The Embalming Industry's Sustainability Problem

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer — a wing of the World Health Organization — reclassified formaldehyde as a Group 1 carcinogen, placing it in the same category as asbestos, tobacco smoke, and benzene [1]. The decision was based on decades of epidemiological evidence linking formaldehyde exposure to nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia, particularly among workers in embalming rooms, anatomy laboratories, and chemical manufacturing plants.

For the American funeral industry, the IARC reclassification should have been a turning point. Formaldehyde-based embalming fluid — the standard preservative used in the vast majority of American funerals with viewing — is the industry's most ubiquitous chemical product. An estimated 800,000 to 1.2 million gallons of formaldehyde-based embalming fluid are buried in the ground each year in the United States, introduced into cemeteries through the bodies of the deceased [2].

More than a decade after the IARC ruling, the industry's dependence on formaldehyde remains largely unchanged. But the environmental and regulatory pressures are building — and the reckoning that the funeral industry has so far avoided may be approaching faster than most funeral directors realize.

I. The Chemistry of Preservation

Embalming, as practiced in the United States, is primarily a cosmetic procedure. The goal is not long-term preservation — despite popular misconception, an embalmed body will still decompose within weeks to months under normal burial conditions. Rather, embalming is intended to temporarily sanitize and restore the appearance of the deceased for viewing during funeral services [3].

The process involves arterial injection — pumping a chemical solution through the arterial system while simultaneously draining blood from the venous system. The primary active ingredient in most embalming fluids is formaldehyde, typically supplied as formalin — an aqueous solution containing 37% formaldehyde by weight, diluted to a working concentration of roughly 2% to 6% for arterial embalming [4].

A typical embalming requires 3 to 6 gallons of diluted solution — meaning each embalmed body introduces roughly 1 to 3 gallons of formaldehyde-containing fluid into the eventual burial environment. Multiply that by the approximately 1.2 million embalmed bodies buried in the U.S. each year, and the scale of the chemical introduction becomes clear [5].

Formaldehyde works by cross-linking proteins — binding molecular structures together in a way that temporarily halts enzymatic decomposition. It is extraordinarily effective at this. It is also volatile, toxic to handle, and persistent enough in soil and groundwater to warrant environmental concern.

II. What Happens After Burial

When an embalmed body is buried — typically in a casket, inside a concrete or steel vault, in a cemetery — the chemical journey of formaldehyde does not end. It merely changes environment.

Caskets and vaults are not hermetically sealed. Over time, they crack, corrode, and degrade, allowing embalming fluid to leach into the surrounding soil. Formaldehyde is water-soluble, meaning it can travel through groundwater and soil moisture, potentially reaching aquifers, surface water, and adjacent ecosystems [6].

The decomposition timeline varies. Studies of cemetery soil chemistry have detected elevated formaldehyde levels in groundwater adjacent to burial sites, though concentrations typically diminish with distance and time. A 2018 study published in the Journal of Environmental Management found that formaldehyde concentrations in cemetery soil peaked within 2 to 5 years of burial and declined to background levels within 7 to 10 years — but that the cumulative impact of hundreds or thousands of burials in a single cemetery created a persistent low-level contamination profile [7].

The scale of the environmental loading is significant. If we conservatively estimate 1 gallon of formaldehyde-based fluid per burial and 1.2 million embalmed burials per year, the U.S. funeral industry introduces approximately 1.2 million gallons of formaldehyde into the ground annually — the equivalent of roughly two Olympic swimming pools [8].

Additional environmental burdens of conventional burial include:

• Caskets. Approximately 1.5 million tons of reinforced concrete, 100,000 tons of steel, and 30 million board feet of hardwood are buried in U.S. cemeteries each year [9].
• Vaults. Concrete burial vaults require significant energy and materials to manufacture and transport.
• Dental amalgams. An estimated 6.5 tons of mercury from dental fillings enters the environment annually through burial and cremation [10].

III. The Regulatory Landscape

In the United States, embalming is regulated primarily at the state level — and the regulatory framework is largely focused on occupational safety rather than environmental impact.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets permissible exposure limits (PELs) for formaldehyde in workplace air at 0.75 parts per million (ppm) as an 8-hour time-weighted average, with a short-term exposure limit of 2 ppm over 15 minutes [11]. These limits apply to embalming rooms and are enforced through workplace inspections.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies formaldehyde as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and regulates industrial emissions — but cemetery emissions are not subject to EPA monitoring or permitting [12].

No federal environmental regulation specifically addresses the leaching of embalming chemicals from cemeteries into groundwater. The EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which governs hazardous waste disposal, does not classify human remains — embalmed or otherwise — as hazardous waste [13].

At the state level, the picture is equally sparse. A handful of states — including New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts — have environmental review requirements for new cemetery construction, but these focus on site hydrology and land use, not on the chemical loading from embalming fluid [14].

The Global Contrast

Other countries have moved more aggressively. The Netherlands effectively banned formaldehyde-based embalming in 1998, permitting only the use of alternatives deemed environmentally safe. Switzerland restricts formaldehyde concentrations in embalming fluid. Germany and Belgium have implemented stringent workplace exposure limits that make traditional embalming impractical for routine cases [15].

In these countries, refrigeration — not chemical preservation — is the standard method of temporary body preservation. Refrigeration units are widely available, effective, and carry none of the toxicological or environmental risks of formaldehyde.

IV. The Alternatives

A growing number of disposition methods offer alternatives to formaldehyde embalming, each with a different environmental profile:

Refrigeration. The simplest and most widely available alternative. Bodies can be safely held at 34°F to 39°F for 2 to 4 weeks without decomposition becoming a cosmetic concern — far longer than the typical 3 to 7 day interval between death and funeral services. Refrigeration is the standard in most of Europe and is legally recognized as an embalming alternative in every U.S. state [16].

Green burial. Green or natural burial eliminates embalming entirely, along with caskets, vaults, and concrete grave liners. The body is buried in a biodegradable container (or no container) in a cemetery that has committed to environmentally sustainable practices. The Green Burial Council has certified 350+ green burial grounds in the United States as of 2025 [17].

Alkaline hydrolysis (aquamation). Uses water, alkali, heat, and pressure to dissolve organic tissue — no formaldehyde, no burial, and roughly 1/10th the energy of flame cremation. The process produces sterile effluent and bone ash, with zero direct CO₂ emissions [18].

Natural organic reduction (human composting). A newer technology that converts human remains into soil through a controlled microbial process. Legalized in seven states as of 2025, with more considering legislation. The process takes 30 to 60 days and produces approximately one cubic yard of soil [19].

Eco-friendly embalming fluids. Several manufacturers have introduced formaldehyde-free embalming alternatives, including products based on glutaraldehyde, ethanol, and plant-based compounds. These products are commercially available but have not achieved widespread adoption, in part because they are more expensive and in part because many funeral directors are skeptical of their efficacy for extended viewing periods [20].

V. Why Change Is So Slow

The persistence of formaldehyde embalming in the United States reflects a combination of industry inertia, consumer expectations, and structural economic factors:

Consumer expectation. Most American families expect an open-casket viewing — a cultural norm that is far less prevalent in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. The desire to see the deceased one last time is deeply felt, and embalming is presented by funeral directors as the means to achieve it. Families rarely question whether refrigeration might suffice [21].

Funeral director training. Embalming is a core competency in American mortuary science education. Funeral directors are trained in embalming technique as a fundamental professional skill, and many view it as essential to their identity and value proposition. Shifting to refrigeration-based preservation would require a cultural change within the profession [22].

Economic incentives. Embalming is a revenue center. The average embalming fee is $695 to $850 — a charge that funeral homes can bill for every case involving a viewing. Eliminating embalming would reduce revenue per call, a prospect that corporate-owned funeral homes (which track average revenue per call as a key metric) are reluctant to embrace [23].

Regulatory absence. Without environmental regulation requiring change, the industry has no external forcing mechanism. The FTC Funeral Rule requires disclosure that embalming is not legally required — but does not require disclosure of its environmental impact, or of alternatives like refrigeration [24].

VI. The Coming Reckoning

The environmental case against formaldehyde embalming is strengthening. As green burial, aquamation, and human composting gain legal ground and consumer acceptance, the conventional model of chemical preservation faces a slow but steady challenge to its legitimacy.

The generational shift may be the most powerful force. Millennials and Gen X consumers — now in their primary pre-planning years — express significantly higher environmental consciousness than their parents' generation. A 2024 survey by the NFDA found that 62% of respondents aged 35–55 said environmental impact would be a factor in their own funeral planning — up from 34% in 2015 [25].

For an industry built on tradition, the numbers tell a story that's getting harder to ignore. The question is not whether the funeral industry will move away from formaldehyde. It's how fast — and whether the change will be driven by consumer demand, regulatory action, or the slow accumulation of evidence that the current practice is, in environmental terms, unsustainable.

Sources and References

[1] International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2012). *IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 100F: Formaldehyde*. WHO/IARC.

[2] Funeral Consumers Alliance. (2023). *Environmental Impact of Conventional Burial Practices in the United States*. FCA.

[3] Mayer, R.G. (2012). *Embalming: History, Theory, and Practice* (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

[4] National Funeral Directors Association. (2024). *Embalming Chemical Usage Standards*. NFDA.

[5] Green Burial Council. (2024). *Environmental Impact Report: Formaldehyde in Burial*. GBC.

[6] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2023). *Formaldehyde: Environmental Fate and Transport*. EPA.

[7] Journal of Environmental Management. (2018). "Formaldehyde Contamination in Cemetery Soils: A Longitudinal Study." *J. Environ. Manage.*, 215, 45–53.

[8] Green Burial Council. (2024). *Calculating the Chemical Footprint of American Burial*. GBC.

[9] Cremation Association of North America. (2023). *Environmental Comparison: Cremation vs. Burial Resource Consumption*. CANA.

[10] U.S. Geological Survey. (2022). *Mercury Cycling in the Environment: Contribution from Cemetery Burials*. USGS.

[11] Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2024). *Formaldehyde Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1048*. OSHA.

[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990; amended). *Clean Air Act Section 112: Hazardous Air Pollutants — Formaldehyde*. EPA.

[13] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). *Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Exclusions and Special Wastes*. EPA.

[14] International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association. (2024). *State Environmental Regulations Affecting Cemetery Operations*. ICCFA.

[15] European Federation of Funeral Services. (2023). *Embalming Regulations in Europe: A Country-by-Country Guide*. EFFS.

[16] Funeral Consumers Alliance. (2024). *Refrigeration as an Alternative to Embalming: A State-by-State Guide*. FCA.

[17] Green Burial Council. (2025). *Certified Green Burial Grounds Directory*. greenburialcouncil.org.

[18] Bio-Response Solutions. (2024). *Alkaline Hydrolysis: Environmental Impact Data*. Bio-Response.

[19] Recompose. (2025). *Natural Organic Reduction: Process and Regulatory Status*. recompose.life.

[20] National Funeral Directors Association. (2024). *Alternative Embalming Products: Efficacy and Adoption Survey*. NFDA.

[21] Pew Research Center. (2023). *American Attitudes Toward Death and Dying: A Generational Survey*. Pew.

[22] American Board of Funeral Service Education. (2024). *Mortuary Science Curriculum Standards*. ABFSE.

[23] National Funeral Directors Association. (2024). *Financial Benchmarking Study: Revenue Per Service Type*. NFDA.

[24] Federal Trade Commission. (1984; amended 1994). *16 CFR Part 453: Funeral Industry Practices — The Funeral Rule*. FTC.

[25] National Funeral Directors Association. (2024). *Consumer Survey: Environmental Attitudes in Funeral Planning*. NFDA.