Toxic Baby Furniture

The Latest Case for Making Products 

Safe from the Start
Toxic Baby Furniture

The Latest Case for Making Products 

Safe from the Start

Environment California

Research & Policy Center

Travis Madsen

Frontier Group

Rachel Gibson

Environment California Research & Policy Center

May 2008
Acknowledgments

Environment California Research & Policy Center gratefully acknowledges Alfred Hodgson 

and Raja Tannous at Berkeley Analytical Associates, LLC for performing the emissions 

testing described in this report and for providing technical guidance. Additionally, we 

thank Dr. Mark J. Mendell of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Gretchen Lee 

of the Breast Cancer Fund, and John Rumpler of Environment America Research & Policy 

Center for their insightful review.

Funding for this report was provided, in part, by the Public Health Trust, a program of the 

Public Health Institute, through a defendant’s settlement of a legal complaint. Additional 

generous financial support from The California Wellness Foundation and Clarence E. 

Heller Charitable Foundation made this report possible.

The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect 

the views of our funders or those who provided review. Any factual errors are strictly the 

responsibility of the authors.

Copyright 2008 Environment California Research & Policy Center

Environment California Research & Policy Center is a 501(c)(3) organization. We are 

dedicated to protecting California’s air, water and open spaces. We investigate problems, 

craft solutions, educate the public and decision makers, and help Californians make their 

voices heard in local, state and national debates over the quality of our environment and 

our lives.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner, 

healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate information and 

compelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and federal levels.

For more information about Environment California Research & Policy Center, or for additional copies of this report, please visit our Web site at www.environmentcalifornia.org.

Cover photo credit: Fred Goldstein, istockphoto.com

Design and layout: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 5

The Health Risks of Formaldehyde Exposure 7

Formaldehyde Is an Indoor Air Pollutant 7

Formaldehyde Exposure Is Associated with Allergies, Asthma, and Cancer 9

Testing Results: Many Baby Nursery Furnishings 

Emit Formaldehyde 11

Furniture Containing Composite Wood Showed the Highest Emissions 11

A Home Furnished with High-Emitting Products Likely 13

Increases a Child’s Risk of Developing Allergies or Asthma

Other Products Emitted Less Formaldehyde 15

How the Current Chemical Regulatory System 

Fails Children 18

Inadequate Resources and Legal Authority Often Prevent Regulatory Action 18

Formaldehyde Is Just One of Thousands of Hazardous Chemicals on the Market 21

A New Approach: Green Chemistry 22

Methodology 26

Appendix: Detailed Product Identification 

& Testing Results 28

Notes 30

Executive Summary  

Executive Summary

F

urnishings containing formaldehyde —a toxic chemical linked with 

allergies, asthma, and cancer—can 

contaminate indoor air within California 

homes. Babies and young children are 

particularly vulnerable to harm.

To evaluate the potential dangers 

children face, Environment California 

Research & Policy Center purchased 21 

products intended for use in a baby’s nursery and hired a professional laboratory to 

test them. We found that six of the products produced high levels of formaldehyde 

vapor. In particular, several brands of cribs 

and changing tables emit formaldehyde at 

levels linked with increased risk of developing allergies or asthma.

To protect children from formaldehyde and other chemical hazards, 

California should adopt a new approach to 

chemical regulation, encouraging manufacturers to design products that are safe from 

the start.

Many baby nursery furnishings emit 

formaldehyde.

•	 Of the products tested, the Child 

Craft Oak Crib emitted the largest 

amount of formaldehyde. The crib 

includes a drawer made from 

composite wood, which is often 

manufactured using formaldehydebased glue.

•	 Other products with high formaldehyde emissions included the Bridget 

4-in-1 Crib by Delta, the Kayla II 

Changing Table by Storkcraft, 

the Berkley Changing Table by 

Jardine Enterprises, the Country 

Style Changing Table by South Shore 

Furniture, and the Rochester Cognac 

Crib by Storkcraft. 

•	 The remaining 15 products tested—

including the Olympia Single Crib 

by Jardine Enterprises; several wastebaskets, lamps, and shelves made with 

composite wood; and several window 

valances and wall hangings—emitted 

relatively low amounts of formaldehyde.

A baby sleeping in a nursery furnished with a high-emission crib and 

changing table may face an increased 

risk of developing allergies and/or 

asthma.
  Toxic Baby Furniture

•	 A new single-family home furnished 

with only a Child Craft Oak Crib and 

a Storkcraft Kayla II Changing Table 

would have indoor formaldehyde 

levels of about 30 parts per billion 

(ppb) on average throughout the whole 

house. A less spacious unit in a new 

apartment building would have indoor 

formaldehyde levels as high as 52 ppb. 

(See Table ES-1.) These estimates 

exclude any additional formaldehyde 

emissions from building materials or 

other pieces of furniture within the 

home. 

•	 Studies have shown that chronic 

exposure to formaldehyde at levels 

greater than 16 ppb in indoor air is 

linked with an increased likelihood of 

respiratory symptoms (such as coughing) and/or allergic sensitization in 

children. Indoor formaldehyde levels 

greater than 50 ppb have been associated with an increased risk of diagnosed childhood asthma.

•	 Formaldehyde appears to have a 

large impact on children’s respiratory 

health. For example, in one study, 16 

percent of children in homes with 

formaldehyde levels less than 16 ppb 

had diagnosed asthma, while 44 percent had asthma in homes with indoor 

formaldehyde concentrations greater 

than 40 ppb.

•	 Moreover, contamination levels could 

be higher close to the source of emissions. For example, in a lightly ventilated nursery furnished with a Child 

Craft Oak Crib, formaldehyde levels 

could be as high as 75 ppb. Formaldehyde exposure could be even higher 

for an infant actually sleeping in the 

crib, very close to the source of 

emissions. 

Formaldehyde exposure can cause 

cancer in the long term.

•	 The State of California and the 

International Agency for Research 

on Cancer classify formaldehyde as a 

known human carcinogen.

•	 Under Proposition 65, California has 

determined that exposure to formaldehyde at 40 micrograms per day 

(equivalent to an indoor concentration of about 2 ppb) results in a 1 in 

100,000 lifetime risk of cancer. Individually, the Child Craft Oak Crib, 

Product	 Manufacturer	 Retailer	 Estimated Contribution

to Indoor Formaldehyde

Levels (ppb)

Child Craft Oak Crib	 Child Craft	 Target	 23	 40

Bridget 4-in-1 Crib	 Delta	 Wal-Mart	 11	 18

Kayla II Changing Table	 Storkcraft	 Babies R Us	 6.9	 12

Berkley Changing Table	 Jardine Enterprises	 Babies R Us	 6.2	 11

Country Style Changing Table	 South Shore Furniture	 Target	 4.2	 7.2

Rochester Cognac Crib	 Storkcraft	 Target	 3.6	 6.2

New Single

Family Home

New Unit in

Apt.Bldg.

Table ES-1: Estimated Contribution of the Top Six Formaldehyde Emitters to Indoor 

Air Pollution Levels
Executive Summary  

the Bridget 4-in-1 Crib, the Kayla II 

Changing Table, the Berkley Changing Table, the Country Style Changing Table, and the Rochester Cognac 

Crib each contain enough formaldehyde to contaminate an entire home 

with levels of formaldehyde greater 

than this threshold.

Formaldehyde is just one example 

of how the chemical regulatory system 

fails to protect children from health 

hazards. 

•	 Inadequate resources and legal authority often prevent regulatory agencies 

from taking protective action—even 

where significant evidence of harm to 

public health already exists. For example, federal regulators first became 

aware of links between formaldehyde 

vapor and respiratory health problems 

more than 30 years ago. However, stiff 

resistance from the chemical industry 

in the early 1980s largely thwarted 

new rules on formaldehyde emissions. 

Moreover, California declared formaldehyde to be a toxic air contaminant 

in 1992—yet 16 years passed before 

the state successfully issued a regulation 

to limit emissions from composite wood.

•	 In addition to formaldehyde, about 

1,400 chemicals on the market today 

have known or suspected links to 

cancer, birth defects, and other health 

problems. And tens of thousands more 

have not been adequately tested for 

health impacts. 

To better protect children, California 

should reform its system of chemical 

regulation through the Green Chemistry Initiative. This program should:

•	 Require chemical manufacturers to 

prove that each chemical they market 

is safe.

•	 Empower regulatory agencies to restrict or ban the manufacture and use 

of chemicals that pose potential dangers, erring on the side of protecting 

human health and the environment.

•	 Ensure public access to information 

on chemicals and their uses through 

mandatory reporting requirements.

How We Estimated Indoor Air Pollution Levels

E

nvironment California Research & Policy Center hired Berkeley Analytical 

Associates, LLC to test the formaldehyde emissions of selected baby nursery 

furnishings. Laboratory staff placed each product in an environmental chamber and 

measured the amount of formaldehyde vapor that that was released to air. We then 

extrapolated the results to estimate how much each product would contribute to 

the formaldehyde air concentrations within a typical home. (For technical details, 

see the Methodology section on page 26.)
 Toxic Baby Furniture

For Parents Seeking to Minimize Children’s 

Exposure to Formaldehyde:

•	 Ask about the formaldehyde emissions of furniture, cabinetry and building 

products before you purchase and install them in your home.

•	 If such information is unavailable, avoid products with components made of 

raw medium density fiberboard or other types of composite wood.

•	 Ensure adequate ventilation within your home. Maintain moderate temperatures and humidity levels.

•	 Place pollution-absorbing plants—such as spider plants, Boston ferns, dwarf 

date palms, pot mums, or peace lilies—in your home.

Photo by stock.xchng
Introduction  

T

his past year, parents got a rude awakening. Product recall after product 

recall made it abundantly clear that 

dangerous chemicals are making their 

way into a variety of products intended for 

children—and these products are finding 

their way onto store shelves.1

For example, children playing with Aqua 

Dots, one of Wal-Mart’s best selling toys 

in the fall of 2007, fell seriously ill—even 

comatose—after swallowing the toy beads. 

It turned out that the beads were inadvertently coated with a chemical that turns 

into the “date rape” drug gamma-hydroxy 

butyrate after ingestion.2 Millions of additional children were exposed to products 

containing dangerous levels of lead, which 

can interfere with normal brain development.3

However, countless additional products 

remain on store shelves, containing unregulated but hazardous chemicals. Many of 

these chemicals can cause long-term health 

problems such as asthma or cancer. Parents 

can unknowingly bring these chemicals 

into their homes, where they can adversely 

affect the health of their families.

In this report, we tell the story of formaldehyde. Despite indications that indoor 

air contaminated with formaldehyde posed 

a threat to respiratory health as early as 

1976, common consumer products—such 

as the baby nursery furnishings we identify 

in the pages that follow—can still emit 

formaldehyde. 

In April 2008, the California Air Resources Board finalized a new rule to limit 

the amount of formaldehyde emissions 

from products made of composite wood 

that are manufactured, sold or used in 

California.4 With vigorous enforcement, 

this regulation will reduce our exposure 

to formaldehyde.

However, formaldehyde—and the toxic 

substances involved in previous recalls—

represent just the tip of the iceberg when 

it comes to chemical hazards in consumer 

products.

There are more than 75,000 industrial 

chemicals on the market in the United 

States.5 The health effects of almost half 

of the major industrial chemicals have not 

been studied at all.6 Of those that have been 

studied, approximately 1,400 chemicals 

with known or probable links to cancer, 

birth defects, reproductive impacts, and 

other health problems are still in use today.7

Many of these chemicals end up in products 

Introduction
  Toxic Baby Furniture

that we buy and take into our homes, unbeknownst to consumers.

When the federal government created the Toxic Substances Control Act 

in response to the PCB crisis 30 years 

ago, the chemical industry succeeded in 

making sure there were no new testing 

requirements placed on the tens of thousands of chemicals already in use. For new 

chemicals, the law required only a rapid 

pre-market screening based on existing 

information, and did not require toxicity 

testing for health effects.

In other words, regulatory agencies can 

only act after a product has proven to be 

unsafe. This approach is far less stringent 

than the process for approving drugs, 

where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires thorough pre-market 

testing and ongoing evaluation of drug 

effectiveness and safety.

As a result, U.S. chemical regulation 

stumbles blindly, using an “innocent until 

proven guilty” model, allowing widespread 

exposure to toxic chemicals before they 

have been tested for safety. Moreover, 

where significant evidence of harm to 

public health already exists, inadequate 

resources and legal authority often prevent 

regulatory agencies from taking protective 

action.

The Green Chemistry Initiative, 

launched by Governor Schwarzenegger 

and Secretary for Environmental Protection Linda Adams in April 2007, offers an 

opportunity to try a different approach.8

Green Chemistry “is a preemptive strategy to stop toxic substances before they 

contaminate the environment and our bodies.”9

 Green Chemistry seeks to reduce and 

eliminate hazardous substances in products 

by design, minimizing public health and 

environmental impacts from the start.

If California gets the Green Chemistry Initiative right, we can begin to offer parents new assurance that everyday 

consumer products are safe to bring home 

from the store and to use in caring for 

their families.

Formaldehyde represents 

just the tip of the iceberg when it 

comes to chemical hazards in 

consumer products.
The Health Risks of Formaldehyde Exposure  

F

ormaldehyde is a toxic chemical 

widely used in building materials and 

a variety of household products. For 

example, manufacturers use formaldehyde 

as a component in glues and adhesives, as a 

preservative in paints and related products, 

and as a means to give fabrics a permanentpress quality.

When used in the home, formaldehydecontaining products can release the chemical into indoor air. In particular, products 

made from composite wood containing 

urea-formaldehyde glue tend to create 

indoor air pollution.10

Children chronically exposed to elevated levels of airborne formaldehyde face an 

increased risk of developing allergic sensitivities and/or asthma. Moreover, the State 

of California and the International Agency 

for Research on Cancer classify formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.

Formaldehyde Is an Indoor 

Air Pollutant

The air within just about every indoor 

space in California contains measurable 

levels of formaldehyde.

According to the California Air Resources Board, the average California 

home contains formaldehyde at more 

than 10 parts per billion (ppb).11 In the 

most contaminated homes, formaldehyde 

levels exceed 200 ppb.12 In one study 

published in 2000, findings showed that 

new homes—even before the addition of 

furnishings—had formaldehyde levels 

averaging 40 ppb.13

Similar levels of contamination can be 

found in school classrooms, and levels in 

manufactured homes can be more than 

twice as high.14

Where Does Formaldehyde 

Contamination Come From?

Consumer products and building materials 

manufactured using formaldehyde as an 

ingredient are a main source of indoor air 

pollution. Potential formaldehyde emission 

sources within a home include:15

•	 Furniture and building materials 

made from composite wood;

•	 Some types of fiberglass insulation;

The Health Risks of 

Formaldehyde Exposure
  Toxic Baby Furniture

•	 Permanent press textiles;

•	 Cosmetics (especially liquid fingernail 

products); and

•	 Combustion sources, including 

cigarettes.

In homes, composite wood products 

made with urea-formaldehyde resin are 

likely to be among the most significant 

sources of airborne formaldehyde. Manufacturers use urea-formaldehyde because it 

is cheap and transparent. However, products made with this adhesive tend to have 

very high formaldehyde emissions, which 

continue for several years after manufacture.16

Heat and humidity tend to accelerate 

formaldehyde emissions, especially when 

a product is new.17

In particular, Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF), a type of composite wood 

widely used in building materials and 

furniture, is a notorious source of formaldehyde vapor in the home.18 Particle board 

and hardwood plywood are two additional 

types of compressed wood made with formaldehyde-based glue. 

Outdoor air also contains significant 

levels of formaldehyde as a byproduct 

of fuel combustion in cars and trucks. 

However, indoor sources of formaldehyde 

account for nearly 80 percent of a typical 

person’s daily exposure.19

The Home as a Toxic Environment

Not all toxic chemicals enter the environment dripping from a factory waste pipe, leaking from a hazardous waste dump at the edge of town, or billowing into the air from an incinerator smokestack. Products made in factories and 

shipped to homes and offices around the state also contain hazardous materials, 

where they become an intimate part of the life of every Californian.

Substantially more chemicals are shipped from factories to homes, contained 

within consumer products, than are spilled or dumped into the environment. 

Massachusetts, one of the few states where companies are required to report the 

amounts of chemicals they use and ship in products, provides a good illustration. 

In Massachusetts in 2001, for every one pound of chemicals released or disposed 

of, eight pounds were distributed in manufactured products.20 Companies shipped 

thousands of times more of certain toxic chemicals—especially ingredients in 

plastics and personal care products—than they released into the environment.21

As a result, children today grow up surrounded by many chemicals that did 

not exist a hundred years ago. Their food containers are made with plastic containing potentially harmful chemicals. Their homes and yards are treated with 

pesticides. Their families use cosmetics and personal-care products that contain 

hundreds of synthetic chemicals. Many of these chemicals escape from products 

and end up in household dust and in household air.22 The chemicals have become 

such a close part of our lives that now they can be found in the blood and bodies 

of every mother and child.23
The Health Risks of Formaldehyde Exposure  

Formaldehyde Exposure Is 

Associated with Allergies, 

Asthma, and Cancer

Acute exposure to elevated levels of 

formaldehyde can irritate skin and respiratory tissue, leading to inflammation 

and triggering asthma attacks. When 

formaldehyde is present in the air at levels 

exceeding 100 parts per billion (ppb), some 

individuals may suffer from watery eyes; 

burning sensations of the eyes, nose, and 

throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and 

skin irritation. People repeatedly exposed 

to formaldehyde may develop a sensitivity 

to this chemical, increasing the severity of 

effects over time.24

However, lower levels of formaldehyde 

also pose significant hazards, especially 

over longer periods of time. Scientific 

studies have linked long-term exposure 

to formaldehyde with increased odds 

of developing health problems ranging 

from asthma to cancer. Babies and young 

children are particularly vulnerable to 

harm since they are growing rapidly, with 

immature and vulnerable respiratory and 

other organ systems.

Children Chronically Exposed to 

Formaldehyde Are More Likely to 

Develop Asthma or Allergies

In August 2007, Dr. Mark Mendell at the 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

in Berkeley published a review of peerreviewed scientific studies examining the 

health risks of exposure to indoor air pollutants, including formaldehyde.25 He identified 21 relevant studies, many of which 

linked formaldehyde exposure at levels 

commonly found in California homes to 

increased risk of respiratory symptoms, allergic sensitization, and doctor-diagnosed 

asthma. For example:

•	 Dr. Martin Hooper at Monash 

University in Victoria, Australia, and 

his colleagues found that children 

exposed to formaldehyde at levels as 

low as 16 ppb in indoor air were more 

likely to show allergic sensitization 

and respiratory symptoms such as 

coughing.26 Moreover, 16 percent of 

children in homes with formaldehyde 

levels less than 16 ppb had diagnosed 

asthma, while 44 percent had asthma 

in homes with indoor formaldehyde 

concentrations greater than 40 ppb.

•	 Dr. Krassi Rumchev at the Curtin 

University of Technology in Perth, 

Australia, and his colleagues found 

that children between 6 months and 

3 years of age chronically exposed to 

formaldehyde at levels higher than 50 

ppb showed an increased prevalence 

of asthma.27 The scientists studied a 

group of children with doctor-diagnosed asthma, and a group of children 

of similar age without asthma. They 

then tested the children’s bedrooms 

and living rooms for formaldehyde 

contamination, controlling for temperature and humidity. The risk of a 

child needing treatment for asthma 

increased by 39 percent with residential formaldehyde concentrations 

greater than 50 ppb—and the risk 

increased as formaldehyde levels increased.

Photo by Nick Winchester
10 Toxic Baby Furniture

•	 Dr. Michal Krzyzanowski and 

his colleagues at the University of 

Arizona Health Sciences Center in 

Tucson found that children exposed 

to formaldehyde levels greater than 

60 ppb were significantly more likely 

to have asthma or chronic bronchitis, especially in homes with elevated 

levels of second-hand tobacco smoke.28

Children exposed to greater amounts 

of formaldehyde also showed significantly decreased measures of lung 

function—a child exposed to 60 ppb 

formaldehyde lost about 20 percent of 

exhalation force compared to an unexposed child. Asthmatic children were 

particularly sensitive to this effect, 

while adults were less sensitive.

•	 Dr. Peter Franklin and his colleagues 

at Princess Margaret Hospital for 

Children in Perth, Australia, found 

that children living in homes with 

formaldehyde levels greater than 50 

ppb showed elevated levels of nitric 

oxide in their breath, an indicator of 

swelling deep within the lungs and 

development of asthma.29

•	 Dr. Jouni Jaakkola at the University 

of Helsinki in Finland and his colleagues found that 8—12 year old 

schoolchildren were more likely to 

suffer from asthma, wheezing, or allergies when exposed to new linoleum 

flooring, synthetic carpeting, particleboard, wall coverings, furniture, 

or new paint.30 New particleboard 

and furniture—both likely sources 

of formaldehyde emissions—were 

significantly associated with allergies, 

and showed an association, albeit not 

statistically significant, with wheezing 

and asthma.

The scientific literature to date shows 

associations between formaldehyde exposure and inflammation of lung tissues, 

sensitization to allergens, and potentially 

altered immune system development in 

children, all of which are involved in 

the development and progression of 

asthma.31

Chronic Exposure to 

Formaldehyde Can Cause Cancer

Formaldehyde exposure can also cause 

cancer in both humans and animals. The 

International Agency for Research on 

Cancer (IARC) and the State of California 

both classify formaldehyde as a known human carcinogen.32 Specifically, California 

lists formaldehyde as a carcinogen under 

Proposition 65.33

In one of the many studies evaluated by 

IARC, workers with a greater exposure 

to formaldehyde showed a higher risk of 

developing cancer.34 Industrial workers 

exposed to formaldehyde were more likely 

to die from cancer in the back of the throat 

(or nasopharyngeal cancer) when compared 

to typical American citizens.35 The study 

also showed a link, albeit weaker, between 

formaldehyde exposure and leukemia.36

The link is supported by experiments 

within the laboratory, which show that 

formaldehyde causes damage to DNA in 

the upper respiratory tissues of both humans and rodents after inhalation.37
Testing Results 11

T

o evaluate the potential dangers children face from exposure to chemicals, 

Environment California Research 

& Policy Center purchased 21 consumer 

products and tested their formaldehyde 

emissions. We took on the role of prospective parent and looked for cribs, changing 

tables, window dressings, shelves, and related items found in a typical baby nursery. 

We shopped at Babies “R” Us, Wal-Mart, 

and Target; both on-line and in-store. We 

looked particularly for items containing 

composite wood or permanent press fabrics, which we believed could be potential 

sources of formaldehyde.

We then hired a professional laboratory, 

Berkeley Analytical Associates, LLC, to 

test the products. Laboratory staff placed 

each product in a continuously ventilated 

environmental chamber for 24 hours and 

measured the amount of formaldehyde 

vapor that that was released each hour. 

We then extrapolated the results to estimate the contribution of each product to 

the formaldehyde concentrations in the 

air within a typical home. (For technical 

details, see the Methodology section on 

page 26.) 

We found that six of the products emitted formaldehyde vapor at high rates. (See 

Figure 1.) In particular, several brands of 

cribs and changing tables emit formaldehyde at levels that increase the risk of 

children developing allergies or asthma.

Furniture Containing 

Composite Wood Showed 

the Highest Emissions

Products with components made from 

composite wood showed the highest level 

of formaldehyde emissions.

Of the products tested, the Child 

Craft Oak Crib showed the highest rate 

of formaldehyde emission. The crib 

includes a drawer made from composite 

wood.

Other products with high formaldehyde 

emissions included:

•	 Bridget 4-in-1 Crib by Delta, 

•	 Kayla II Changing Table by Storkcraft,

Testing Results: Many Baby Nursery 

Furnishings Emit Formaldehyde
12 Toxic Baby Furniture

Table 1: Products with High Formaldehyde Emissions

Product	 Manufacturer	 Retailer	 Formaldehyde

Emissions

(micrograms per

unit per hour)

Child Craft Oak Crib	 Child Craft	 Target	 3,680

Bridget 4-in-1 Crib	 Delta	 Wal-Mart	 1,670

Kayla II Changing Table	 Storkcraft	 Babies R Us	 1,090

Berkley Changing Table	 Jardine Enterprises	 Babies R Us	 974

Country Style Changing Table	 South Shore Furniture	 Target	 662

Rochester Cognac Crib	 Storkcraft	 Target	 573

Figure 1: Formaldehyde Emissions of Selected Baby Nursery Furnishings

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Formaldehyde Emission Rate 

(micrograms per unit per hour)

My First Doll

Winnie Pooh Wall Shelf

Alphabet Soup Wall Hanging

Olivia Decorative Valance

Lambs & Ivy Froggy Lamp

Olympia Single Crib

Sugar Plum Lamp

Lady Bug Waste Basket

South Shore Changing Table

Alphabet Soup Waste

Football Wall Shelf

Baby Cocoa Valance

Lauren 4-in-1 Crib

Americana Lifetime Crib

Nursery-In-A-Box Crib

Rochester Cognac Crib

Country Style Changing

Berkley Changing Table

Kayla II Changing Table

Bridget 4-in-1 Crib

Child Craft Oak Crib

Formaldehyde Emission Rate

(micrograms per unit per hour)
Testing Results 13

•	 Berkley Changing Table by Jardine 

Enterprises,

•	 Country Style Changing Table by 

South Shore Furniture, and

•	 Rochester Cognac Crib by Storkcraft. 

Table 1 summarizes the test results for 

the highest emitting products, along with 

the product manufacturers and the retail 

outlets where they were purchased.

A Home Furnished with 

High-Emitting Products 

Likely Increases a Child’s 

Risk of Developing Allergies 

or Asthma

Placing just one or two of the products 

identified in this report as high-emitting 

sources into a home would result in significantly elevated indoor formaldehyde 

levels. For example, the formaldehyde concentration in the air of a new single-family 

home furnished with only a Child-Craft 

Oak Crib would be greater than 20 ppb. 

Children chronically exposed to formaldehyde at this level in one study were more 

likely to show respiratory symptoms such 

as coughing.

However, the typical home likely 

contains more than one source of formaldehyde emissions. Homes also can have 

poor ventilation, or small indoor volume. 

In these cases, formaldehyde levels could 

easily exceed 50 ppb, entering the range 

where scientists have observed increased 

risk of asthma and allergy development in 

children.

Indoor Formaldehyde Levels

Formaldehyde concentrations within a 

home are dependent on three factors:

1)	 The volume of the home;

2)	 Its ventilation rate; and

3)	 The formaldehyde emissions of each 

product within the home.

Homes with low volume, poor ventilation, and a large number of formaldehydeemitting products will tend to have high 

levels of indoor air pollution. Conversely, 

large homes with high ventilation and few 

products emitting formaldehyde will have 

indoor formaldehyde levels closer to those 

in outdoor air.

According to a June 2007 survey conducted by the California Air Resources 

Board, only 10 percent of California homes 

have adequate ventilation.38 Increased 

focus on security, and especially energy 

conservation, limits ventilation rates. In 

other words, the typical California home 

is susceptible to high indoor air pollution 

levels.

All other factors being equal, new homes 

will tend to have higher levels of indoor air 

pollution. Over time, home construction 

and home energy efficiency have improved, 

and new homes are increasingly better 

sealed against the outdoors.39

However, new homes also are more likely to be larger than older homes, partially 

offsetting this effect. Looking at median 

estimates for single-family home size, for 

example, Berkeley Analytical Associates 

concludes that a typical new single-family 

home encloses about 60 percent more air 

volume than an existing home.40

Evaluating the Health Risks Posed by 

Individual Products

To evaluate the health risks posed by each 

of the products tested in this report, we 

estimated how each product would impact 

indoor air quality in a typical home. 

The formaldehyde emission rate of each 

product was determined by Berkeley Analytical Associates through closed chamber 
14 Toxic Baby Furniture

testing. We then used assumptions about 

the size and ventilation rates of typical 

California homes to estimate each product’s contribution to indoor formaldehyde 

levels. The assumptions, developed by the 

laboratory, describe typical air volumes and 

ventilation rates of single-family homes 

and units in apartment buildings, covering 

both existing and new buildings.41 (For 

full details, see the Methodology section 

on page 26.)

Under these assumptions, smaller 

homes with low ventilation rates, typical 

of new units in apartment buildings, would 

be most likely to have high formaldehyde 

concentration levels with a given set of furniture. Correspondingly, existing singlefamily homes, with higher ventilation rates 

and the same furniture, would most likely 

have lower formaldehyde levels.

Table 2 shows the estimated contribution of each of the six products identified 

as having high formaldehyde emissions to 

whole-house formaldehyde concentrations 

in various types of residences.

Respiratory Risks

To put the information in table 2 into 

context, scientists have observed that 

children exposed to indoor formaldehyde 

levels greater than 16 ppb show increased 

risk of allergic sensitization and respiratory symptoms, and increased likelihood 

of having asthma at formaldehyde levels 

above 50 ppb.42

A typical single-family home—new or 

existing—furnished with only a Child 

Craft Oak Crib would have indoor formaldehyde levels above 16 ppb. If the crib 

were placed in a new apartment unit, indoor formaldehyde levels could approach 

40 ppb.

Add in a Storkcraft Kayla II Changing 

Table along with the Child Craft Oak Crib, 

and indoor formaldehyde levels would exceed 50 ppb in a new apartment.

These estimates are for typical homes. 

In homes with worst-case conditions—

small indoor space and very poor ventilation—indoor air pollution levels could be 

considerably higher.

Also, most homes contain additional 

furnishings and building materials that 

contain formaldehyde. Formaldehyde 

emissions from cribs and changing tables 

in a home will add to pollution from these 

other materials, increasing the odds that 

a high-emission product could expose a 

child to an increased risk of allergies or 

respiratory disease. 

Table 2: Estimated Contribution of High-Emitting Products to Whole-House 

Formaldehyde Levels

Total House Concentration (ppb)	

Product Name	 Existing New Existing New

Single Single Apartment Apartment

Family Family

Child Craft Oak Crib	 17.6	 23.3	 29.4	 39.8

Bridget 4-in-1 Crib	 8.0	 10.6	 13.3	 18.1

Kayla II Changing Table	 5.2	 6.9	 8.7	 11.8

Berkley Changing Table	 4.7	 6.2	 7.8	 10.5

Country Style Changing Table	 3.2	 4.2	 5.3	 7.2

Rochester Cognac Crib	 2.7	 3.6	 4.6	 6.2
Testing Results 15

Contamination Levels Could Be Higher 

within a Baby’s Nursery

A baby nursery containing formaldehydeemitting products will likely have higher 

concentrations of formaldehyde than the 

average levels throughout the home. 

Consider a hypothetical situation: a parent furnishes a 150 square foot baby nursery with a Child Craft Oak Crib. Assume 

that this room is ventilated such that the 

air volume fully recycles once every hour. 

This nursery could have a formaldehyde 

concentration as high as 75 ppb.43 If the 

nursery had poor ventilation, with one air 

change every two hours, formaldehyde 

concentrations could potentially reach 150 

ppb or more.

Moreover, formaldehyde exposure will 

likely be even higher the closer one gets to 

the source of the emissions. For example, 

the Child Craft Oak Crib utilizes a composite wood board to support the mattress, 

likely delivering elevated amounts of formaldehyde to a sleeping infant.

In the scientific studies on childhood respiratory health discussed earlier, however, 

estimates of children’s exposure were made 

by measuring formaldehyde concentrations in various rooms within a home. The 

health consequences of periodic exposure 

to elevated levels of formaldehyde, similar 

to what would be experienced by an infant 

periodically sleeping in a high-emission 

crib, have not been specifically studied.

Cancer Risks

California’s Office of Environmental 

Health Hazard Assessment considers all 

formaldehyde contamination to pose a 

health risk, with no lower threshold associated with zero risk.44

However, for regulatory purposes under Proposition 65, California has set a 

long-term “no significant risk level” for 

cancer from formaldehyde exposure at 40 

micrograms per day.45 Exposure at this 

level over a 70-year lifetime would produce one excess case of cancer in 100,000 

people.46 Under California law, exposure 

to formaldehyde above this level would 

require a posted warning for consumers.47

A 40 microgram per day dose is roughly 

equivalent to an indoor formaldehyde 

concentration of 2 ppb.

Individually, the Child Craft Oak Crib, 

Bridget 4-in-1 Crib, Kayla II Changing 

Table, Berkley Changing Table, Country 

Style Changing Table, and Rochester 

Cognac Crib each emit formaldehyde at 

sufficiently high rates to contaminate an 

entire home with levels of formaldehyde 

greater than this threshold.

Other Products Emitted 

Less Formaldehyde

In addition to the six cribs and changing 

tables identified as high-emitting products, 

we tested 15 other products with potential 

to emit formaldehyde. We examined several additional cribs and changing tables, 

plus lamps, shelves, and wastebaskets potentially made with composite wood parts. 

We also tested a few window valances, wall 

hangings, and a doll made with permanent-press fabric potentially treated with 

Photo by Levi Gruber
16 Toxic Baby Furniture

formaldehyde-containing chemicals during manufacturing.

Almost all of these items emitted measurable amounts of formaldehyde, but at 

rates several orders of magnitude lower 

than the high-emitting cribs and changing tables identified earlier in the report. 

(See Table 3.)

We also estimated the contribution that 

each of these products would make to overall formaldehyde concentrations within 

typical homes. (See Table 4.) Individually, 

none of these products would add more 

than 0.74 ppb formaldehyde to the indoor 

air of a home. In comparison, the average 

level of formaldehyde in outdoor areas of 

California is 3 ppb, exceeding 10 ppb in 

areas with high vehicle traffic.48 We conclude that these products individually pose 

a relatively small additional health risk.

However, these products may cumulatively contribute to measurable formaldehyde air contamination within a home. 

For example, if a family furnished a new 

home with a Nursery-In-A-Box Crib and 

two additional items with equivalent 

emissions, indoor formaldehyde levels 

would just exceed the “no significant 

risk level” for cancer of 40 micrograms 

per day (equivalent to an indoor concentration of about 2 ppb) established under 

Proposition 65.49

Table 3: Products with Relatively Low Formaldehyde Emissions

Product	 Manufacturer	 Retailer	 Formaldehyde 	 	

Emissions

(micrograms

per unit per hour)

Nursery-In-A-Box Crib	 Simplicity for Children	 Wal-Mart	 69

Americana Lifetime Crib	 Jardine Enterprises	 Babies R Us	 62

Lauren 4-in-1 Crib	 Graco	 Target	 36

Baby Cocoa Valance	 Lambs & Ivy	 Babies R Us	 16

Football Wall Shelf	 Trend Lad	 Target	 11

Alphabet Soup Waste Basket	 CoCaLo	 Babies R Us	 9

South Shore Changing Table	 South Shore Furniture	 Babies R Us	 8

Ladybug Wastebasket	 Kids Line	 Babies R Us	 6

Sugar Plum Lamp	 CoCaLo	 Babies R Us	 6

Olympia Single Crib	 Jardine Enterprises	 Babies R Us	 <6

Lambs & Ivy Froggy Tales Lamp	 Lambs & Ivy	 Babies R Us	 5

Alphabet Soup Wall Hanging	 CoCaLo	 Babies R Us	 4

Olivia Decorative Valance	 Kids Line Babies R Us	 4

Winnie Pooh Wall Shelf	 Crown Crafts

Infant Products, Inc	 Babies R Us	 3

My First Doll	 Koala Baby	 Babies R Us
Testing Results 17

Table 4: Estimated Contribution of Low-Emitting Products to Whole-House 

Formaldehyde Levels

Total House Concentration (ppb)	

Product Name	 Existing New Existing New

Single Single Apartment Apartment

Family Family

Nursery-In-A-Box Crib	 0.33	 0.44	 0.55	 0.74

Americana Lifetime Crib	 0.30	 0.39	 0.50	 0.67

Lauren 4-in-1 Crib	 0.17	 0.23	 0.29	 0.39

Baby Cocoa Valance	 0.07	 0.10	 0.12	 0.17

Football Wall Shelf	 0.05	 0.07	 0.09	 0.12

Alphabet Soup Waste Basket	 0.04	 0.06	 0.07	 0.10

South Shore Changing Table	 0.04	 0.05	 0.07	 0.09

Lady Bug Waste Basket	 0.03	 0.04	 0.05	 0.07

Sugar Plum Lamp	 0.03	 0.04	 0.05	 0.07

Olympia Single Crib	 <0.03	 <0.04	 <0.05	 <0.06

Lambs & Ivy Froggy Tales Lamp	 0.02	 0.03	 0.04	 0.05

Alphabet Soup Wall Hanging	 0.02	 0.03	 0.03	 0.05

Olivia Decorative Valance	 0.02	 0.03	 0.03	 0.05

Winnie Pooh Wall Shelf	 0.01	 0.02	 0.02	 0.03

My First Doll	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01	 0.01
18 Toxic Baby Furniture

T

he story of formaldehyde encapsulates 

what is wrong with federal and state 

approaches to chemical regulation.

First, inadequate resources and legal 

authority often prevent regulatory agencies from taking protective action—even 

where significant evidence of harm to 

public health already exists. In the case 

of formaldehyde, regulators first became 

aware of links between emissions in homes 

and respiratory damage and cancer in the 

1970s. However, stiff resistance from the 

chemical industry has largely thwarted 

new federal rules addressing formaldehyde 

exposure. And in California, 16 years 

elapsed between official declaration of 

formaldehyde as a toxic air contaminant 

and rules limiting formaldehyde emissions 

from composite wood. Meanwhile, the 

number of children with asthma is rising. 

Childhood asthma doubled in prevalence 

between 1980 and 1995, reaching 7.5 percent of all children.50

Second, formaldehyde is just one of 

more than a thousand chemicals on the 

market that have documented links to disease.51 And tens of thousands of additional 

chemicals on the market have not been adequately tested for health impacts.52 Under 

California’s current approach to chemical 

regulation, these potential hazards will 

be addressed on a piecemeal, chemicalby-chemical basis. Moreover, by the time 

regulators are able to draft and issue effective rules, harm to public health will have 

already happened—and in many cases will 

have been ongoing for decades.

Inadequate Resources and 

Legal Authority Often 

Prevent Regulatory Action

At the federal level, the primary law governing industrial chemicals—the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA)—has 

failed to live up to its purpose of protecting 

the public from toxic exposures. Even with 

strong evidence that chemicals pose health 

hazards, regulators often lack either the 

legal authority or the political will to take 

protective action. Action must overcome 

resistance from consumer product manufacturers accustomed to using a particular 

chemical, and from a chemical industry 

reliant on the profits from its sale. 

How the Current Chemical Regulatory 

System Fails Children
How the Current Regulatory System Fails Children 19

The history of regulatory action on 

formaldehyde provides a good example.

Federal Action on Formaldehyde

In the 1970s, many builders used ureaformaldehyde foam insulation (UFFI) to 

improve home energy efficiency. After 

installation of the material, homes showed 

elevated levels of formaldehyde vapor.53

As early as 1976, the federal Consumer 

Product Safety Commission (CPSC) 

began to hear complaints of respiratory 

irritation from residents living in homes 

insulated with UFFI.54 The CPSC began 

to investigate what might be causing the 

irritation, and whether a new regulation 

was necessary.

In 1979, researchers experimenting with 

rats discovered that formaldehyde can 

cause cancer.55 The CPSC, along with the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(U.S. EPA), the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration (OSHA), and other 

regulatory agencies evaluated the findings. 

They concluded that “the concentrations 

of formaldehyde in inhaled air that caused 

nasal cancer in ... rats are within the same 

order of magnitude as those to which humans may be exposed.”56

However, attempts to draft new regulations met with stiff resistance from the 

Formaldehyde Institute, a coalition of industries dependent on the chemical. As the 

Reagan Administration came into office 

in 1981, the Formaldehyde Institute held 

a series of meetings with agency leaders. 

Actions to regulate formaldehyde at U.S. 

EPA and OSHA were curtailed shortly 

thereafter.57 Public interest organizations 

and several members of Congress pointed 

to undue influence from industry in the 

decision not to act.58

The CPSC established new regulations 

on UFFI, and ultimately voted to ban the 

product in February 1982. However, this 

action too was voided, after the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lawsuit by 

the Formaldehyde Institute claiming that 

the CPSC used a flawed decision-making 

process.59

In 1985, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

issued a limited regulation aimed at keeping formaldehyde levels in manufactured 

homes below 400 ppb.60 This limited rule 

(which applies to hardwood plywood and 

particleboard used as building materials 

in manufactured homes, but not mediumdensity fiberboard) is currently the only 

federal limit on formaldehyde in consumer 

products sold in the United States.61 In 

comparison, Japan’s standards allow only 

one-tenth as much formaldehyde emissions.62 The European Union also has 

stronger limits.63 Even China has stringent 

limits on the formaldehyde content of 

building materials—although they do not 

apply to products exported to the United 

States.64

California regulators estimate that the 

HUD standard still allows 23 to 63 excess 

cancer cases per million children exposed 

for nine years, and 86 to 231 excess cancer 

cases per million adults exposed over a 

70-year lifetime.65 Respiratory and allergic 

health impacts would affect many more 

Photo by Teri Olle
20 Toxic Baby Furniture

children, if exposed to formaldehyde at 

this level. Moreover, the HUD standard 

only applies to wood used in manufactured 

homes, and not other types of products.

In place of official regulation, the composite wood industry adopted voluntary 

standards for formaldehyde emissions, 

which have kept the emissions from the 

average composite wood product at about 

40 percent below the HUD standard.66

However, these voluntary limits have not 

gone far enough to reduce indoor formaldehyde contamination to safe levels.

Formaldehyde Regulation in 

California

California formally declared formaldehyde 

to be a toxic air contaminant in 1992.67 The 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard 

Assessment recommended that “formaldehyde be treated as having no threshold 

exposure level below which no significant 

adverse health impacts are anticipated.”68

State law requires the California Air 

Resources Board (ARB) to take action to 

reduce public exposure to toxic air contaminants, requiring the use of best available control technology that is technically 

available and economically feasible.

However, ARB took little official action 

on formaldehyde until 2001, when it proposed a ban on all composite wood products 

made with urea-formaldehyde resin.69 The 

composite wood industry argued against 

the measure, and in 2003, ARB ultimately 

decided to hold off on a ban. 

California’s New Formaldehyde Emission Rules and the 

Products Tested in this Report

T

he Child Craft Oak Crib is made with composite wood that very likely will not 

meet the upcoming ARB formaldehyde emission standards. The Bridget 4-in-1 Crib, 

the Kayla II Changing Table, and the Berkley Changing Table include composite 

wood parts that likely exceed the ARB standard. And the Country Style Changing 

Table and the Rochester Cognac Crib include parts that may exceed the standard.

If the construction of these products is changed to use boards that will comply 

with the ARB regulation, they likely will emit much less formaldehyde. However, 

the new ARB regulation is limited in several ways:

•	 The regulation will not apply to products intended for sale outside of 

California. 

•	 The regulation will not eliminate formaldehyde emissions from consumer 

products. For example, even under ARB’s most stringent limit for formaldehyde emissions from medium density fiberboard, a home containing 20 

square meters of the product would still contain 25 to 55 ppb formaldehyde, 

depending on home size and ventilation rate. To put that in perspective, seven 

bookcases with dimensions of 13” x 31” x 70” and with no lamination on the 

undersides of shelves and the rear of the unit, would have 20 square meters of 

exposed composite wood surface. 

•	 The rule also applies only to composite wood. Products that use other types of 

formaldehyde-emitting materials will not be affected.
How the Current Regulatory System Fails Children 21

Recent Regulation for Formaldehyde

In 2006, ARB proposed a new regulation 

limiting the emissions of formaldehyde 

from composite wood boards. The regulation applies at the level of board manufacturing, reducing allowable emissions from 

the raw materials later used in furniture 

and buildings.

For particleboard and hardwood-plywood, the regulation limits allowable 

formaldehyde emissions to 259 micrograms 

per square meter of board surface per hour 

beginning January 2009, and to 129 by 

2011-2012. Regulators set formaldehyde 

emission limits for medium density fiberboard at roughly double these amounts.70

The new regulation officially became 

California law on April 18, 2008.71

ARB estimates that the regulation 

will reduce formaldehyde emissions from 

composite wood products by 180 tons per 

year in the first phase, reducing individual 

exposures by 15 percent. In the second 

phase, ARB expects to reduce emissions by 

500 tons per year, and individual exposures 

by 40 percent.72

This new rule will help to reduce indoor 

exposure to formaldehyde. However, it 

comes more than 30 years after federal 

regulators identified formaldehyde as a 

potential respiratory hazard, and 16 years 

after California officially determined that 

formaldehyde was a toxic air contaminant. 

Formaldehyde Is Just One 

of Thousands of Hazardous 

Chemicals on the Market

Formaldehyde is one of a vast expanse of 

chemical hazards facing children that grow 

up in today’s world. Most of these threats 

have yet to be effectively addressed by either the federal or the California chemical 

regulatory systems.

Chemical manufacturers produce and 

market more than 75,000 different chemicals for use across the U.S. economy.73

1,400 of these chemicals have known or 

probable links to cancer, birth defects, 

reproductive impacts, and other health 

problems that plague our society.74 And the 

health effects of almost half of the major 

industrial chemicals—roughly 1,500 compounds—have not been studied at all.75

Many of these chemicals are becoming 

part of our very bodies in complex mixtures 

that have never been evaluated to determine their impact on human health.

For example, the Environmental Working Group recently found 287 different 

chemicals in the umbilical cord blood of 

10 randomly selected infants born in the 

United States.76 These chemicals included 

“pesticides, consumer product ingredients, 

and wastes from burning coal, gasoline 

and garbage.”77 Of the chemicals detected, 

180 are known to cause cancer in humans 

or animals; 217 have toxic effects on the 

brain and nervous system; and 208 cause 

birth defects or developmental problems in 

experiments with animals.78 No study has 

ever evaluated the impact of this complex 

mixture of pollutants on fetal or infant 

health.

Under the current regulatory framework, the burden of proving harm falls 

upon those exposed to chemical hazards. 

Regulators are faced with the task of 

assessing risks faced by the public, one 

chemical at a time. They must document 

public exposure, uncovering where the 

chemical is produced, used, discharged, 

and disposed of. Then regulators must 

evaluate associations between exposure 

and diseases. Finally, regulators must go 

through the arduous process of crafting 

and issuing new rules—a process that can 

take decades between hazard identification 

and action to reduce public exposure, if it 

does not fail outright.

The result is that children continue to 

be exposed to hazardous chemicals—such 

as formaldehyde—every day.
22 Toxic Baby Furniture

R

eforming California’s chemical regulatory system to require manufacturers to consider potential impacts on 

public health and the environment upfront, during product design, could provide 

a much more effective means to reduce 

our exposure to dangerous chemicals in 

consumer products.

Recognizing this possibility, Governor Schwarzenegger and Secretary for 

Environmental Protection Linda Adams 

launched the California Green Chemistry 

Initiative in April 2007.79 Green Chemistry “is a preemptive strategy to stop toxic 

substances before they contaminate the 

environment and our bodies.”80 Green 

Chemistry seeks to reduce and eliminate 

hazardous substances in products by design, minimizing public health and environmental impacts.

In order to be meaningful, the Green 

Chemistry Initiative should be more than 

a voluntary, incentive-based program. 

The state needs to create the regulatory 

infrastructure to assess chemical safety and 

restrict or phase out the use of the most 

dangerous substances.

If an effective Green Chemistry approach had been in place in 1992 when 

California classified formaldehyde as a 

toxic air contaminant, children’s exposure 

to formaldehyde would look very different 

today. Instead of spending several decades 

studying exposure and characterizing 

shades of risk, regulators could have judged 

that formaldehyde, as an intrinsically 

hazardous chemical, should not be used in 

applications that lead to human exposure, 

especially where safer alternatives are available. Guided by this judgment, composite 

wood, building material, and furniture 

manufacturers could have deployed alternative adhesives or materials free from 

formaldehyde emissions. The same process 

would have guided manufacturer decisions 

about other dangerous chemicals that still 

await meaningful regulatory action. The 

result would have been healthier indoor 

air for children to breathe and reduced 

exposure to a range of health-threatening 

substances.

Now, we have an opportunity to make 

this vision a reality. If California gets the 

Green Chemistry Initiative right, we can 

begin to offer parents new assurance that 

everyday consumer products are safe to 

bring home from the store and to use in 

caring for their families. 

A New Approach: Green Chemistry
A New Approach: Green Chemistry 23

Alternatives to Formaldehyde Are Readily Available

Many companies across the U.S. are using healthier building materials and developing safer alternatives to replace toxic products. Columbia Forest Products 

provides a good example.

In 2005, Columbia Forest Products, North America’s largest manufacturer of 

hardwood plywood and hardwood veneer, announced its transition to PureBond®, 

a manufacturing technology that utilizes a natural adhesive composed primarily of 

soy flour and water.81 Scientists designed the formula “to mimic the protein that 

marine mussels use to attach themselves to rocks and other hard surfaces.”82

By March 2008, the company had converted all seven of its manufacturing 

plants to use this system, producing more than 25 million plywood panels with 

formaldehyde-free adhesive.83 The conversion replaced millions of pounds of 

urea-formaldehyde, reducing emissions of hazardous air pollutants at the plants 

by up to 90 percent.84

Plywood panels made with PureBond® already comply with the most stringent 

formaldehyde emissions limits put forward by the California Air Resources Board.85

Moreover, they cost no more than panels made with the standard urea-formaldehyde adhesive.86

In 2007, U.S. EPA 

recognized Columbia Forest Products 

for this achievement 

with a Presidential 

Green Chemistry 

Challenge Award.87

Other alternative 

adhesives are available to manufacture 

particle board and 

fiber board with ultra low formaldehyde emissions.88 In 

addition, everyday 

building materials—such as stone, 

brick, metal, glass, 

and solid wood—are generally formaldehyde-free. Furniture, cabinetry and buildings made of these materials do not emit formaldehyde. 

The Green Chemistry Initiative should ensure that manufacturers identify and 

prioritize safer alternatives to many different varieties of toxic chemicals, much as 

Columbia Forest Products has done with formaldehyde-based adhesives.

Columbia Forest Products and BuildingGreen.com
24 Toxic Baby Furniture

Policy Recommendations

Comprehensive chemical regulatory reform is necessary to improve our knowledge of chemicals used in commerce, 

encourage the use of materials and processes most likely to be safe, and enable the 

government to take action to protect public 

health and the environment from the greatest threats, when warranted. In order to 

protect children from toxic exposures, the 

Green Chemistry Initiative should include 

the following directives:

Require chemical manufacturers to 

prove that a chemical is safe before allowing it on the market.

•	 Regulators should require companies 

to provide comprehensive data on the 

intrinsic hazards of chemicals that 

they produce or import into California. Such data should include information on a chemical’s ability to persist 

in the environment, accumulate in 

living organisms, be metabolized into 

other hazardous compounds, cause 

genetic damage, mimic important 

hormone signals, interfere with human development or reproduction, 

weaken the immune system, damage 

the nervous system, cause respiratory 

disease, or otherwise harm human 

health.

•	 Chemical testing should include specific consideration of potential impacts 

on infants, children, and pregnant 

women; potential impacts of low-dose 

exposures; and potential interactions 

with other toxic chemicals. 

•	 The reliability and adequacy of the 

information should be validated by 

government scientists and/or an independent third party free of conflicts of 

interest.

Empower regulatory agencies to restrict or ban the manufacture and use of 

chemicals that pose potential dangers to 

human health or the environment.

•	 Where chemicals show evidence of intrinsic hazard—such as a tendency to 

persist in the environment, accumulate in living organisms, or cause toxic 

effects—regulators should restrict or 

prohibit the use of these chemicals 

and require the substitution of safer 

alternatives, particularly in consumer 

products or other applications that 

lead to human exposure. In addition, 

regulators should consider possible 

adverse impacts to ecosystems.

•	 Where there is uncertainty in the 

evidence, regulators should err on 

the side of protecting health and the 

environment.

Ensure public access to information 

on chemicals and their uses.

•	 The public has a right to know about 

chemicals currently on the market, 

including their specific uses, potential hazards to health and the environment, and potential exposures. 

California should create an easily 

understood database for all chemicals 

currently in use. This tool would 

enable businesses and consumers to 

compare the safety of chemicals, identify missing data, and create demand 

for safer alternatives.

•	 Until health and safety data are available for a particular chemical, there 

should be mandatory labeling for consumer products indicating the presence of a chemical that has not been 

tested for its impact on human 

health.
A New Approach: Green Chemistry 25

Recommendations for Consumers to Avoid 

Formaldehyde Exposure

Consumers seeking to avoid formaldehyde exposure face many obstacles. Products made with formaldehyde are very unlikely to be labeled as such. Even 

well-educated consumers consciously looking for healthy products may find that 

a seemingly innocuous product actually emits formaldehyde. For example, Dr. 

Mark Mendell, an indoor air quality expert at the Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, chose bamboo when remodeling the floor in his home. He later discovered that the bamboo floor was releasing formaldehyde vapor, likely from a 

urea-formaldehyde adhesive.89

To reduce the risk of exposure to formaldehyde in the home, consumers 

should:

•	 Ask retailers and manufacturers about the formaldehyde emissions of products, including furniture, cabinetry and building products made of composite 

wood, before you purchase them.

•	 If information about formaldehyde emissions is unavailable, avoid products 

with components made of medium density fiberboard, particleboard or other 

types of composite wood. Look for product descriptions that indicate the use 

of solid wood, which does not contain formaldehyde.

•	 Maintain moderate temperature and humidity levels and provide adequate 

ventilation within your home. Formaldehyde emissions are accelerated by 

heat, and also somewhat by humidity. Adequate ventilation with outdoor air 

can help to prevent formaldehyde and other indoor air pollutants from building up to greatly elevated levels within your home.

•	 Place pollution-absorbing plants in your home. For example, scientists have 

demonstrated that spider plants (Chlorophytum elatum), Boston ferns (Nephrolepis exalta Bostoniensis), dwarf date palms (Phoenix roebelinii), pot mums (Chrysanthemum morifolium), and peace lilies (Spathiphyllum) can effectively reduce 

formaldehyde levels in indoor air.92
26 Toxic Baby Furniture

Q * (C – Co)

N

Formaldehyde Emission Testing

Environment California Research & Policy 

Center contracted with Berkeley Analytical 

Associates, LLC in Richmond, California, 

to test 21 baby nursery furnishings for 

their formaldehyde emissions. The firm is 

a commercial laboratory specializing in the 

measurement of chemical emissions from 

building materials, architectural finishes, 

and furniture using large and small scale 

environmental chambers. Their services 

are available to industry, governmental 

agencies, and professional organizations. 

The laboratory placed each product into a 

large or small scale chamber operated under 

controlled conditions according to ASTM 

Standards D 5116 and D 6670. Products 

were taken from their packaging and transferred directly to the chambers. Many of the 

large pieces were tested in unassembled or 

partially assembled configuration. 

Conditions within the chamber were 

set to approximate the indoor environment. Temperature ranged from 22°C to 

24°C. Relative humidity ranged from 45 

to 55 percent. Air within the chamber was 

changed once per hour by ventilation. After 24 hours, air samples for formaldehyde 

Methodology

were collected from the chambers. The 

samples were analyzed for formaldehyde by 

High Performance Liquid Chromatography following ASTM Method D 5197, with 

a limit of detection of about 1 microgram 

per cubic meter.90

The laboratory reported the results 

for each product in terms of an emission 

factor, in units of micrograms of formaldehyde emitted per product unit per hour, 

according to Equation 1, where Q is the 

rate of air flow into the test chamber (in 

cubic meters per hour), C is the measured 

concentration of formaldehyde in the test 

chamber (in micrograms per cubic meter), 

Co is the chamber background concentration of formaldehyde before the product 

was added, and N is the number of units of 

product added to the testing chamber.

Equation 1:

Emission Factor = 
Methodology 27

Indoor Air Quality Modeling

Using the results of the testing, we estimated the contribution each product would 

have toward whole-house formaldehyde 

concentrations.

We used Equation 2 to estimate indoor 

formaldehyde levels, where EF is the 

measured emission factor of the product 

(in micrograms per unit per hour), N 

is the number of units, V is the interior 

volume of the home (in cubic meters), and 

A is the ventilation rate (in air changes 

per hour). The resulting concentration in 

micrograms per cubic meter was converted 

to ppb by multiplying by 0.813, per the 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease 

Registry (ATSDR), Toxicological Profile 

for Formaldehyde, July 1999.

Equation 2:

Indoor Concentration = 

We used a set of assumptions describing 

the size and ventilation rate of four generic 

types of North American residences, per 

Alfred T. Hodgson, Berkeley Analytical 

Associates, LLC, Residential Exposure 

Scenarios for Estimation of the Impacts 

of Products on Indoor Air Quality, 20 

September 2007. Table 5 lists these assumptions.

Table 5: Size and Ventilation Rates for Four Generic Types of 

Residences91

Home Volume 	 Ventilation Rate

(cubic meters)	 (full air changes per hour)

Existing Single Family Home	 340	 0.5

New Single Family Home	 536	 0.24

Existing Unit in Apartment Building	 204	 0.5

New Unit in Apartment Building	 260	 0.29

EF * N

V * A
28 Toxic Baby Furniture

Appendix: Detailed Product 

Identification and Testing Results

Product Name Product Sample ID Manufacturer ID 

Child Craft Oak Crib with Storage Drawer-Oak ASIN: B000BV3I1Q Catalog #10182136 

Bridget 4-in-1 Crib (White) Item #8021348771 Wal-Mart #002638982 

Kayla II Changing Table – Natural Item #95971 00525-72N; SKU: 517E7D45 

Cherry Berkley Ready-to-Assemble Changing Table #572982 0603G00WP 

Pure White Country Style Changing Table Catalog #663615 3580330 

Rochester Cognac Crib with Drawer Catalog #551420 04550-92C 

Nursery-In-A-Box Crib (Cherry)* Item #74102289003 Wal-Mart #002653394 

Natural Americana Lifetime Crib Item #666974 DJ203B4NWP; SKU 57DF2C35 

Graco Lauren 4-in-1 Dropside 

Convertible Crib – Natural Catalog #10456405 Model #3150282 

Baby Cocoa Valance Jungle Animals Style Item #31663 

Football Wall Shelf Catalog #695759 Item #100339 

Alphabet Soup Decorative Waste Basket Item #882841 7110109, SKU: F9E9BB53 

South Shore Changing Table - Natural Maple Item #584484 2713-330; SKU: 32836556 

Lady Bug Waste Basket UPC 7 89887 274116 Style #7001WTC 

Sugar Plum Lamp Base & Shade Item #577615 716129; SKU: C3E05D08 

Olympia Single Crib - Dark Pine Item #292424 0102E00; SKU: AEEEBF16 

Lambs & Ivy Froggy Tales Lamp Item #87405 54024; SKU: A4123372 

Alphabet Soup Wall Hanging UPC 6 80601 00759 4 711037 

Olivia Decorative Valance Item #310066 5008V 

Winnie The Pooh Wall Shelf with Pegs UPC 85214 00346 7 1400989 DB Wall Shelf 

My First Doll UPC/EAN/ISBN 7 17851 15078 Style #3415078; PA #5248 (RC) 

*We tested the crib only, not the dresser or the table that also come with this product.
Appendix 29

Manufacturer Retailer

Child Craft Target 3,680 17.6 23.3 29.4 39.8

Delta Wal-Mart 1,670 8.0 10.6 13.3 18.1

Storkcraft Babies R Us 1,090 5.2 6.9 8.7 11.8

Jardine Enterprises Babies R Us 974 4.7 6.2 7.8 10.5

South Shore Furniture Target 662 3.2 4.2 5.3 7.2

Storkcraft Target 573 2.7 3.6 4.6 6.2

Simplicity for Children Wal-Mart 69 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7

Jardine Enterprises Babies R Us 62 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7

Graco Target 36 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4

Lambs & Ivy Babies R Us 16 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Trend Lad Target 11 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

CoCaLo Babies R Us 9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

South Shore Furniture Babies R Us 8 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Kids Line Babies R Us 6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1

CoCaLo Babies R Us 6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Jardine Enterprises Babies R Us <6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

Lambs & Ivy Babies R Us 5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

CoCaLo Babies R Us 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Kids Line Babies R Us 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Crown Crafts Infant Products, Inc. Babies R Us 3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Koala Baby Babies R Us 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Existing 

Single 

Family

Formaldehyde 

Emissions 

(micrograms per 

unit per hour)

New 

Single 

Family

Existing

Apt.

New 

Apt.

Estimated Contribution to Total Home 

Formaldehyde Concentration (ppb)
30 Toxic Baby Furniture

1. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Infant/Child Product Recalls (Not

Including Toys), downloaded from www.cpsc.

gov/cpscpub/prerel/category/child.html on 

10 March 2008.

2. Janine Brady, et al., “Toy Contaminated 

with ‘Date Rape’ Drug Pulled,” CNN, 8 November 2007; available at www.cnn.com.

3. Recalls: See Note 1. Lead impacts: U.S. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

A Review of Evidence of Adverse Health Effects 

Associated with Blood Lead Levels <10 μg/dL 

in Children, Appendix A in: Preventing Lead 

Poisoning in Young Children, August 2005.

4. California Code of Regulations, Title 17, 

93120-93120.12, 18 April 2008.

5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

What is the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory? (factsheet), 28 September 2007; available 

at www.epa.gov/opptintr/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study, 

1998. Major chemicals are defined as those 

produced or imported in amounts exceeding 

one million pounds per year.

7. Commission of the European Communities, White Paper: Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy, COM(2001) 88 final, 27 February 

2001; Carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic chemicals, plus chemicals defined as 

category 1 or 2 in EU Directive 67/548, plus 

persistent organic pollutants.

8. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, California Green Chemistry 

Initiative, downloaded from www.dtsc.ca.gov/

PollutionPrevention/GreenChemistryInitiative/ on 12 March 2008.

9. California Department of Environmental 

Protection, Green Chemistry Position Statement, 15 October 2007.

10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

The Inside Story, downloaded from www.epa.

gov/iaq/pubs/insidest.html, 04 October 2005.

11. Peggy Jenkins, California Air Resources 

Board, Formaldehyde, Presentation given to the 

California Electricity and Air Quality Conference, 3 October 2006.

12. Ibid.

13. Al Hodgson et al., “Volatile Organic 

Compound Concentrations and Emission 

Rates in New Manufactured and Site-Built 

Houses,” Indoor Air 3:178-192, 2000.

14. See Note 11.

15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Sources of Indoor Air Pollution—Formaldehyde, 

downloaded from www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.

html, 27 March 2006.

16. T.J. Kelly, et al., “Emission Rates of 

Formaldehyde from Materials and Consumer 

Notes
Notes 31

Products Found in California Homes,” Environmental Science and Technology 33: 81-88, 

1999.

17. See Note 15.

18. Ibid.

19. See Note 11.

20. Toxics Use Reduction Institute, Toxics 

Use Reduction Act Reports: Report for Massachusetts as a Whole, 2001, downloaded from 

turadata.turi.org on 9 April 2004.

21. For example, see diethylhexyl-phthalate 

or butylbenzyl- phthalate in Note 20.

22. Ruth Rudel et al, Silent Spring Institute and Harvard School of Public Health, 

“Phthalates, Alkylphenols, Pesticides, 

Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers, and Other 

Endocrine-Disrupting Compounds in Indoor 

Air and Dust,” Environmental Science and 

Technology 37: 4543-4553, 15 October 2003.

23. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, Second National Study on Human 

Exposure to Environmental Chemicals, 31 January 2003; Environmental Working Group, 

Body Burden: The Pollution in People, January 

2003.

24. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, Formaldehyde Fact Sheet, March 2003.

25. Mark Mendell, “Indoor Residential 

Chemical Emissions as Risk Factors for Respiratory and Allergic Effects in Children: a 

Review,” Indoor Air 17: 259–277, doi:10.1111/

j.1600-0668.2007.00478.x, August 2007.

26. M.H. Garrett et al., “Increased Risk of 

Allergy in Children due to Formaldehyde 

Exposure in Homes,” Allergy 54, 330–337, 

1999.

27. K.B. Rumchev et al., “Domestic Exposure to Formaldehyde Significantly Increases 

the Risk of Asthma in Young Children,” European Respiratory Journal 20, 403–408, 2002.

28. M. Krzyzanowski, J. J. Quackenboss, 

and M. D. Lebowitz, “Chronic Respiratory 

Effects of Indoor Formaldehyde Exposure,” 

Environmental Research 52: 117–125, 1990.

29. Peter Franklin et al., “Raised Exhaled 

Nitric Oxide in Healthy Children is Associated with Domestic Formaldehyde Levels, 

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical 

Care Medicine 161: 1757–1759, May 2000.

30. Jouni Jaakkola et al., “Asthma, Wheezing, and Allergies in Russian Schoolchildren 

in Relation to New Surface Materials in the 

Home,” American Journal of Public Health 94: 

560–562, April 2004.

31. See Note 25.

32. IARC is part of the World Health Organization. Its mission is to coordinate and 

conduct research on the causes of human 

cancer and to develop scientific strategies for 

cancer control. As part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA’s 

mission is to protect and enhance public 

health and the environment through the scientific evaluation of risks posed by hazardous 

substances. Carcinogen listings: U.S. EPA 

Technology Transfer Network Air Toxics 

Website, Formaldehyde: Hazard Summary—

Created in April 1992: Revised in January 2000, 

9 March 2006; International Agency for 

Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs on the 

Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, 88 

(2-9), June 2004.

33. State of California, Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment, 

Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels: No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum 

Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing 

Reproductive Toxicity, January 2008.

34. International Agency for Research on 

Cancer, “Formaldehyde, 2-Butoxyethanol 

and 1-tert-Butoxypropan-2-ol,” IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to 

Humans, 88, December 2006.

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.

38. Marla Mueller, University of California, 

Berkeley, Ventilation Characteristics of California Homes, ARB Contract No. 03-326, June 

2007.

39. Francis Offerman et al., Indoor Environmental Engineering, San Francisco, CA, 

Window Usage, Ventilation, and Formaldehyde 

Concentrations in New California Homes: Summer Field Sessions, November 2007.

40. Alfred Hodgson, Berkeley Analytical Associates, LLC, Residential Exposure Scenarios 

for Estimation of the Impacts of Products on 

Indoor Air Quality, 20 September 2007.
32 Toxic Baby Furniture

41. Ibid.

42. 16 ppb: See Note 26; 50 ppb: See Note 

27.

43. This estimate makes simplifying assumptions, essentially treating the bedroom as if it 

were a small independent dwelling with a 40 

cubic meter volume and a ventilation rate of 

1 air change per hour, and using Equation 1 

on page 26. 

44. State of California, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and Air 

Resources Board, Final Report on the Identification of Formaldehyde as a Toxic Air Contaminant, January 1992.

45. See Note 33.

46. Ibid.

47. California Code of Regulations, Sections 

12705 and 12805.

48. See Note 11.

49. See Note 33.

50. Tracey Woodruff et al, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Trends in Environmentally Related Childhood Illnesses,” 

Pediatrics 113: 1133-1140, April 2004.

51. See Note 7.

52. See Notes 6 and 7.

53. See Note 15.

54. Nicolas Ashford et al., “A Hard Look 

at Federal Regulation of Formaldehyde: A 

Departure from Reasoned Decisionmaking,” 

Harvard Environmental Law Review 7: 297-

370, 1983.

55. Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, Statement Concerning Research Findings, 

Docket No. 11109, 8 October 1979.

56. Federal Panel on Formaldehyde, “Report of the Federal Panel on Formaldehyde,” 

Environmental Health Perspectives 43: 139-168, 

1982.

57. See Note 54.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 

An Update On Formaldehyde: 1997 Revision, 

CPSC Document #725, 1997.

61. California Air Resources Board, Proposed 

Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Composite 

Wood Products (factsheet), July 2006.

62. Marla Cone, “U.S. Rules Allow the Sale 

of Products Others Ban: Chemical-Laden 

Goods Outlawed in Europe and Japan Are 

Permitted in the American Market,” Los 

Angeles Times, 8 October 2006.

63. Europe’s E1 standard is about half of 

the HUD standard for plywood and particle 

board. Japan’s F standards are even more 

stringent, forcing new emissions-limiting 

technology for some products. California Air 

Resources Board, Airborne Toxic Control Measure on Composite Wood Products, Presented at 

a Public Workshop, Sacramento, CA, 20 June 

2006.

64. See Note 62.

65. California Air Resources Board, Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce 

Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood 

Products [Board Presentation], 26 April 2007.

66. See Note 63.

67. See Note 44.

68. Ibid.

69. Association of Woodworking and Furnishings Suppliers, Proposed Formaldehyde 

Regulations for Compwood Sets Emission Limits 

Industry Believes Are Not Feasible, undated, 

downloaded from www.awfs.org on 18 March 

2008.

70. Alfred Hodgson and Raja Tannous, 

Berkeley Analytical Associates, Meeting the 

Requirements of the California Composite Wood 

ATCM Using Chambers of Different Sizes, 7 

September 2007; California Air Resources 

Board, Final Regulation Order: Airborne Toxic 

Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products, 7 March 

2008.

71. See Note 4.

72. See Note 65.

73. See Note 5.

74. See Note 7.

75. See Note 6.

76. Out of 413 chemicals tested for. Jane 

Houlian et al., Environmental Working 

Group, Body Burden: The Pollution in Newborns, 14 July 2005.

77. Ibid.
Notes 33

78. Ibid.

79. See Note 8.

80. See Note 9.

81. “Columbia Forest Products Launches a 

Revolution in Plywood Adhesives,” Environmental Building News: The Leading Newsletter on Environmentally Responsible Design & 

Construction, 14(6), June 2005.

82. Columbia Forest Products, “Columbia 

Forest Products wins EPA’s Presidential 

Green Chemistry Challenge Award,” (Press 

Release), 26 June 2007.

83. Columbia Forest Products, “Columbia 

Forest Products Reaches 25 Million PureBond (R) Formaldehyde-Free Hardwood 

Plywood Panels,” (Press Release), 13 March 

2008.

84. Ibid.

85. Ibid.

86. See Note 82.

87. Ibid.

88. See Note 65.

89. Mark Mendell, Personal Correspondence, 17 April 2008.

90. For details on ASTM standards, see 

www.astm.org.

91. See Note 40.

92. For more information, see Anne Raver, 

“Cuttings; Need an Air Freshener? Try 

Plants,” New York Times, 13 February 1994; 

B. C. Wolverton, Rebecca C. Mcdonald and 

E. A. Watkins, “Foliage Plants for Removing 

Indoor Air Pollutants from Energy-Efficient 

Homes,” Economic Botany 38 (2): 224-228, 

April 1984.