Protecting babies from fire and chemicals

"This nonprofit front is just one of the extraordinary efforts of the chemical companies to stop bills of this nature"
|
(1)

news@sfbg.com

GREEN CITY Profit-driven companies are fighting an expensive and underhanded battle to keep their toxic fire retardants in California's furniture.

Senate Bill 772, authored by Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), seeks to exempt certain children's furniture from California's fire code, thereby allowing manufacturers the option of forgoing toxic fire retardants and giving consumers the opportunity to raise their babies around chemical-free furniture. But lobbying efforts last week stalled the bill in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, where it will be reconsidered Aug. 26.

California's onerous standards for fire safety are unique. According to Technical Bulletin 117, established by the California Bureau of Home Furnishings, all furniture manufactured in California must be able to withstand an open flame for 12 seconds without igniting.

While there are other methods that meet California's standards, such as barriers and safer chemicals, the cheapest way for manufacturers to meet TB 117 is to pour toxic, halogenated chemicals that act as fire retardants into all upholstered furniture.

This means that fire retardants are put in most things in your house — your couch, your mattress, your baby's pillows and strollers. The companies producing the fire retardants are huge multinational corporations -- Albermarle, Chemtura, ICL Industrial Corp. and Tosoh -- spending millions on lobbying and in drafting nonprofit fronts.

The fire retardants go by a variety of technical names: polybrominated diphenyl ether, halogenated substances, TRIS, BFRs, CFRs ... the list goes on. That chemical family is halogenated chemicals. The only one that is legal in all consumer products is decabrominated diphenyl ether, referred to as DECA. Some of the chemicals that are known to be toxic are only banned from certain products, such as pajamas in the case of TRIS, but are still being poured into everyting from electronics to clothing to upholstery.

SB 772 specifically focuses on four pieces of children's furniture. After reviewing years of data, the Bureau of Home Furnishings found that bassinets, nursing pillows, strollers, and infant pillows have never caused fire causality. Leno contends, "There is no need to pour chemicals into products that are not fire risks."

Numerous studies and agencies, including the National Toxicology Program and the California Environmental Protection Agency, have linked halogenated chemicals to cancer, thyroid disease, reproductive problems, ADHD, child autism, and long list of other ailments. Some, like Seth Jacobson, spokesperson for Citizens for Fire Safety, argue that the studies are exaggerated and "not scientifically valid".

Any manifestation of these diseases may take years to see or are complicated by other factors, making correlations to specific chemicals difficult to pinpoint. Russell Long of Friends of the Earth believes that this is a comparable scenario to the asbestos crisis of the 1980s. Asbestos was a common household chemical long suspected of toxicity and in 1989, after numerous health and legal battles, the EPA banned it. Decades later the federal government is still spending billions in liability lawsuits affecting more than 600,000 people.

Another issue is bioaccumulation — these chemicals don't stay put. According to Leno, these chemicals don't bind to materials. Instead they fall to the floor and become part of dust. In 2006, the California EPA reported that "PBDEs have been measured in house and office dust, indoor air, plant and animal-based foods, terrestrial and marine animals, and in human breast milk, blood, and fat."

In 2008, scientists from UC Berkeley, Harvard, and the Silent Spring Institute found that the levels of PBDEs in Californians are twice as high as other U.S. regions.

Comments

February 11, 2010

I would like to applaud last month’s announcement concerning the development of new fire safety products. This commitment, made to the EPA by several large industry manufacturers, signifies an appropriate and responsible step to protect human health and the environment. Unfortunately, recent legislation introduced in the California State Senate has jeopardized the value of the EPA agreement. SB 772 would immediately ban flame retardants from children’s products. This bill is eligible to be heard in the Assembly in early 2010, and does not offer a strategy for the development of new flame retardant technologies. I feel that fire safety is a national concern, and state efforts like this will only undermine the progress of the federal government and hinder the development of superior technology.

As we make this transition to a new generation of products, we must remain watchful of such legislation that would preemptively ban existing products, leaving communities without adequate fire safety protection in the interim. These unnecessary and harmful bills will leave California communities vulnerable to fires right in the middle of our already dangerous and devastating fire season.

The timeline set by the EPA is the most efficient way to phase out these chemicals in place of their more environmentally friendly successors. The EPA agreement sets forth a rational, effective transition to newer alternatives, while allowing critical services such as police, fire and airlines to continue to use existing fire safety products that are critically important to saving lives. Proactive safety manufacturers have already announced the production of these environmentally-friendly fire retardants which minimize the use of raw materials, energy, byproducts and waste. Hailed by the EPA and several well-respected firefighting organizations, this agreement will undoubtedly prove to be the paramount model of sustainable fire safety in the future.

As a firefighter, I have seen the difference that mere minutes can make in terms of a fire’s severity. With the help of fire retardants, homes and families are saved every day. Flame retardants have stopped thousands of fires from breaking out in residential homes. During this time of progress and development, we cannot place theoretical health risks above the very real risks of injury and death that flame retardant products seek to prevent. Our top priority should be to develop the most effective safety measures while maintaining the highest safety standards.

I encourage all citizens of California and the nation to trust the scientists of the federal environmental agencies and not act precipitously to put our families and children at risk of serious injury or death. You can support the EPA agreement by visiting SafePhaseOut.org, a website dedicated to the phase out and development of flame retardants. I believe that an effective national solution to this critical issue is the only solution that is truly safe.

Sincerely,

Joe Kerr, President
Orange County Professional Firefighters Association

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2010 @ 12:26 pm

Also from this author

  • Microfinance for radicals

    The Agape Foundation has proven that a little money can help grassroots organizations go a long way

  • Word on the street

    Street Sheet celebrates its 20th anniversary of helping the homeless and raising their issues

  • How healthy is Healthy SF?

    The program is a pioneering effort — but will budget cuts damage it?