Sharon Lerner

The Environmental Protection Agency’s attempts to reckon with formaldehyde have been repeatedly thwarted by the companies that rely on it. If the past is any guide, even modest steps toward reform are all but guaranteed to hit a dead end under Trump.

The chemical can trigger health problems and causes more cancer than any other toxic air pollutant. Our reporters traveled around New York City and New Jersey with equipment to measure its presence. The results proved concerning.

Citing a ProPublica investigation that found formaldehyde causes far more cancer than any other toxic air pollutant, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in a letter that “the agency has an obligation to protect the public from the chemical.”

The report was published weeks after a ProPublica investigation found that the chemical causes more cancer than any other toxic air pollutant and can trigger asthma, miscarriages and fertility problems.

David Fotouhi, a lawyer who recently challenged a ban on asbestos, worked to roll back climate regulations and water protections while serving in the Environmental Protection Agency during Trump’s first administration.

Two bills in Congress would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from using hundreds of chemical assessments completed by its IRIS program in environmental regulations or enforcement.

It’s unclear whether the guidance will impact active grants, but it appears to halt opportunities for future studies. One climate health expert said the directive would have a “devastating” impact on much-needed research.

The toxic substance, used in dry cleaning and manufacturing, has been linked to a host of serious health problems. A Biden-era ban on the chemical has faced multiple challenges since Trump took office.

Climate experts expressed shock and dismay at the move. “It would be a bit like unplugging the equipment that monitors the vital signs of a patient that is critically ill,” one said.

Abigail Dillen sees the increase of lawsuits targeting green groups as just one of the growing threats to environmental advocacy organizations — and the people who staff them.