I had read this in an article written by a cosmetic chemist and published in a mainstream cosmetic trade journal. Formaldehyde is a gas and CAN”T be added to cosmetics? Boy do I feel like an idiot. 

    Can you please explain how the class of preservatives called “formadehyde donors” work? Do they actually release methylene glycol? I’m so confused! 

    Thank you again for taking the time to set the record straight. I would really like to know more about how these so called “formaldehyde donors” work if you have time to explain. I am guilty of (unknowingly) spreading disinformation and need to set the record straight. Thank you!With gratitude.

    • Dschoon

      Thanks for your very interesting question. I hope not to confuse you more by saying many things release (donate) formaldehyde, including babies. That’s because formaldehyde is a very simple substance that can be released when more complex substances decompose, e.g. some foods and plants. Wood, apples and many other natural substance, when burned, will also naturally release formaldehyde. Our bodies generate formaldehyde which we exhaled in our breath. So, many things are formaldehyde releasers/donators and the term doesn’t necessarily mean what some think. One thing is for certain, exposure to these low concentrations isn’t harmful and is just a part of normal living and a part of nature. These are safe levels of exposure and not all expose to formaldehyde is dangerous, contrary to what fear-based pressure groups incorrectly claim. In the case of so-called formaldehyde releasing/donating preservatives, exposure levels are exceedingly low and not even in the same ball park as what OSHA or any other regulatory agencies consider dangerous! Here’s why exposures are so low:
      If moisture is present when a formaldehyde molecule is released, it reacts within nano seconds to form methylene glycol.  The same rules apply to the so-called formaldehyde releasing preservatives used in water containing cosmetics; when a molecule of formaldehyde is released, 99.96% of the time it is instantly converted into methylene glycol, as described in the article.  Based on this, I’d suggest it’s not correct to say that these are formaldehyde releasing, since those molecules exist for mere nano seconds before converting into methylene glycol, which is then becomes highly stabilized by the moisure content.
      I think it’s closer to the truth to say these preservatives release methylene glycol, since that’s what’s actually found in the product when measurments are made.  Methlylene glycol can be ”directly measured”, while formaldehyde can NOT be directly measured and current testing relies of highly inaccurate “indirect determinations”.
      I hope I answered your question.Thanks, Doug

      • obviously not a scientist

        Thank you for taking the time to write such a clear explanation. I’ll be sure to set the record straight and direct people to this site. I’m so glad I found this site and your article. Thank you so very much!

  • Rodolfo_Baraldini

    Good arguments,  the confusion between the formaldehyde and methanediol may mislead .
    I have some simple questions, posed in order to clarify the matter:
    1- if it is not the formaldehyde, who is the killer of the bacteria into the cosmetic ?
    2- methylene glycol is safe ?

    Only a personal note, this argument about the fact that formaldehyde is everywhere, in our breath etc. etc.  is not reducing the risk factor; at contrary, if a substance is dangerous, the fact that is diffused and present everywhere increase the potential risk.

    • Luci

      Yes, and because it is very hard, if not impossible to pin point what exact influence a person gets their naturally inborn cancer cells activated out of dormancy from in this world, seeing as their are so many various poisons we eat, drink, breathe etc. we cannot know for sure that formaldehyde in our breath, our food and environment ISN’T one of the leading causes of cancer any more than we can know for sure that it is from car fumes, aerosol cans, crappy food or pollutants in water. It’s all possible.

      I personally think we need to be minimizing chems in most things because of the very fact that they are so pre-dominant in our atmosphere and food etc. Saying “Oh but there’s already so much poison in the world a bit more won’t hurt”, isn’t really the attitude I think we need to have to at least establish some control over how much we are ingesting, or breathing in, purely for the fact that we have such little control over these things.

      • Dene Godfrey

        I am not sure about your concept of “naturally inborn cancer cells” – have you a reference to this phenomenon? We CAN know for sure that the formaldehyde generated within our own bodies will not cause cancer, because the human race would not have evolved with such a self-destructive mechanism inbuilt!
        You appear to believe that only synthetic chemicals are “chemicals” and that they need to be minimised without very much discrimination. Exposure to ALL chemicals (natural and synthetic) is wisely minimised, but let’s not get carried away with the notion that synthetic is automatically bad, because that simply is not true.

        • Perry Romanowski

          Actually, evolution would not prevent the human body from producing materials within that could have deleterious effects later in life. As long as it doesn’t kill people during their reproductive years, a self-destructive mechanism would have minimal impact on the survival of the species.

          • Dene Godfrey

            An excellent point, Perry, and you are right, of course. However, one of the major issues with cancer is that younger people are, sadly, developing the disease and, although this doesn’t change your basic point, I would argue that it reduces the chance of formaldehyde being a primary cause.

          • Perry Romanowski

            Yes, of course. I certainly agree that formaldehyde is not a significant cause of any human cases of cancer.

          • Rodolfo_Baraldini

            in term of evolutive protection of the species from self-destructive mechanism I remember that the formaldehyde ( correctly methanediol ) normally present in the human blood ,cannot increase after an overexposure to formaldehyde , due to the aldheyde and formaldehyde dehydrogenase of the eritrocytes.

  • Doug_Schoon

     Hi Rodolfo,
    Wow, I’m getting some great questions. This is also a part of the confusion caused by the misunderstood chemistry.  If I were to speculate, the bacteria are likely killed by cross-linking of key proteins. It’s always been claimed that formaldehyde is a good protein cross-linking, but as an organic chemist I struggle to draw a simple reaction mechanism for formaldehyde as a protein cross-linker.  On the other hand, I can draw a much simpler and far more believable cross-linking mechanism for methylene glycol with proteins. Based on this, and the fact that methylene glycol is stable while formaldehyde is not, I assume that methylene glycol is actually the active agent in these preservatives. Of course, I don’t know that for a fact.

    Is methylene glycol safe? I sure hope so, since every cell in our body  is bathed methylene glycol.  It is naturally produced inside of our bodies constantly. I’ve heard estimates that about out 1% of our body weight is methylene glycol.  Also, because of its very low volatility, methylene glycol is not likely to be inhaled in large concentrations. Unfortunately, because OSHA and other regulatory agencies have ignored the existence of methylene glycol and pretend that it’s formaldehyde, there’s been very little study of this substance.  That’s one of the major problems that I’ve been trying to address. Just because OSHA says methylene glycol and formaldehyde are the same, does it make it true. I have a huge respect for OSHA and the work they do in this country, but in the case of formaldehyde they’re just plain wrong and seem to be having a difficult time admitting it, although there slowly coming around and facing the facts.

    Finally, isn’t the fact that formaldehyde is present everywhere a strong indication that formaldehyde is probably not nearly as dangerous as we’ve been told by fear-based pressure groups and the media?  It is a naturally occurring organic molecule that’s been around since the beginning of time and can even be found in space. 

    I think it’s interesting to note that the Society of Toxicologist (SOT) did a survey in 2009 asking its membership a series of questions, e.g. how many would rate formaldehyde gas as a “high risk”.  Only 14% of professional toxicologist thought that it was a high risk.  If you want to see that really interesting report you can find it on my website http://www.schoonscientific.com/resources-publications-top-news-stories.html, “Are Chemicals Killing Us?  The SOT report provides lots of other important information, e.g. 79% of professional toxicologists say the Environmental Working Group (EWG) overstates the risks. No surprise there! The EWG is a classic example of fear-based pressure group that can’t be trusted to provide factual information.

  • Rodolfo_Baraldini

    Hi Doug,
    as You surely know, SCCS is going to issue the opinion about methylene glycol. Draft are already discussed the past week. In the 4th point of the request of opinion, SCCS have to declare about every concern for the methylene glycol use into the cosmetic. I hope for a detailed and accurate conclusion.I suspect that this equilibrium with formaldehyde and this very high reactivity will generate many reasons of concerns for a safe use, but I prefer to wait for the evaluation and opinion of the European Scientific Comitee.The biocidal mechanism of action of these 2 substances ( but also of the paraformadehydes ) should be verified in distincted ways in order to clarify this confusion.For my opinion : if a substance is dangerous, the diffusion in the body or everywhere is not reducing the risk, at contrary increase the probability of exposition. In a risk based approach or ” formaldehyde is probably not nearly as dangerous as we’ve been told ” ,or are correct and reasonable the pression and the campain for the reduction of the human exposition to this substance.At the moment, the data about the toxicity of formaldehyde and formalin are not irrelevant, notwithstanding the absence of  any evidence of link to cancer of the methylene glycol.( “14% toxicologists are thinking formaldehyde is high risk” does not means that  86% toxicologists are thinking formaldehyde is NO RISK )

  • Doug_Schoon

    Hi Rodolfo,

    Yes, fortunately the EU is taking methylene glycol into consideration and not just ignoring it or pretending it doesn’t exist. Kudos to them. It will be very interesting to see what the SCCS says and I agree, that will have a big impact. Whether or not the decision is overly influenced by politics, remains to be seen. I may be naïve, but I’m hoping the SCCS makes their decision based solely on the science and then the truth will prevail. That’s the best outcome. I also hope they recognize what the equilibrium constant is telling them, methylene glycol is the stable species and formaldehyde is difficult to generate except in very low concentrations. To fully convert methylene glycol into formaldehyde requires heating to about 600°C in and anhydrous environment to prevent it from turning back into methyene glycol, which shows just how stable MG is. Formaldehyde does not like to exist and constantly seeks to eliminate itself. Pretending methylene glycol is formaldehyde just makes no sense at all and is a scientific embarrassment. to him
    Sadly, the published data and reports for formaldehyde and formalin are also badly confused. There are many studies claiming to be formaldehyde ingestion studies, which are actually methylene glycol/methanol ingestion studies. There’s been way too much sloppy and invalid research done in this area.  The confusion over chemistry has created some chaos in the medical and scientific literature and it will take a very long time to sort out the confusion. This is what happens when you call many different chemicals by the same chemical name. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

    What I was saying about what I quoted the “14% toxicologist” is that we are told formaldehyde gas is a high risk, but most professional toxicologist do not agree. Of course it is a risk, but the risks have been greatly exaggerated and mainly to frighten the public.  That’s what these fear-based pressure groups do, they distort the truth to needlessly frighten people into doing what they want them to do. Why? Because they know the public won’t buy into their belief structure, unless they are frightened into it.  What we need is scientific study and facts, not pressure group rhetoric designed solely to further their self-serving agendas.

    • Rodolfo_Baraldini

      as anticipated: here the link to the SCCS opinion.http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_097.pdf Unfortunately they consider “not applicable” the question about the general safety of the methanediol after the adoption of the criteria of ” formaldehyde equivalent “.For me this question is closed.Anyway adopting the methylene glycol as cosmetic ingredient I could have some big doubts.How it is stabilized against polymerization?With methanol ? but this is restricted and cannot be used in Europe , excluding at a max concentration of 5% of ethanol  as denaturant .With other stabilizers ? No comment.

  • Peyton561

    I’m not so sure about this.   I am holding bottle of nail polish now from Columbia that reads “Formaldehyde” on the label. My girlfriend swears that it helped her nails grow.   Is it safe? 

    • Doug_Schoon

      Manufacturers have already begun to changing these labels, now that they are allowed to use Methylene Glycol as a cosmetic ingredient name. In the past, manufacturers were forced to use an incorrect name (formaldehyde). It will take time for all manufacturers to catch up to the change.

  • Lara

    I personally have had no issues with formaldehyde. My only complaint about your article is the fact that formaldehyde can and does change physical states depending on what substances it is mixed with. This too is basic chemistry and knowing that nothing stays in its original form when reacted with other substances so please don’t try and say formaldehyde could escape because it’s not always in gas form. This is pure fact since its even used in glues. In fact it’s used to bind keratin proteins in many cheap nail polishes (yes nail polish is a cosmetic).

    • Doug_Schoon

      Hi Lara,
      It is incorrect to say these undergo a
      “physical change”, it is in fact a chemical change that occurs when
      mixed with water (only), which is discussed my article and in the comments
      below. However, you are correct that formaldehyde gas reacts with a protein,
      but once it does… it is no longer formaldehyde, just as once it reacts with
      water, it is no longer formaldehyde. Also, the so-called formaldehyde
      (formalin) is NOT use in nail polish, cheap or otherwise. Formalin is used in
      very high end nail hardeners.

      • Dene Godfrey

        I am confused by Lara’s comments, as she herself seems to be confusing simple physical mixing and chemical reaction. Does formaldehyde ever exist in liquid (or solid) form? Unless there is a solvent that will dissolve the HCHO without reacting, a liquid form is not possible as the substance produced on dissolution will be a different chemical species, as in the case of HCHO and water, which was, I believe, one of the main points of this article.

        • Doug_Schoon

          Formaldehyde can only exist is a
          gaseous form. Even the tiny traces that result from the equilibrium with
          methylene glycol are “dissolved” gases. In water containing
          cosmetics, that amount is typically 0.005% or less. It would be
          impossible for formaldehyde to exists in cosmetic products at the levels
          reported by OSHA and others, e.g. 8%. No way!

          OSHA has since changed their story and
          now recognizes that what I’m saying about methylene glycol is correct, but they
          feel justified in accepting these erroneous measurements because they believe
          that eventually all the methylene glycol will turn into formaldehyde, even though there is no scientific evidence to back this up. Their assumption is
          directly contrary to the science which clearly demonstrates that methylene
          glycol is highly stable which resist forming significant concentrations of formaldehyde. As formaldehyde is created, it rapidly turns
          back into methylene glycol (within milliseconds). The other error that OSHA and others make is to assume that
          methylene glycol cannot exist on its own, yet methylene glycol has been
          measured in the air. In my opinion it is incorrect for regulators to ignore methylene
          glycol and pretend it is merely a source of formaldehyde. They erroneously see
          methylene glycol as a bubble that’s ready to burst and released formaldehyde, which
          is scientifically inaccurate and misleading. Instead, methylene gylcol is a way of removing formaldehye and replacing it with something that must be much safer, since methylene glycol exists in our tissues and blood.

          • Luci

            But then, if it is only a gas then why is it used as an “embalming fluid”?

          • Dene Godfrey

            Formalin is the embalming fluid, not formaldehyde.

  • Habeeb Fartacus

    Actually, while you are correct in that the formaldehyde scare is mostly just hype, you are incorrect in your insistence that formaldehyde and methanediol are completely different. First, formaldehyde does not exist only in vapor form; some basic chemistry lessons will teach you this. It is true that most of formaldehyde (maybe 80% by weight) in water solution (also known commercially as formalin) will form methanediol molecules, but some will form formaldehyde polymers known as paraformaldehyde (which is a specific name within a general class of polymers, the polyformaldehydes). While the two are undoubtedly functionally distinct, the fact remains that formaldehyde in solution remains in dynamic equilibrium between paraformaldehyde and methanediol. Please get your chemistry more precise so you don’t inadvertently add to the hype.

    • Dene Godfrey

      Paraformaldehyde is almost insoluble in water, and will precipitate out of “formalin” as a white solid. For this reason, a polymerisation inhibitor is usually included in the product, and the claim that paraformaldehyde is in equilibrium does not bear scrutiny in any case, as the precipitation of paraformaldehyde would drive the equilibrium entirely in one direction. As for your assertion that only 80% of formaldehyde in formalin forms methylene glycol, this is at odds with Doug’s statement that the equilibrium between methylene glycol and formaldehyde is over 99% in favour of methylene glycol. Do you have any references to support this 80% figure?

      • Dene Godfrey

        As Habeed has failed to provide references, I have to conclude that the 80% claim is without substantiation.

    • Doug_Schoon

      Hi Habeeb,

      Methylene glycol and formaldehyde are completely different
      in every way. Both have been isolated and
      simultaneously measured in air, separately
      from each other, which is contrary to what many have claimed. So they exist
      simultaneously and independently of each other. Unfortunately, common methods for formaldehyde
      air testing report methylene glycol in air as though it were formaldehyde. I
      did not say that formaldehyde only exists as a “vapor”. It’s not a
      vapor, it’s a gas. Traces of this gas
      can be dissolved in water, as I said earlier, but they are miniscule amounts. If
      you read the rest of my comments you’ll find out that already stated that 37%
      formalin contains only about 466 ppm of free formaldehyde, 59.6% methylene
      glycol, which is based on the established equilibrium constant. So your 80% figure is pretty far off. Paraformaldehyde is not formaldehyde, and is
      wrong to insinuate that they are the same. That’s akin to saying that
      polyethylene plastic bottles are the same thing as ethylene gas, which is
      clearly ludicrous, yet this is what regulators want us to believe.

    • Luci

      Yes, and what about formaldehyde that we’ve all been taught is used as embalming fluid in mortuaries? Is that a hybrid of formalin? If so then why do we all know it as being called formaldehyde?

      • Dene Godfrey

        Formalin is actually the embalming fluid, and Doug gives a clear explanation of what constitutes formalin. Just because it is commonly referred to as “formaldehyde” doesn’t mean that this is correct. There is no lead in “lead” pencils, for example.

  • David

    Hello everyone. Well, this is a topic close to my heart, as I am at this moment trying to get friends of mine to take greater care when handling Formaldehyde at work.
    I wonder just how many people are aware that some of those most at risk from Formaldehyde poisoning (and many other threats from chemicals), work in Agriculture.
    We use Formaldehyde in it’s 100% form (37 – 40% Formaldehyde), to prevent/control foot dieases in cattle.
    O.K:
    Formaldehyde is indeed a gas, heavier than air, and a very useful one it seems, but also a very dangerous one; it is inherently dangerous to life (but so is pure Oxygen), and the way we handle Formaldehyde means it is potentially dangerous to us. Formaldehyde is found in exhaust fumes, and cigarette smoke, and many other every day items, such as glue.
    So, Formaldehyde is a colourless gas, heavier than air, with a very pungent, choking, smell (which helps to alert us to it’s presence thankfully).
    Methylene Glycol, I know nothing about, and will be researching today, but as for Formaldehyde, yes, it is a gas, it does desolve in water, but readily leaves the water to enter the atmosphere as a gas, unless kept contained, and away from the atmosphere, whilst keeping it cool also.
    The form in which we use Formaldehyde as a liquid, is called Formalin (it has other names also).
    Formalin, is a concentration of approximately 37% Formaldehyde gas, disolved in <50% water, sabilized with 15% Methanol (also poisonous to us).
    37% Formaldehyde is refered to as 100% Formalin, I assume this is because it is not possible to get water to hold a greater saturation of Formaldehyde gas, along with it's sabilizing antioxident of Methanol, than 37%.
    Within 24, to 48 hours, the Formaldehyde gas, when not in containment, but 'open' to the atmosphere, will leave the water in which it had been disolved when used as a footbath (just as Carbon Dioxide leaves a carbonated drink like cola, once the bottle, or can, is opened; which is why Formaldehyde is a problem, as it does not stay fixed within the products that use it, but rather it evaporates/leaches out into it's surroundings), and the Formaldehyde will reduce to background levels, and that includes remaining disloved in water, at a level it can sustain, and that changes with temperature.
    1 to 2 floz of Formalin at 37% is a lethal dose if ingested whilst it remains at a 37% saturation. If I remember correctly, 25,000 ppm is a lethal dose if inhaled whilst as a concentrated gas; both can kill in hours, or days.
    I understand that Formaldehyde gas (Formalin fumes), when it has come out of suspension with the water + Methanol Stabilizer, base, but then mixes with, and disolves to the extent that it can, with water, becomes Formic Acid, hence the burns to our airways, and eyes, as it reacts with the moisture of such tissue.
    Please take a look at a 'Material Safety Data Sheet,' for Formalin, posted by – 'Ted Pella, Inc.'
    I have had my breathe snatched away from me by Formaldehyde/Formalin, as I handled it without due care.
    Formaldehyde does stay disolved in water long enough, as Formalin, for it to be lethal to life if ingested (or injected – as has been done by mistake in some hospitals – look it up on the www).
    Formaldehyde as a colourless gas, heavier than air, naturally occurring, is very toxic, lethal within hours, or days, at high levels.
    Formaldehyde reacts with water to become Formic Acid, and causes severe burns.
    The toxicity of Formaldehyde is huge, effecting many body functions.
    Formalin consists of an active ingredient – Formaldehyde gas – a stabilizer, Methanol – and a base, water; remaining stable as a solution, whilst in containment.
    If we are in any doubt about Formaldehyde disolving in water, to be able to be used as a liquid, it's safe background levels, enabling us to use it for many other things, but lethal ability as a concentrate, and its nature to revert to a gas in the open atmosphere; then we only need to think about Chlorine do we not.

    • Doug_Schoon

      See above for my reply to both of your posts.

  • David.

    Hello again everyone. Just to add a little more detail to my first post about Formaldehyde as used in Agriculture:
    At work, my colleagues and I would be expected to pump out 8 litres, yes, 8 litres, not 8 ounces, or 8ml, but 8 litres of ‘Formalin 40,’ which is 37% Foramaldehyde, or 100% Formalin product, into an everyday plastic bucket, held at the height of the top of the 250lt drum, which is why the off-gasing of the Formaldehyde took my breath away. We are exposed to splashing as we pump the Formalin into the bucket; all of this is done without any protection, and no warning, or instruction signs are displayed. We carry the open bucket with eight litres of Formalin, through buildings, on wet floors, up and down steps, to get to the footbath, where were pour it into the water. This is done every day, 365 days of the year, 8litres of Formalin, off-gasing Foraldehyde, at a high level.
    Believe it or not, the bucket used for the Formalin, is then also used for milk for the calves, dry feed, and any other job it may be required for (I just hope it is washed out well).
    One of my friends at work who has done this every weekend, for a number of years, has lost much of her sense of smell. Whether there is any link, I cannot, and am not saying.
    I wish I was able to put a value on the off-gasing of Formaldehyde from 8litres of Formalin open to the atmosphere (ppm), and agitated from the pumping, but from what I have gathered, it would be very high for the time we are handling it.
    At times, the eight litres of Formalin, will have been pumped into the bucket, and left ready to be used a little later, left standing in the dairy, or near area (how I wish I knew a figure for the off-gasing ppm).
    The herdsman has astma, and says it is getting worse. He also appears to have skin sensitization on his arms, though I cannot say what is causing it. He himself handles Foramlin much less than others do, as he does not usually prepare the footbath.
    The footbath is then off-gasing Formaldehyde for the next 24 hours, when it is replaced.

    • Doug_Schoon

      Hi David,
      This topic may be close to your heart, but much of your information is incorrect. You don’t use 100% formaldehyde. 37% formalin is only 0.05% formaldehyde and that’s a fact. You agree that formaldehyde is a gas, but then you talk about putting it into “buckets”, which makes no sense at all and shows that you are as confused as regulators are about this subject and that you don’t understand the chemistry. Here are the facts in brief, but I suggest you read the rest of what I’ve written in this blog. I know this blog can be confusing to follow, but if you read the information contained herein, you’ll know more about formaldehyde than most of the world knows.

      Formaldehyde doesn’t dissolve in water, it chemically reacts with water.
      Big difference! By your own admission you know nothing about methylene glycol. That’s also true for most of the world, since regulators and many researchers have been ignorant to the fact that methylene glycol even exists, let alone understand that it is far more stable than formaldehyde, and actively resist becoming formaldehyde. When formaldehyde is formed, it rapidly converts back into methylene glycol at the first opportunity and this includes formaldehyde in air. When formaldehyde gas escapes into the atmosphere it reacts with moisture to create methylene glycol vapors.

      Yes, methylene glycol normally exists inside our bodies and the air. This important fact has been overlooked by many. In the air, this conversion happens very rapidly when the relative humidity is high and this is why formaldehyde concentrations in the environment don’t continue to escalate. Methylene glycol is relatively safe and exist in almost every tissue in our body; same with plants.

      Methylene glycol is ubiquitous in the environment and is necessary for our bodies to continue living and growing. Most of what is reported as “formaldehyde exposure” is actually exposure to methylene glycol. As I stated above, methylene glycol does not have the same toxicity as formaldehyde. Our bodies and plants turn formaldehyde into methylene glycol to render it non-toxic and make it useful for the body to use for synthesis of other materials. The problem is that test methods report methylene glycol as if it were formaldehyde, yet formaldehyde and methylene glycol have entirely different physical, chemical and toxicological properties. Nor is formaldehyde gas as toxic as you claim. We normally breathe some out with every exhalation and do so from birth, so it can’t be as toxic as is claimed by those who don’t understand the chemistry.

  • David.

    Hello Doug, thank-you for your reply. May I please ask you if Formalin will off-gas Formaldehyde, as this is a main concern.

    Now, as you know, Formaldehyde is heavier than air, as are many gases, and so if I had actually said I had a bucket full of gas, which I did not say, it is infact possible to have a bucket full of gas, in fact, an otherwise empty bucket is full to the very brim with many gases is it not. If Chlorine gas was not heavier than air, it would have been useless in the trenches of the first World War.

    I have no problem understanding that Formaldehyde is necesary for metabolism, no problem at all; we also need Oxygen, but pure Oxygen is toxic to us. We also have Arsenic, heavy metals, and precious metals within our bodies.

    Toxicity is not the presence alone of a substance, but the level of substance present also Doug, and I know you would Know these things, so can we talk candidly to each other please, as the lives and wellbeing of others depend on such an approach.

    Is alcohol toxic to us? Yes, but we all enjoy a drink; as I know you would know Doug, many substances that are vital to us, are toxic to us in excess, even water.

    Do you go swimming in public pools Doug, pools that have chlorine added to the water to keep you safe from infection, you know what I am thinking Doug don’t you.

    We all have Carbon Monoxide within us, but not at the levels that can kill us, yet it can kill us.

    The fact that Formaldehyde is a natural gas, that we metabolize, does not in any way whatsoever, mean that it cannot be toxic to us.

    We need Oxygen to be able to live, but we would never come across pure Oxygen naturally, as it does not exist.

    We have produced Oxygen, and we can contain it as a pure substance, and try to use it as a pure substance, but we cannot breath it as a pure gas because it would be toxic to us, and yet our every cell requires it to live.

    Formaldehyde is a natural gas, and we metabolize it in very very small quantities, and there is present a small background level of Formaldehyde, fine, that is very easy to understand, but now that we can isolate, and concentrate Foraldehyde gas, what, if any, are the dangers, that is what loving, responsible, people are asking, because they care about others.

    So, I breath Formaldehyde, and metabolize Formaldehyde, and yet do so without it taking my breathe away, or making my eyes stream, or burning my skin, so something is different then Doug, and it is the levels to which I am exposed to the Formaldehyde, it is not at all difficult to understand that Doug, is it. We need to talk candidly about this issue.

    • Doug_Schoon

      If you read my posts, you will see I have been very candid and will continue to do so. My only interest in this is to expose the truth. It is very clear that every substance has a safe and unsafe level of exposure. There is nothing that is risk-free and nothing so toxic that one molecule will cause harm. So clearly, ever substance can be safe or dangerous, depending on how it is used. That’s true of so-called “natural and organic” substances as well and formaldehyde is both natural and organic. It is clear that long term formaldehyde exposure to unsafe levels could cause harm. I’ve never denied that. The problem I’m pointing out is that those levels are not being properly measured or reported and regulatory bodies force over reporting which leads to fear-based advocacy groups using this misinformation to promote needless fear.

  • David.

    Doug, I have read more upon this site, and I hope you will not mind me saying that it worries me somewhat that you suppose substances to be safe at all times, simply because they are found within our tissue. We both know that it all needs to be in proportion. How many substances do you know of, that we need, to be able to live, and function properly, that can harm us, even kill us when in excess.
    I am going to put to you, a different question: what is it Doug, that can be found in Formalin, no not Formaldehyde, but in Formalin, at the 37% we use, that kills, burns, causes cancers, organ failure, miscarriage etc etc etc etc etc etc etc, that has such a huge toxic effect, i;e, affecting so many different parameters.
    I do not care what it is called, I just want to know why we use a substance that does such harm to us, and has the ability to kill us in hours, when we are expossed to high enough levels.
    I worry about my friends – end of.

    • Doug_Schoon

      Water can kill in minutes, so does that make it more toxic than formaldheyde? As I have said many times, every substance has a safe level of exposure as well as a dangerous level of exposure. There is no subtance on Earth so toxic that one molecule will harm you, so there is clearly a safe level for everything, inclduing formaldehyde, just as their is a toxic level. It’s all about keeping exposure at a safe level. No one said formaldehyde is safe at all times, other than you in your post above.

  • http://www.facebook.com/josBaceFook Joanna Di Paolo

    Doug schoon is a shill for the poisonous beauty biz– he should also disclose the HUGE conflict of interest he engages in posting here, and let everyone know he is the chief scientist for Creative Nail Designs (CND), which makes some of the most toxic nail products available.

    • Doug_Schoon

      That’s actually not correct and besides, it’s pretty sad that some don’t care to have a conversation based on facts and instead resort to personal attacks and clear distortions of the information. Both Heath Canada and the FDA disagree with you had have said publically that cosmetics are among the safest products consumers can buy and nail polish has a long history of safe use, as most people recognize. Bicycles and roller-skates are more likely to cause harm than cosmetics, but some don’t care about facts and would rather live in fear. BTW: I am a consultant to many companies in the beauty industry, as everyone knows, and also work with advocacy groups and regulators to help them better understand the science behind cosmetic products. For the last 6 years I’ve been president of my own company, Schoon Scientific. If I’m a shill, I’m a shill for the truth and am well-known for being a straight-shooter with the facts, which clearly bother those who wish to deceive the public.

    • Dene Godfrey

      Brilliant – the classic logical fallacy – the ad hominen attack. No facts, no evidence, no point. Joanna, I sincerely hope that you bring a little more balance to the TV programmes that you produce, as your comment here is entirely unbalanced (and I mean that in both senses). If you think it’s clever to engage in such intellectually redundant comments, I don’t think that this is the site for you.
      Personally, I have NO connection whatsoever with any specific cosmetics manufacturer, and have never been involved with nail products and I agree with everything that Doug has stated in his article (and I have a chemistry degree, Joanna – on what scientific basis do YOU dispute Doug’s claims?)

  • Tony Miller

    Thanks again Doug for your efforts to bring intelligence and valid science to our industry. It is sad to see some of the fearful and hateful comments based on ignorance. The almost hysterical personal attacks are reminiscent of the witch hunters of old. Many innocent and intelligent people died at the hands of ignorant rumor mongers. You do us all a great service to stand on the side of real science which is the only antidote to fear superstition.

  • David

    Hello Doug. I was just looking in to see if anything had been added to the comments. I am not sure if I am on the correct web page, this one showing 86 comments, your other one showing 92 was it. Any way. I was concerned to see that in my first comment, it would seem I made an error, that I must correct; it says, and I am not sure way, as the figure rings no bells, that 25,000 ppm is a dangerous level of exposure, and it certainly is that, but a potentially lethal dose of inhaled formaldehyde gas as released by formalin, is as little as 20 ppm, 8 ppm being considered a very high occupational exposure, 2 ppm, being the STE (Short Term Exposure) limit for a 15 minute period, 20 to 100 ppm being the revised limit for IDLH (Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health), down from 400 ppm, by some countries. The U.K has one of the highest accepted levels of exposure. Quite where 25,000 ppm came from I do not know; I am glad I was able to correct that. For an eight hour working day exposure limit, many countries have a limit of 0.75 ppm, 3/4 of one unit, so you can see how 25,000 ppm is a crazy figure. The off-gasing of some items using Foramlin (Formaldehyde in solution), being around 0.0015 ppm, just to give people an idea, but some homes containing levels as high as 75 ppm, due to the off-gasing of building materials like MDF, carpets, glues, and foams.
    People still seem to be very confused about gases, in a liquid form, so may I just remind people about liquid Oxygen, liquid Propane, that we use in our heaters, and BBQ, liquid Nitrogen, and many others; they can be found in solid form (ice, or polymers), liquid form, or as a gas, which is its preferred form here on Earth, at our pressures, and temperatures. Formaldehyde (also known as Methanal, and other names) is manufactured by the chemical industry, disolved in water, to be able to be used as a liquid where needed, added to other substances, or used as the solid form – Urea-Formaldehyde (Urea-Methanal), used in foam insulation, and many other products.
    It is only in the last four years is it Doug, that the labelling on Formalin has had to show a skull and crossed bones, and a warning about cancer. People also become tolerant to Formaldehyde, and notice its presence less, if expossed to it for any length of time. And peoples tolerance of Formaldehyde can vary with each person, so we need to err on the side of caution.

    • Doug_Schoon

      I’m not sure of what your point is. Whenever a regulatory limit is set, they always err on the side of caution and build large safe buffers into the levels before they are established, often as as high as 1000 fold safety factor. I fail to see what all of this has to do with typical cosmetic or personal care exposures, which are always WELL BELOW safe levels of inhalation

  • David

    In what way can water kill in minutes Doug? Are you suggesting drowning? If so, then I shall no longer waste my time with this web page.

    • Dene Godfrey

      Drinking too much water too quickly is a known cause of death, especially in endurance sports – you are NOT wasting your time on this page!

    • Doug_Schoon

      Hyperatremia, water intoxication, can happen quickly. Toxicity is dose related.

  • david

    Thank-you Dene. If yourself, or Doug, could help me in any way to estimate the ppm of Formaldehyde that could perhaps be expected to be present immediately at the point of filling an open bucket with eight litres of ‘Formalin 40,’ (37% Formaldehyde), that could be experienced by any of my friends, as they hold the bucket within 30 to 60cm from their faces, as they rest it on the drum, and pump the Formaldehyde in, then I would be very grateful.

    I do not wish to hijack your blog Doug, I was looking for help when I came across it, as we are left quite ignorant to the exact dangers, or potential dangers of working with Formalin/Formaldehyde within the Agriculture Industry; it certainly took my breath away when I was working with it, and one of my friends has lost some of her sense of smell, and another colleague has asthma which is getting worse, and it stricks me, that we handle the product rather carelessly, due to people being ignorant of its potential. As I have read more about the chemical, it is clear that we must simply act accordingly, but I need accurate info to present to my friends; I no longer work with the product, they do, daily.

    I understand that the effects of Formaldehyde as a poison, are not accumulative, as long as we understand that this is different to the process of sensitization, but rather it is the immediate danger of Formaldehyde that I am most concerned about, as it is this that we are exposed to, and most at risk from. I cannot help but feel that the Agricultural Industry, has been all but forgotten when it comes to the safe handling of this chemical, whilst other Industries are catered for, and yet it seems we have the potential to be exposed to by far the highest risk, from routine use of Formalin.

    I have copies of a data sheet for Formaldehyde, that I shall be sending to my friends, along with some safety equipment; if I could also estimate the levels of potential exposure, it would help to confront our ignorance.

    As for the cosmetics industry, by far the most important thing, I would have thought, is the fact that the presence of Formaldehyde, is not accumulative, and that Formaldehyde has a safe level. We need to be able to trust those people who are working within legal parameters, to do so, for our wellbeing, and be enabled to make our own choices, by way of clear labeling; the greatest danger with Formaldehyde, is within those Industries that use it as a raw material. Where Formaldehyde can be replaced with a safer alternative, well, we should, but it may make some products more expensive – we can’t have it both ways.

    Just out of interest Doug, or Dene, what is it that smells so strong when you open a bottle of nail polish, or hardener? I do not recogize it as Formaldehyde, and with the levels of Formaldehyde being well below the levels at which it should be detectable to us, I would not expect to be able to smell it; it is acetone isn’t it, but does Acetone contain Formaldehyde, and are people mistakenly accusing Formaldehyde, of an irritation that is all down to Acetone, which has a similar irritation to breathing as Formaldehyde, but a much higher safe level of ppm, hundreds of times higher, and I think I am right in saying, it is without the potential cancer risk that Formaldehyde comes with..

  • melissa

    the nail polish I just bought has formaldehyde right on the ingredient list, so there isn’t any confusion as to whether or not it is an ingredient. If the mfr lists it as an ingredient, I bet it’s in there (and probably not in gas form.