Health Policy and Epidemiology: The Scientific Evidence for a Ban of Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insulation

Abstract

E N years ago, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) was becoming one of the most popular home insulation products in the United States. However, between 1974 and 1980, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission received over one thousand complaints of adverse >*4~ health symptoms related to this insulation product (1). These complaints consisted of such symptoms as nausea, coughing, rash, dizziness, conjunctivitis, coryza, and dyspnea. Similar complaints also were received in state, provincial, and local health agencies (2-5). As a result, the use of UFFI was first banned in Massachusetts in 1979 (4) and in Canada in 1981 (5), and is now no longer in use as a home insulator throughout North America. The events, and more importantly, the scientific evidence which led to these bans, however, tell an interesting story. While some animal studies, but few if any studies on humans, have been able to show a direct association between formaldehyde and chronic health problems, the sometimes undocumented short-term, acute symptoms experienced by some consumers were considered adequate evidence for a UFFI ban. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the scientific evidence on the adverse health effects of UFFI. Since formaldehyde is a major component of UFFI, this paper will deal first with formaldehyde-its uses and concentrations in the environment, as well as its teratogenic, mutagenic, reproductive and carcinogenic effects on both animals and humans. The second section of this paper will concentrate specifically on formaldehyde which is released from urea-formaldehyde foam insulation and the resul-