Medium Density Fibre (MDF) panels are commonly used in furniture, but the Nuwud MDF panels were found to be emitting Formaldehyde, a harmful gas.The staff members of Aarti Drugs Ltd first felt the effect of the gas soon after the office furniture in Sion was done with Nuwud MDF panels in April 1993. The furniture and cabins started emitting a foul smell, and staffers complained of irritation in the eyes. ``We had to suffer the irritation for over three years. Some of us almost developed chronic breathing problems,'' Sudhir Nachne, manager, Aarti Drugs Ltd, told Express Newsline.

Nuchem Ltd and M/S B P Techno Products (Pvt) Ltd, the retailers from whom the panels were bought, deputed one person each to inspect the panels afterAarti Drugs issued notices to the two companies to reimburse the entire cost of furniture.

According to the Commission's judgement, the two representatives who visited the office ``felt the truth of the problem.'' They advised Aarti Drugs to paint the furniture in order to stop emission of the gas. This was no solution to the problem, as the panels continued to emit the gas even after the furniture was given a coat of paint.

Aarti Drugs even hired a chartered chemist and consulting technologist, Narendra Wagle, who confirmed in his report that there was emission of an irritant gas. He identified it as Formaldehyde. According to him, the emission took place from the thermosetting resin (urea formaldehyde) used in the Nuwud panels and boards and its continuous decomposition.

The Pesticide Handbook: Profiles for Action states that this gas is not classified under the World Health Organisation's (WHO) recommended classification of pesticides by hazard. It also states that formaldehyde, a possiblecarcinogen, can cause eye-nose-throat irritation, nausea and skin irritation. It can cause chronic loss of pulmonary function and there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.

The redressal commission in its judgement has also pulled up Nuchem Ltd for indulging in ``unfair trade practices'' as it gave ``some eye-catching slogans highlighted in the advertisements and promotional literature without hinting even remotely about the emission of foul smell which was a health hazard.'' The redressal commission ruled that it was the manufacturer's duty ``to study the side-effects of the use of such material and caution the user of that material.''