I think that's the wrong line of reasoning. Even if the science isn't 100% settled, you're in a scenario where it's possible if not probably that formaldehyde is major carcinogen. Maybe futures studies say it's not quite as bad as they think, maybe it's worse. The question is how much certainty does the EPA need before it takes action? Should they let people continue to breath in toxic chemicals because it's possible they're not as toxic as we think? Surely they have to be prepared to act on incomplete information sometimes.
Is the objective to ensure people are safe from potential dangers? Sure.
Is the objective to maximize profits for capitalist society and minimize costs? Then banning every useful but potentially harmful substance that isn't proven to kill people is a drag on society.
I'm not even joking. It sounds horrible but policy makers are always making such trade offs. The "scientific", "evidence based" language is just used to placate the masses from realizing this fact.
What are the economic costs of getting cancer to society? Especially if we start talking about public health funding to treat said cancers (medicare, medicaid).
And what are those costs? Particularly in the mining industry we've seen how mine owners just love skimping on PPE or clearing out methane [1]. It's just cheaper to roll the dice with worker lives.
Isn't this what actuarial science is? Surely the boffins at the EPA can model potential outcomes and weigh potential environmental downside against the economic downside. Including factors like how replaceable is formaldehyde and are the known substitutes even worse.
