The revised furniture flammability standard fixes a nearly 40 year old problem that has resulted in each of us having pounds of toxic chemicals in our furniture.  I had my couch tested and found out it has a pound of a cancer-causing chemical, chlorinated Tris, in the cushion foam.  

 We even made a video about it:

 

A POUND of a carcinogen, in my living room, leaching into in my house dust, and from there likely getting into my body and everyone else’s in my family. 

And it is used in a way that doesn’t even protect me or my family from a house fire.  That is by definition a stupid use of a chemical – one that it is unneccesary, ineffective and dangerous.

You may not know it, but your couch is also full of toxic chemicals put there to supposedly protect you from fires.  Almost all couches, whether or not they were purchased in California, contain at least one of five different flame retardant chemicals.   Some of the chemicals are linked to cancer, others are linked to neurodevelopmental and fertility problems. But most chemicals have never been adequately tested for safety due to weaknesses in the federal law, the Toxic Substances Control Act.  

The newly revised flammability standard, called Technical Bulletin 117-2013 (TB117-2013), is a win-win for millions of Californian’s and people across the country. When enacted, it will improve fire safety while eliminating the need for any chemicals to be used.  It addresses the place where fires start – the outer fabric covering instead of the inner foam and it addresses the cause of most fires – smoldering cigarettes.

The new regulation is also a win for businesses. It makes doing business less burdensome and removes the need for duplicative testing.  This is because the newly proposed standard is based on a voluntary federal standard for furniture fabric which 85% of furniture manufacturers already comply with. It won't cost them anything to comply with the new flammability standard and they can stop using toxic chemicals.

In addition the new regulation will exempt 17 children's products from having to comply with flammability standards or carry warning label because they do not pose a fire hazard. This is relief for parents who don't want these toxic chemicals in children's products and to business who won't have to create a special label for their products.

We were pleased last summer when Governor Brown made this a priorty and ordered state regulators to come up with this updated and improved standard. And we hope that his administration will continue to prioritize finalizing this common sense regulation.

The explosive Chicago Tribune investigative series revealed that the flame retardant chemical industry has no shame in deceptively promoting the use toxic chemicals.  We expect they will do everything they can to fight this common-sense change.

That's why we're asking you to add your name to a letter supporting the revised TB117-2013 standard. The proposal is open for comments for 45 days. We need to show state regulators and Governor Brown that Californian's support a modern, scientific standard that puts our children's and families' health first.

Please join us and tell you friends to support California’s revised furniture flammability standard.  Take action now!

Now I know – and the news isn’t good. 

The foam in my couch contains the toxic flame retardant chemical, chlorinated Tris. And it isn’t just a small amount, because my couch is relatively big and has a lot of cushions. I have OVER A POUND, of this cancer-causing chemical in my living room.  Over 35 years ago, chlorinated Tris was banned from kid’s pajamas because it was linked to cancer.  Now it is in my couch, likely in my house dust, and in my body and in everyone in my family.

My couch wasn’t the only one. Out of 102 couches, the study found 85 percent contained toxic or untested flame retardants in the foam and all couches from California, except one purchased in 1989, contained measurable levels of at least one flame retardant chemical.

Chlorinated Tris, the chemical in my couch, was the most frequently found flame retardant chemical in the couches tested. Since the 1970s, chlorinated Tris has been recognized as a mutagen which damages DNA and can cause cancer. Chlorinated Tris is now listed under California’s Prop 65 as a carcinogen.  As of October 2012, any products containing this chemical have to carry a warning label.  In other words, if I was buying my couch today, it would likely carry a warning that looks like this:

 

 

 

Would you buy a couch with this label?  I surely wouldn’t have if I knew then what I know now.

The second most commonly detected flame retardant chemical in this study was pentaBDE, which is recognized as a hormone disrupting chemical that interferes with development of the brain and nervous system and interferes with reproduction.  Exposure to this chemical is associated with human health effects like delayed physical development, lower IQ, poorer attention, longer time to pregnancy, and altered levels of sex hormones. PentaBDE was phased out of use in the U.S. in 2005, but because we hold onto our furniture for many years, many of couches with this chemical are still being used in American households. And PentaBDE is very persistent, so long after the exposure has ended, the chemical can remain in the body.

The third most frequently detected chemical was a proprietary mixture with the trade name of FireMaster 550. This mixture of chemicals appears to be the latest replacement flame retardant chemical in furniture with increasing use in furniture.  FireMaster 550 has not been thoroughly tested but there are a number of concerns about it. One of the ingredients is a brominated form of the phthalate, DEHP, which is a well-recognized hormone disrupting chemical that has been shown to cause genital birth defects and cancer in laboratory animals. A recent study of FM 550 showed that small doses triggered obesity, anxiety and developmental problems in baby rats.

How did a chemical banned in pajamas get in my couch?

Unfortunately, it was only banned from pajamas and no other use.  Under the current law, it is perfectly legal for this chemical to be in my couch.  In the U.S., chemicals are presumed to be safe until found harmful, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has little power to ban even notoriously deadly chemicals like asbestos. The reason toxic chemicals, like chlorinated Tris, have been allowed to remain on the market thirty years after they were recognized as carcinogens is also because of the failing of TSCA.

New legislation, the Safe Chemicals Act, would update and reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 and has been introduced by Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey. The proposed legislation being considered will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals, including flame retardants.  

Why are Californian’s couches the most polluted?

California has a unique flammability standard, TB 117, which applies to all upholstered furniture sold in the state.  Couches sold in California, often contain a label that looks like this:

TB 117 is a performance standard which requires that the foam material withstand an open flame for 12 seconds. Although the standard doesn’t require the use of chemicals, the cheapest way to meet it has been to saturate furniture foam with toxic flame retardant chemicals. Millions of pounds of toxic chemicals are used for just this purpose, every year.  And because couches aren’t just made for California, flame retardants were found in nearly all of the couches tested.

The trouble is -- as well-intentioned as the standard may be -- it has never been proven to be effective and as a recent hard-hitting investigative series by the Chicago Tribune revealed, the flame retardant chemical industry worked with the tobacco industry to use deception, lots of money and lies to perpetuate the myth of the efficacy of these chemicals. Improved building codes requiring smoke detectors and water sprinklers, self-extinguishing cigarettes, and overall decreased rates of smoking have had a much bigger impact on the fewer number of fires and fire deaths observed over the past few decades.   

The study found that over 90 percent of couches purchased outside California during the last 7 years contained flame retardants, whether or not they carried a TB 117 label. Nearly two-thirds of couches that didn’t have the TB 117 label were still found to contain toxic or untested flame retardant chemicals. Demonstrating for the first time that we cannot rely on the presence or absence of a TB117 label to tell us if our couch is safe.

The good news is that California is taking steps to update the antiquated TB117 standard that is driving flame retardant use in furniture across the country. Despite past heavy lobbying by chemical producers to preserve TB117, Governor Jerry Brown has called for revisions to the standard that would improve fire safety without toxic flame retardants. If changes are successfully made, it may be possible to buy safe, non-toxic furniture by next summer.

We know that flame retardants don't stay put in our couches but migrate out and attach to our house dust which we either inhale or ingest. Another study published found over 40 flame retardant chemicals in California household dust, with the most frequently found being -- you guessed it -- chlorinated Tris.

So while we wait for the new furniture regulations to be put in place, we can reduce our exposure to these chemicals by reducing our dust exposure.

• Vacuum often (with an HEPA filter) and wet-mop to reduce build-up of dust in your home.


• Dust with a damp cloth or a microfiber cloth to avoid kicking up dust particles in the air as you work. For example, don’t use a feather duster as this only releases dust particles into the air.


• Wash hands frequently, (with plain soap and water!) as hand-to-mouth contact with dust is a major pathway for exposure.

And as for me, no more eating on the couch!

 

More than three years ago, NRDC filed a petition with FDA asking it to ban the use of BPA as a food additive. We waited and we waited, but never got an answer. FDA could have agreed to ban BPA, rejected our petition, or accepted some parts of it and not others, but instead it chose not to respond at all.

Legally, FDA has no more than 180 days to respond to a written petition. We filed that petition in October 2008, so that deadline came and went long ago without any ruling. After waiting 18 months without a response, we filed a lawsuit asking the court to intervene and require a date certain for the agency to respond.

Now, FDA has agreed to give us an answer – 41 months after the petition was filed.

While we are glad FDA is finally going to make a decision BPA in food packaging and this is a major step forward in the legal process, it is discouraging that FDA has not responded and that we had to ask the court to intervene just to get FDA to do its job. The agency has been dragging its feet on making a decision about BPA for far too long. 

BPA is a synthetic chemical which mimics the female sex hormone, estrogen. Many scientific studies have linked it to reproductive harm, cancer, and abnormal brain development. It has no place in the food supply and its use in food and beverage containers needs to be banned. 

Evidence has been mounting for over a decade but it wasn’t until 2007, when FDA began a re-assessment of BPA safety as a food additive. It drafted a report concluding BPA was safe as a food additive but its draft was strongly criticized by its science advisors and FDA was sent back to the drawing board.  In 2009, FDA returned with another draft, which was again rebuked by external scientists. In 2010, in lieu of its own report, FDA announced it would adopt another inter-governmental agency’s report on BPA toxicity and would be conducting its own research. That report, which had been published two years before FDA accepted it, found “some concern” for the impacts of early life exposure of BPA on development of the brain and for contributing to the onset of prostate cancer later in life.

Beginning in 2010, FDA’s website promised the public a definitive answer on BPA safety by June 2011, but that statement has been removed without explanation.  There have been no further updates from FDA since January 2010. In the meantime, more and more scientific studies and reports continue to be published raising concerns about the safety of this chemical in our food supply.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the only case where FDA has failed to act in a timely manner to respond to the public’s concern.  Just last week, NRDC sued the agency again for failing to provide records requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).  In addition not being responsive to the public, FDA has stalled making decisions, used outdated science, and lacked transparency in its decision making. We have a new website which summarizes a few examples of situations where the public has been let down by FDA.

From the use of antibiotics in healthy livestock, to allowing the use of unproven and unsafe chemicals in hand soaps, to using inadequate science in assessing the safety of Gulf seafood, FDA has not been fulfilling its mission to protect of public health.

We hope that FDA will respond sooner than March to our request to remove BPA from the food supply. It already seems poised to respond to an industry petition to revoke approval of BPA for use in baby bottles and sippy cups. And that petition was only filed two months ago!

But we know that the major source of exposure isn’t baby bottles, but canned food. Every day, millions of American consumers are exposed to this dangerous chemical, found in most canned foods, beverages and even baby formula. The FDA has an obligation use scientific evidence to assure us that food additives such as BPA are safe.

 While we wait for FDA to come to a decision, here are a few things you can do to reduce your BPA exposure:

• Limit your consumption of canned or processed food by eating fresh or frozen produce and buying processed food in "brick" cartons, pouches or glass.


• Limit your consumption of canned soda and beer - where possible choose glass as an alternative.


• If you have a newborn, avoid feeding him/her any prepared liquid formula in a can. Breast is always best, but if you are using formula, powdered formulations are known to be BPA free.


• Use a BPA-free reusable water bottle, such as an unlined stainless steel bottle.


• Don't allow your children to have dental sealants made from BPA (or BADGE) applied to their teeth, and don't have these sealants applied to your teeth while you are pregnant. Ask your dentist to provide BPA-free treatments.


• Tell the store clerk to keep the receipt. Thermal paper receipts are coated with high levels of BPA which can transfer through your skin into your body.

 It has only been because of consumer demand that the use of polycarbonate baby bottles containing BPA has been phased out. By 2009, all of the major baby bottle manufacturers and major retailers had gone "BPA-free."  

BPA is a hormone disrupting chemical which mimics the female sex hormone, estrogen, and exposure during development has been linked to wide range of health problems including reproductive harm, altered brain development and even cancer later in life.

But parents have to be on their guard because polycarbonate bottles containing BPA are still legal to sell. I have often worried about what happened to all those polycarbonate baby bottles that were taken off the store shelves. Are they being sold in at a deep discount elsewhere? Were the bottles stocked away in some warehouse and will they resurface after the “BPA-free” marketing craze ends?  And who is making sure the alternatives are safe?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the federal agency responsible for ensuring the safety of our food supply, including the safety of food containers. They regulate chemicals used in baby bottles, sippy cups, infant formula, food and beverage cans. All of which can have BPA in them.  

My organization, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), filed a petition over three years ago asking the FDA to revoke their approval for the use of BPA in all food contact applications. This included baby bottles and sippy cups. The FDA never responded to that petition and we have had to resort to suing us to get a response.

 Over the past three years, in the absence of any federal regulation, 11 states (the latest being California), have banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. Canada, the European Union and even China, have banned this use of BPA.

We, as a nation, are woefully behind in protecting our most vulnerable.

Last Friday, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade organization for the chemical industry, issued a press release which was widely covered in the news. The ACC is also asking the FDA to revoke approval of BPA for use in baby bottles and sippy cups.   

This is good, right?!  Isn’t this something we all want the FDA to do? Won’t this ensure that BPA is removed from baby bottles once and for all?

Yes...but wait a minute, there is something else going on here.

The ACC represents all the BPA manufacturers. They have a vested interest in keeping BPA on the market and they already lost the baby bottle market over two years ago. The ACC has wasted millions of dollars trying to block any regulation of BPA, including Californian’s recent ban on the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.  They even had a secret meeting where they concluded the best way to improve BPA’s image was to find a pregnant young mother who could be their spokesperson!

Removing BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups is not enough.  We still need to be on our guard and we need to demand more change. Over 90% of the population carries BPA in their bodies and we aren’t getting it from baby bottles.

Canned food, including liquid infant formula, is still the biggest source of BPA exposure  for most people. We know that simple changes in diet can have dramatic effects on a person’s BPA level. And some canned food manufacturers are already moving away from using BPA in their cans. We have more tips on how to avoid BPA exposure here.

Though, this isn't a problem we should solve ourselves. We need the FDA to step up and remove BPA entirely from the food supply. Their job is to protect the public’s health, not corporate interests.

Furthermore, we need assurance that the alternatives to replace BPA are safe.

Years after we were done with them, I found out that the BPA-free bottles I bought for my daughter were made with a chemical called bisphenol S -- a common BPA replacement which has not been adequately tested but is concerning for its own endocrine disrupting potential. 

The reason chemicals end up being used in consumer products without being adequately tested is because of an outdated and ineffective law called the Toxic Substances Control Act. NRDC is a co-founding member of the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families campaign and we are working to revise this law and ensure that chemicals are safe before they can be used.

Please join us in calling for reform – become our facebook fan, check out our website, and educate your family and friends. 

 

I have written blogs before about the health concerns associated with exposure to PBDEs, including reduced fertility and impaired development. This new study adds to the growing list of harmful effects that have been associated with exposure to flame retardants.

When looking at the birth weights of over 250 infants, infants whose mothers were exposed to higher levels of PBDEs had lower birth weights. Though none of the infants were considered to be "low birth weight," a clinical term reserved for infants weighing less than 5.5 pounds (2,500 grams), each 10-fold increase in blood levels of PBDEs was associated with a 4-ounce (115-gram) decrease in birth weight. 

Four ounces might not sound like much, but it is similar to the decrease in birth weight seen with prenatal exposure to tobacco smoke. Low birth weight is a risk factor for health problems later in life, including developmental delays and cardiovascular disease.

The importance of this new study is that it has identified another potential contributor to low birth weight in a population of infants already at risk: those born to low-income populations with poor access to good nutrition and prenatal care. Previous studies have identified low-income populations as having higher exposures to PBDEs, the same flame retardants linked to low birth weight in this study.

The solution to this problem is smarter and more effective regulation of chemicals. PBDEs have been phased out of production, but exposures continue because these chemicals persist in the environment and people, especially those on a limited income, who tend to have older furniture that still contains these chemicals. The problem isn’t solved by buying a new couch or recliner, because the chemicals replacing PBDEs may be just as toxic.

Join us in calling for reform of the federal chemical policy laws that have allowed this problem to happen.  And in the meantime, here are a few tips on how to reduce your exposure to these and other toxic chemicals:

• Vacuum often (with an HEPA filter) and wet-mop to reduce build-up of dust in your home.



• Dust with a damp cloth or a microfiber cloth to avoid kicking up dust particles in the air as you work. For example, don’t use a feather duster, as this only releases dust particles into the air.



• Wash hands frequently (with plain soap and water!), as hand-to-mouth contact with dust is a major pathway for exposure.

And if you live outside of California, buy furniture without the TB 117 label as shown below.

The study done by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, found very high levels of PBDE flame retardants and their breakdown products in a pilot study of 25 pregnant women in their second trimester. This study is important not just because it found the highest levels of PBDEs ever measured in pregnant women, but also because it supports previous studies which have found low income groups are the most highly exposed to these chemicals.

Previous studies have shown that Californians carry the highest levels of flame retardants in the world.  This study confirms that finding and raises further concerns that these exposures are interfering with thyroid hormone function, which is critical for a healthy pregnancy and proper development of the brain. I have blogged previously on the health effectsof PBDEs and other flame retardants which have been associated with disrupting hormones, interfering with development and reproductive harm.

Flame retardants are a group of chemicals added to many consumer products such as electronics, furniture foam, carpeting, curtains, automobiles and even children’s products.

California has a unique flammability standard, TB 117, for upholstered furniture sold in the state. All upholstered foam furniture in California must be in compliance with this standard and though the standard doesn’t require the use of chemicals, the cheapest way to meet it has been to impregnate furniture foam with a lot of flame retardant chemicals. Millions of pounds of flame retardant chemicals are used for just this purpose, every year.

The trouble is - as well-intentioned as the standard may be - it has never been proven to be effective. Improved building codes requiring smoke detectors and water sprinklers, self-extinguishing cigarettes, and overall decreased rates of smoking have probably had a much bigger impact on the number of fires and fire deaths than the flammability standard.   

One of the reasons we are so over-exposed to flame retardants is that they don’t stay put in furniture foam or electronics but migrate out and attach to dust particles which are inhaled or ingested. California homes have up to ten times the amount of PBDEs in house dust when compared to other parts of the U.S. or Canada. Furniture outside of California also carries the TB 117 label, and as a result, the U.S. population is much more highly exposed than anywhere else in the world and nearly everyone carries residues of these chemicals in their bodies.

Another problem with the PBDEs is that they persist in the environment and in people. So though PBDEs have been banned for use in California since 2004, they resist breakdown and will remain in the environment and in us for many decades to come.

On top of that, it is perfectly legal to resell that couch you bought 10 years ago, which likely contains PBDEs. Second hand furniture full of PBDEs is undoubtedly remains in many homes across the country, especially in low income homes, like those of the women who participated in this study.

 

So what’s the solution?

Unfortunately, the answer is not as simple as replacing your old couch with a new one. Yes, that will reduce your exposure to PBDEs, but another unknown chemical will replace it.

If you live in California, your couch still has to meet the state flammability standard and with no labeling requirement, we don’t know which chemicals are being used to meet that standard. But we have good evidence that other toxic chemicals are being used as replacements.

The problem of one toxic flame retardant being banned only to be replaced by another toxic flame retardant has happened because of the weak federal law regulating the use of most chemicals in consumer products.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), first passed in 1976, was intended to prevent this problem from happening. Because the law has never been updated and because there are a lot of weaknesses in the law, it has been ineffective for over 35 years.  NRDC has been leading efforts to revise TSCA and ensure that once a known bad actor chemical is phased out, the replacement chemical is found to be safe BEFORE it is used in consumer products.  

Fortunately, there have been calls from all sides to update this law, and  legislation was introduced by Senator Lautenberg to reform TSCA. We are in strong support of this bill and today, concerned parents all over the country will be participating in a stroller brigade with their young children, asking their Senator to support this legislation.   You can send your Senator a note from here.

In the meantime, to reduce your exposure to PBDEs and other toxic chemicals which accumulate in dust, follow these simple recommendations:

• Vacuum often (with an HEPA filter) and wet-mop to reduce build-up of dust in your home.


• Dust with a damp cloth or a microfiber cloth to avoid kicking up dust particles in the air as you work. For example, don’t use a feather duster as this only releases dust particles into the air.


• Wash hands frequently, (with plain soap and water!) as hand-to-mouth contact with dust is a major pathway for exposure.

And if you live outside of California, buy furniture without the TB 117 label as shown below.

One of Jessica Alba’s movie roles was Sue Storm Richards in the Fantastic Four, part of a quartet with individual super powers.  Among Sue Storm’s powers is that she can create an invisible force field to protect herself and others from bullets, lasers and other weapons.  But even a super hero with an invisible force field wouldn’t be able to prevent herself, or her children from being exposed to hundreds of toxic chemicals, most of them untested and unregulated.  Like flame retardants.  This week a report was released that found flame retardants suspected of causing cancer are widespread in household and children’s products, including infant carriers and nursing pillows.  Sue Storm and her family would probably have been exposed to a lot of flame retardants around the house, particularly since her brother Johnny’s signature superpower was being able to burst into flame, on self-command (“Flame On!”).

And flame retardants are just one class of chemicals that are routinely found in our bodies, some of which have been associated in scientific studies with a host of chronic illness and diseases including cancer, learning and developmental disabilities, birth defects and reproductive harm.  That widespread exposure to chemicals, which includes exposures that have been measured in pregnant women and newborns, and the lack of restrictions on the use of chemicals, even those we know are unsafe, has led numerous science and medical organizations – including the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, and the American Public Health Association -- to call for Congress to act to reform TSCA and protect the public.

I’m a doctor, and a mom, and, like Sue Storm’s superpower, my medical knowledge and experience aren’t enough to protect my daughter from exposure to toxic chemicals.  Jessica Alba has her own set of superpowers as a successful actress, mother and activist, which can be used for good or evil.  And she is a mom, which is another source of power (and inspiration).

Of course, the chemical industry has its own source of power, particularly in Washington DC, and, so far, the industry’s power has successfully blocked reform, and been able to maintain the status quo, despite the public’s strong concern about toxic chemicals and chronic illness.  Most politicians in Washington have managed to tune-out the publics’ concerns, and have avoided the unpleasant reality that to protect the public they must be willing to make decisions that will displease the chemical industry.

So I’m excited, and hopeful, that Jessica Alba’s unique skills and high profile will raise the awareness of the problem, and the need for reform, in Washington, and inspire others to raise their voices and make their own contributions to the effort. That would be Fantastic!

Join Jessica Alba and urge your senators to co-sponsor the Safe Chemicals Act.
This post was first published on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

The majority of baby products tested in this study contain flame retardant chemicals with names that resemble alphabet soup – TCEP, TDCPP, PBDEs, TCPP, TBPH, and TPP. But unlike soup, they aren’t good for you - some of these chemicals have been linked to a lowered IQ, reproductive problems including an increased time to pregnancy and poor sperm quality, hormone disruption, and cancer. If this wasn’t concerning enough, only a small number of flame retardants have undergone adequate testing and the toxicity of some of the flame retardants identified is unknown.

This study is significant for several reasons:

1. It the first study which has attempted to identify what types of flame retardant chemicals are present in a wide range of baby products. A previous smaller study by the same authors, found some of the same chemicals in 2 nursery items. Today's study looked at a much wider range of products that were collected from homes across the U.S.


2. Though today's study did not look at exposures in the children while using the tested products, based on previous studies it is quite probable that kids are being exposed to these chemicals. Flame retardant chemicals do not stay bound to polyurethane foam and are released with use. They can be absorbed across the skin and they can attach to dust particles which can be inhaled or ingested from a sticky toddler’s hands. Other studies have found that the levels of flame retardants in house dust are closely linked to the amounts measured in people.


3. Children carry disproportionately higher levels of flame retardants in their bodies when compared to adults. I recently blogged on a California study which found that children carried on average 7 times higher levels of the flame retardants, PBDEs, when compared to their Mexican counterparts. This difference in exposure is likely explained by the outdated California flammability standard, TB 117, which I will explain more about later.


4. Finally, this study is a good example of how pervasive these chemicals have become in our everyday life and how broken the federal law is which should prevent this from happening. When one chemical is removed because of toxicity concerns, another replaces it which is later found to have its own toxicity, to be replaced by yet another, which has not yet been tested. This is a loud call for reform of TSCA, the federal law which has failed to protect us from unsafe chemicals in consumer products.

Part of the reason that so many polyurethane foam based products, like the baby products in this study, contain flame retardant chemicals is because of an outdated flammability standard in California called TB 117. Because manufacturers don’t make products specifically for California, many foam-based products across the country are made to comply with this standard. Though the standard does not require the use of chemicals, it has been the cheapest and most frequently used way to meet it.

However, you might ask yourself, do baby products really pose a fire threat?

Is my nursing pillow in danger of catching on fire?       

Probably not.

The State of California has recognized that some infant products are not fire hazards and has exempted strollers, nursing pillows and infant carriers from having to comply with their flammability standard, TB 117.  The exemption went into effect after the products in this study were purchased. Manufacturers should have taken note of this and hopefully are no longer dousing their products unnecessarily with chemicals.

What should you do if you have an infant and a home filled with baby gear?

My colleagues at the Green Science Policy Institute have put together a list of recommendations with which I whole heartedly agree: 

1) Purchase safe baby products and furniture

Consider buying baby products and furniture that contain polyester, down, wool or cotton (not polyurethane foam) which are less likely to contain harmful flame retardant chemicals.

If you aren't sure, write or call manufacturers to inquire whether flame retardants were added to the product and if they were, what kind.

 2) Avoid products with the TB 117 label, as it is an indicator the product likely contains flame retardant chemicals.  Next time you see a foam product, look for this label:

 

 

 

3) Reduce exposure to house dust.

Vacuum often (with an HEPA filter) and wet-mop to reduce build-up of dust in your home.

Wash hands frequently, (with plain soap and water!) as hand-to-mouth contact with dust is a major pathway for exposure.

4) Finally, get involved! I invite you to join us in calling on Congress to reform the federal law, TSCA, so that chemicals are proven to be safe before they are introduced into consumer products. Find out more here: http://www.takeouttoxics.org/  and then take action!

 

This post was first published on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

The study done by UC Berkeley researchers measured a group of flame retardants, called PBDEs, in 264  Mexican-American children born and raised in California  and compared their levels to 283 children born and raised in the same areas of Mexico from where their mothers had emigrated.  

What they found was startling and disturbing: the California children’s levels of PBDEs were seven times higher, on average, than levels in the Mexican children. The California children, who were 7 years old, had three times higher levels of PBDEs than their mothers. And most disturbing, the California children had the highest PBDE levels ever measured in a U.S. study of children. The only study which has ever reported higher levels of PBDE exposure was in children living and working in hazardous waste sites in Nicaragua.

Flame retardants are a group of chemicals added to many consumer products such as electronics, furniture foam, carpeting, curtains, automobiles and even children’s products. California has a unique flammability standard, TB 117, for upholstered furniture sold in the state. All upholstered foam furniture in California must be in compliance with this standard and though the standard doesn’t require the use of chemicals, the cheapest way to meet it has been to impregnate furniture foam with a lot of flame retardant chemicals. Millions of pounds of flame retardant chemicals are used for just this purpose, every year.

The trouble is -- as well-intentioned as the standard may be -- it has never been proven to be effective. Improved building codes requiring smoke detectors and water sprinklers, self-extinguishing cigarettes, and overall decreased rates of smoking have probably had a much bigger impact on the number of fires and fire deaths than the flammability standard.   

The other problem with flame retardants in upholstered furniture is that they don’t stay put in the foam but migrate out and attach to dust particles which are inhaled or ingested. California homes have up to ten times higher amounts of PBDEs in house dust when compared to other parts of the U.S. or Canada. For young children, dust is the biggest source of exposure to flame retardants. A lot of furniture outside of California also carries the TB 117 label, and as a result, the U.S. population is much more highly exposed than anywhere else in the world.

PBDEs are a well studied group of chemicals which are hormone-disruptors capable of interfering with thyroid hormone and sex hormones. Exposure to PBDEs has been associated with a wide range of health problems in humans including altered hormone levels, abnormal development of the brain resulting in loss of IQ points, impaired fertility including longer time to pregnancy, decreased sperm counts and altered menstrual cycles.

Though certain PBDEs have been banned in California since 2004 and then were voluntarily withdrawn from the market, prior to this most furniture was treated with a PBDE formulation called penta-BDE. A lot of this furniture is still in use today.

After all, how old is your couch?

The penta-BDE formulation is a mixture of several different types of PBDEs and it was these forms of PBDE which were found at the highest levels in this new study.

If you have a newer piece of furniture, you may be wondering what is being done now to meet the flammability standard since PBDEs are no longer being used. The answer is that we don’t know for sure, but we have good evidence that other toxic chemicals are being used as replacements.

For example, do you remember when a flame retardant was banned in kid’s pajamas in the 1970s? This was because the flame retardant, Tris, was found to cause cancer in animals. Tris was removed from kid’s pajamas but it was not banned from any other use. And guess what – it is being used a flame retardant in furniture foam!

As one toxic chemical is removed and another toxic steps in as a replacement, we need to stop and ask ourselves whether or not this is really needed.

Flame retardants are not proven to be effective in preventing fires or deaths.

Their use in furniture foam is contaminating our homes and contaminating our bodies. Children are most sensitive to these exposures because their bodies are still growing and developing. Californian children are the most highly exposed to these chemicals.

A common sense solution to this is to change the California flammability standard so that fire safety can be preserved without compromising public health.

Senator Leno in California has proposed to do just that by introducing the Consumer Choice Fire Safety Act. This legislation calls for an alternative flammability standard that can be met without the use of chemical fire retardants, and that does not compromise fire safety. It will replace the outdated standard, TB 117, which was implemented before anyone fully knew about the toxicity of these chemicals and their ability to enter our bodies.

If you live in California, we need your help to get this legislation passed.  Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles is a co-sponsor of this bill and has information on their website on how to get involved.

I’ll be posting updates here as well.

 In addition, I'd like to add to this story that the problem of one toxic flame retardant being phased out only to be replaced by another has happened because of the weak federal law regulating the use of most chemicals in consumer products.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), first passed in 1976, was intended to prevent this problem from happening. Because the law has never been updated and because there are a lot of weaknesses in the law, it has been ineffective for over 35 years.  NRDC has been leading efforts to revise TSCA and ensure that chemicals in our everyday products are known to be safe BEFORE they are introduced into commerce.

Fortunately, there have been calls from all sides to update this law, and just yesterday legislation was introduced by Senator Lautenberg to reform TSCA. We are in strong support of this bill and will be updating our website with new information.

 

This post was first published on NRDC's Switchboard blog.