EPA’s Report on PBDEs

  • The EPA report says the findings of many studies raise particular concerns about the health risks to children. (Photo courtesy of Stephen Cummings)

A new report from the Environmental Protection Agency links health problems to flame retardants. Lester Graham reports the EPA finds children are most at risk.

Transcript

A new report from the Environmental Protection Agency links health problems to flame retardants. Lester Graham reports the EPA finds children are most at risk.

Polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, are flame retardant chemicals used in all kinds of household consumer products. Sofas, computers, babies’ funiture. The report finds kids are getting a higher dose of PBDEs. That’s bad because the chemicals have been linked to many different developmental and reproductive health problems.

Arlene Blum is a chemist at the University of California Berkeley. She says the report notes PBDEs migrate from foams and plastics into household dust.

“Eighty to ninety percent of the human dose is from dust. So, toddlers, you know, they crawl in the dust, put their hands in their mouths. So, that’s why toddlers have such a high level at such a vulnerable time.”

The EPA report says the findings of many studies raise particular concerns about the health risks to children.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Keeping Your Lawn From Bugging You

  • There's a movement to stop using pesticides and sprays on your lawn. (Photo courtesy of Horia Varlan CC-BY)

A lot of us have a love-hate relationship with our lawns. We love them when they’re lush. We hate them when they’re full of dandelions and dead patches. It’s easy to have someone come out and spray pesticides to take care of weeds and bugs. But some people say it’s not necessary and could do more harm than good. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

A lot of us have a love-hate relationship with our lawns. We love them when they’re lush. We hate them when they’re full of dandelions and
dead patches. It’s easy to have someone come out and spray pesticides to take care of weeds and bugs. But some people say it’s not necessary and could
do more harm than good. Rebecca Williams reports:

So, you might be using pesticides on your lawn right now. And of
course, the pesticide industry says that’s okay.

The industry says the chemicals are safe to use on the lawn if you use
them correctly.

Alan James is president of Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment, or RISE. It’s a trade group for pesticide companies.

“If individuals or professional applicators read the labels and follow
labels, the likelihood of misuse of pesticides is virtually zero because the
labels provide all the information a consumer or professional needs to
apply products both efficiently and safely.”

But the problem is, not everybody reads the label.

Alan James says if you’re hiring someone to spray your lawn you should
make sure they’re certified and insured. You should also take your kids’
and pet’s toys off the lawn before they spray.

But a lot of people say there’s no point in using chemicals just to make
your lawn look good.

Jay Feldman is with the group Beyond Pesticides. He says of the 30
most common lawn pesticides, most of them are suspected by the
Environmental Protection Agency to cause cancer, birth defects or other health problems.

“There’s a range of adverse effects that are indicated as a part of the
pesticide registration program at EPA. EPA knows this information.
Why not remove pesticides from the equation, especially in light of the
fact that they’re not really necessary?”

There’s a movement to stop using pesticides in North America. Both
Ontario and Quebec have banned the sale and cosmetic use of
pesticides.

So if you’re not going to use pesticides, what do you do?

That’s a question Kevin Frank gets a lot. He’s an extension agent at
Michigan State University and an expert on lawns.

“I love to mow my lawn on the weekends because nobody can call me on
the phone or email me with questions.”

He’s been showing me green, healthy test plots of grass and some that
look sad and neglected. The scientists here have been working to find
ways to have good-looking lawns without a lot of chemicals.

Back in his office, Kevin Frank says he tells people they shouldn’t be
afraid to experiment.

“Do you have it in you to let it go for one season and see what happens?
And it could be ugly, so you’ve got to be prepared for that!”

He says a healthy, dense lawn is actually really good at fighting off
weeds and pests all on its own. So, how do you get a healthy, dense lawn
without a lot of chemicals? Frank says it might take a couple years to get
there. And it means going against conventional lawn advice.

“We’ve done a great deal of research here at Michigan State that runs
contrary to what I call ‘turf dogma’. You know: water deeply and
infrequently – and we’ve shown if you do it on a more frequent basis you
end up with a healthier plan overall.”

He recommends watering lightly – just 10 minutes – every day instead
of soaking the lawn once a week. Frank says it’s also good to fertilize
twice a year, use a mulch mower, and mow high instead of giving the
grass a buzz cut.

He says that could make your lawn so healthy, it might mean you won’t
need to spray or hire someone to spray your lawn.

He says the biggest adjustment in reducing pesticide use is managing
your expectations, and deciding how many weeds and bugs you can live
with.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Overseeing Over-The-Counter Drugs

  • Consumer advocate Larry McNeely says there are not enough government inspectors keeping an eye on the pharmaceutical industry.(Photo courtesy of Clean Walmart CC-BY)

Some consumer advocates say more oversight is needed on over-the-counter drugs. Their concerns come after the recent recall of infant’s and children’s Tylenol and other medicines. Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

Some consumer advocates say more oversight is needed on over-the-counter drugs. Their concerns come after the recent recall of infant’s and children’s Tylenol and other medicines. Rebecca Williams has more:

McNeil Consumer Healthcare recalled more than 40 different varieties of medicine for babies and kids.

That happened only after inspectors from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found major problems at a plant in Pennsylvania. Inspectors found raw ingredients were contaminated with bacteria. They also found the company did not have adequate lab facilities to test the drugs. And they found the company did nothing after complaints from consumers who found dark specks in liquid Tylenol products.

Larry McNeely is with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. He says there are not enough government inspectors keeping an eye on the pharmaceutical industry.

“We need more of those inspectors and I think we were just lucky and dodged a bullet because we were able to stop this before somebody got hurt.”

The FDA says you should stop using all of the recalled products. But the agency says generic versions of these drugs are safe.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Is Radical Homemaking the New Feminism?

  • Author Shannon Hayes says raising chickens and growing veggies is a new route for women who consider themselves feminists. (Photo courtesy of Nathan & Jenny CC-2.0)

Women who consider themselves feminists might be shocked to hear what some are calling the new wave of feminism: women heading back to the kitchen – and the garden. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Women who consider themselves feminists might be shocked to hear what some are calling the new wave of feminism: women heading back to the kitchen – and the garden. Julie Grant reports:

When Shannon Hayes was finishing her PhD, she made a list of all the female professors she’d ever had. There wasn’t one who had tenure who was also married with children. Hayes wanted a husband and family, and realized that if she wanted a big university job…

“I was not going to have these things. And they were as important to me as having a career. In fact, in truth they were more important to me.”

So, much to the dismay of her PhD committee members, she headed back to the northern foothills of the Appalachian mountains near the family farm where she grew up. She bought a teeny house with her husband. People whispered. What had gone wrong?

Once there, Hayes couldn’t even get a job interview. To make things worse, her husband lost his job two weeks after buying the house. So, they fell back on their domestic skills.

“Well, if something broke, we fixed it. If something ripped, we mended it. I was very good at canning, so any food we didn’t grow on the farm or didn’t grow in our gardens I wold go to the local farmers when it was in peak season and I would can it, freeze it, lacto-ferment it.”

Hayes says her idea of success changed. Spending time with her parents and children, cooking family meals – those are her successes.

And she’s found that more people are realizing the power of homemaking.

Hayes has now written a book called Radical Homemakers – which profiles twenty families that are saying “no” to regular jobs, and are instead raising chickens and growing veggies.

Hayes says homemaking is a new route for women who consider themselves feminists.

“I think that a lot of feminists are realizing that the family home life is extremely important. I do think that this is part of the next wave of feminism.”

One feminist blogger asked with disgust:
Are you telling women to get back in the kitchen?

Traditional feminists don’t like the sound of this one bit.

Brittany Shoot is another feminist blogger. She’s concerned with calling homemaking feminism. Shoot writes about eco-feminist issues for Bitch Media and The Women’s International Perspective. She says just because some women are doing it, does NOT make it feminism. She says Hayes’ message could be considered a step backward for women.

“I can’t imagine saying to my grandmother, ‘I’m going to stay home and just hang out.'”

Shoot says her grandmother struggled to attend university, and didn’t have nearly the choices Brittany has for a career. She would want Brittany to make the most of her opportunities.

“We’ve come so far. Why would you make this decision when you have the ability to have a career that may not only be lucrative, but fulfilling.”

But Shannon Hayes says we’ve been conditioned to want the money and status of a big job and that’s proving to be as empty for many women as it is for many men.

Hayes says being a housewife in the ‘50s and 60s was limiting. Back then, when Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique, women were depressed by their role as homemakers. Women were losing their own identities to serve their husbands and children. But Hayes says women today are losing their identities to the workplace. She also says corporations have largely taken over in the home.
She says when women left the kitchen to join the workforce, that’s when everyone started eating processed, unhealthy foods.

“I think everybody should get back in the kitchen, not just women. But that’s because I don’t think you should be buying processed foods, and I don’t think you should be supporting industrial agriculture, and don’t think that you should be supporting food traveling thousands of miles.”

Hayes says becoming a homemaker isn’t abandoning feminism, it’s redefining it on her own terms. She’s sharing homemaking with her husband… and both are finding more balance between home life and work.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

EPA Restricts Rodent Pesticide

  • New regulations will keep certain pesticides out of residential areas, hospitals, and daycare centers or schools.(Photo courtesy of Ordered Chaos CC-2.0)

The feds are cracking down on a pesticide linked to the deaths of two little girls. Lester Graham reports the poison is used to kill burrowing rodents.

Transcript

The feds are cracking down on a pesticide linked to the deaths of two little girls. Lester Graham reports the poison is used to kill burrowing rodents.

The Environmental Protection Agency is restricting use of the pesticide after two young girls in Utah, a four-year-old and a 15-month-old, died. Phosphine fumigants in the form of poisoned pellets had been used near their home. With this new restriction, the pesticide cannot be used in residential areas.

“It’s not okay at all.”

Marty Monell is the EPA’s Deputy Director of the Office of Pesticide Programs.

“So, there’s no residential use, no use around hospitals or daycare centers or schools.”

The one exception is on athletic fields with certain restrictions.
Those pesticides can still be used to kill bugs in grain bins and silos and for rodents on farms and orchards.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

H1N1 Flu Still Around

  • This fall, the H1N1 vaccine will be combined with the regular flu shot. (Photo courtesy of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention)

You might think the flu season is over, but H1N1 flu is still around. Rebecca Williams reports health officials still want you to get vaccinated against the virus:

Transcript

You might think the flu season is over, but H1N1 flu is still around. Rebecca Williams reports health officials still want you to get vaccinated against the virus:

H1N1 flu peaked in the U-S last October and November.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates through the middle of January, 57 million Americans got sick and 12-thousand people died.

Right now, most of the people getting sick with H1N1 are in the Southeastern U-S.

Tom Skinner is with the CDC.

“We wouldn’t be surprised to see activity continue into the spring and early summer. How much activity we may see moving forward into the fall and winter it’s just hard to tell.”

He says anyone who hasn’t gotten the vaccine should. Especially people with the greatest risk of complications from the flu. Those are pregnant women, kids younger than 5 years old and adults older than 65.

This fall, the H1N1 vaccine will be combined with the regular flu shot.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Personal Care Products and ADHD

  • Engel says the phthalates found in many cosmetic products can be toxic to the nervous system.(Photo courtesy of Steven Depolo CC-2.0)

There’s been a rise in reports of behavioral disorders in kids over the past decade or so. Some researchers say genetics, lack of sleep, and chaotic households all contribute to things like ADHD. Now researchers say another cause could be personal care products. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

There’s been a rise in reports of behavioral disorders in kids over the past decade or so. Some researchers say genetics, lack of sleep, and chaotic households all contribute to things like ADHD. Now researchers say another cause could be personal care products. Julie Grant reports.

Researcher Stephanie Engel at Mount Sinai College of Medicine says we’re all exposed to a group of chemicals called phthalates all the time. Heavier ones are used in plastics. Lower weight phthalates are used in fragrances, shampoos, cosmetics and nail polishes, to make them work better and last longer.

Some studies have looked at the relationships between phthalates and problems in reproduction. But Engel says phthalates are can be toxic to the nervous system. So she and her colleagues wanted to see if exposure to phthalates in the womb affected children’s brain development.

“WE ENROLLED A GROUP OF WOMEN WHO WERE PREGNANT AND RECEIVING PRENATAL CARE AT MT. SINAI. AND WHEN THEY WERE PREGNANT, WE COLLECTED A URINE SAMPLE FROM THEM. AND WE CONTINUED TO FOLLOW THE WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS.”

Engel says researchers tested the urine of the pregnant women in the study.

That’s because when we rub on lotion or use shampoo, phthalates are absorbed into our bodies, processed and eliminated.

She says the women who had higher levels of the pthalates during pregnancy reported more behavioral problems as their children got older:

“THEIR PARENTS, THEIR MOTHERS, REPORTED THEIR BEHAVIOR AS MORE DISRUPTIVE AND MORE PROBLEMATIC. SO THEY TENDED TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE, HAVE MORE ATTENTION PROBLEMS, HAVE MORE CONDUCT PROBLEMS AND ALSO EXHIBIT MORE SYMPTOMS OF DEPRESSION.”

Engel says the problems looked like the types of problems found in children with ADHD: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

She says no behavior effects were found for the phthalates used in vinyl toys and other soft plastics. But the higher the mother’s exposure to phthalates found in personal care products, the more the symptoms were manifested by their children. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal – Environmental Health Perspectives.

“I CANNOT SEE HOW THE CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE REACHED ARE SUPPORTED BY THE WAY THE STUDY IS DONE.”

John Bailey is chief scientist for the Personal Care Products Council. That’s the trade association for the companies that make things like cosmetics, shampoo and nail polish.

He says in any study that correlates a behavior to an outcome – there needs to be a control for outside influences.

“IN THIS CASE THOSE CONTROLS, AND AGAIN THESE ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF STUDY YOU’RE DOING, ARE NOT THERE. THEY’RE NOT CONTROLLING FOR THE GENETICS OF THE CHILDREN, THEIR HOME ENVIRONMENT, THEIR DIETS.”

Without those kinds of controls, Bailey says there’s no way to draw a conclusion from the study.

Other scientists who’ve looked at phthalates say the Mount Sinai study shows a new area of concern about these chemicals. But it needs to be replicated by other research.

Still, this isn’t the first time this type of correlation has been made. In a study published last year, Korean researchers linked childhood exposure to phthalates to ADHD.

Researcher Stephanie Engel says environmental toxicants, like phthalates, clearly play a role in child neurodevelopment.

“THERE’S NOTHING ELSE THAT COULD EXPLAIN THE RESULTS THAT WE’VE OBSERVED. WE SPENT OVER A YEAR PROCESSING THIS DATA AND LOOKING AT IT IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. IT IS WHAT IT IS. THESE ARE THE RELATIONSHIPS.”

Engel says more study needs to be done. In the meantime, she says pregnant women might want to avoid phthalates in personal care products. They’re not listed on the label – but she says anything that has “fragrance” on the ingredients list probably contains phthalates.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 5)

  • Chlorinated tris, a chemical that has been shown to mutate DNA, is one of the chemicals being used as a flame retardant in baby product foam and furniture.(Photo courtesy of Abby Batchelder CC-2.0)

Flame retardant chemicals help keep foam and plastics from catching on fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals are building up in people. And hundreds of studies are suggesting links to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the final part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams reports on the alternatives to these chemicals:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals help keep foam and plastics from catching on fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals are building up in people. And hundreds of studies are suggesting links to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the final part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams reports on the alternatives to these chemicals:

PBDEs – or polybrominated diphenyl ethers – are flame retardant chemicals. Penta-BDE is a type that was the go-to chemical for furniture for more than 30 years. Penta was phased out in 2005 because of health concerns. So companies needed alternatives. Now they often use a chemical called chlorinated tris. But there’s a problem.

“Chlorinated tris was removed from children’s sleepwear in the 70s after it was shown to cause mutations and cancer in animals.”

Arlene Blum is one of the scientists who discovered the chemical could mutate DNA. She also discovered the chemical was being absorbed into children’s bodies when they wore their pjs.

“It’s now being used as the flame retardant in furniture and baby product foam across the U.S.”

Blum is a chemist at the University of California Berkeley. She recently published a peer-reviewed study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. She and her team found chlorinated tris in furniture. And they also found it’s migrating out of products and getting into house dust. And then there are other newer flame retardants.

“The other main substitute is called Firemaster. It’s a mixture of four chemicals, two of which are known to be toxic and two of which we don’t know too much about.”

None of the three big chemical companies wanted to be recorded. One of the companies, Albemarle, didn’t respond at all. Both Chemtura and ICL Industrial Products said in email statements that their flame retardant chemicals are extensively studied and safe.

Furniture companies say they’re in a bind. There’s a California regulation called Technical Bulletin 117. It requires the foam in upholstered furniture and baby products to meet a certain fire standard. And that usually means companies have to add flame retardants to the foam to meet the standard. Companies often don’t want to make separate products just for California, so they just treat everything with flame retardants.

Andy Counts is CEO of the American Home Furnishings Alliance. He says back when they were using penta-BDE… they were told it was safe. And they believed it was. Now, he says furniture makers are switching to new chemicals. They’re being told those are safe. And they believe they are.

“Certainly when we started using penta years ago there was no indication of any harmful effects. So it’s always a danger to use substitutes unless you have all the science in front of you. We feel confident that we have that. But as a furniture manufacturer we would like to avoid any questions about the safety of our products.”

At the same time, a handful of companies have moved away from PBDEs and other suspect flame retardants altogether.

Arlene Blum says it’s a good idea to reduce your exposure to those flame retardants. She says they migrate out of products and get into dust.

“You just want to be really good about keeping dust down in your house. Do a lot of vacuuming with a HEPA filter, wet mopping and then always washing your hands before you eat.”

She says one rule of thumb is to look for the little white label on furniture and baby products with foam in them that says it meets California TB 117… and then avoid buying that stuff if you can.

She says we will all probably be surrounded by PBDEs in our homes for decades.

The hope is this new generation of flame retardants will be safe. But there’s no government standard to guarantee that.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 4)

  • Some firefighters say we could cut back on the use of PBDEs in our homes if we focused more on sources of fire ignition, like cigarette butts. (Photo courtesy of Steven DePolo)

Flame retardant chemicals are added to hundreds of products in our homes and offices to slow the spread of fire. But during a fire, the fumes can cause problems for firefighters. In the fourth part of our five part series, Rebecca Williams reports… some firefighters say flame retardants can make their jobs more dangerous:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals are added to hundreds of products in our homes and offices to slow the spread of fire. But during a fire, the fumes can cause problems for firefighters. In the fourth part of our five part series, Rebecca Williams reports… some firefighters say flame retardants can make their jobs more dangerous:

We started using flame retardant chemicals called PBDEs back in the 1970s. Ever since, some people say firefighting has gotten more complicated.

Kathleen Chamberlain is the Fire Marshall for the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan.

“In certain ways, I’m sure the flame retardant chemicals have made things easier: they’ve delayed fires, they’ve slowed them down.”

That’s the upside. But she says there’s also a downside.

“They’ve added a toxicity level which has made things much more dangerous for everybody.”

(fire station radio: “Battalion 1-3… “ and truck noise)

Downstairs at the fire house… Captain Tim Flack has to be ready to jump into his equipment at a moment’s notice. These days, on the way to the fire, he straps on air tanks and gets ready to put on his mask.

“You had the tough man mentality back in the old days where they didn’t wear the air packs and stuff like that. It’s to your benefit to wear your air packs and breathe the good air and not be the tough guy.”

He says all firefighters wear their air packs these days. It’s required. Turns out it’s also a really good idea.

Many firefighters are concerned about flame retardants called PBDEs. Even though two kinds of PBDEs were phased out by manufacturers several years ago, their products are still in our homes. The International Association of Firefighters says when PBDEs burn they release dense fumes and black smoke. And a highly corrosive gas called hydrogen bromide.

You wouldn’t want to breathe it.

So, firefighters are in a tricky place. Many say flame retardant chemicals are a good idea. But they want to move away from brominated flame retardants such as PBDEs. They say there are alternatives.

It’s complicated by a California regulation. Technical Bulletin 117 requires the foam in upholstered furniture and baby products to meet a certain combustion standard. And that often means companies have to add flame retardants to the foam to meet the standard.

The chemical industry stands by the safety of its flame retardants. The American Chemistry Council did not want to be recorded for this story. But in an email statement, the Council said quote: Flame retardants have been credited with saving many lives including the passengers and crew of the 2005 Air France crash in Toronto.

Many people say there are situations, such as airplane fires, where flame retardant chemicals can buy precious seconds to help people escape.

But many firefighters say in our homes, it would be smarter to deal with the sources of ignition.

Cigarettes and other smoking materials are the leading cause of fire-related deaths in the U.S. But for years, the tobacco industry fought laws requiring self-extinguishing cigarettes.

A 2008 Washington Post investigation revealed the tobacco industry and the flame retardant industry have a lobbyist in common. That lobbyist, Peter Sparber, first helped the tobacco industry fight against self-extinguishing cigarettes. Then he lobbied for tighter regulations that would require the use of flame retardant chemicals in furniture.

So first, he lobbied to protect the cause of many fires. Then he lobbied to use chemicals to retard those fires.

These days, most states now have laws requiring cigarettes to be self extinguishing.

Firefighters’ groups are joining forces to stop the use of PBDEs and other brominated flame retardants altogether. But one of the major chemical companies, ICL Industrial Products, says brominated flame retardants are the most efficient at putting out fires… and they will continue to play a vital role in product designs and public safety.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 3)

  • Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use, and hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could are linked to a variety of health problems. So why hasn’t the federal government banned them? (Photo courtesy of Reiner.Kraft)

Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use. They help slow the spread of fire. But some kinds of these chemicals are building up in people and in pets and wildlife. And hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could be linked to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the third part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at why our federal government has not banned them:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use. They help slow the spread of fire. But some kinds of these chemicals are building up in people and in pets and wildlife. And hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could be linked to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the third part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at why our federal government has not banned them:

In the U.S., chemicals are innocent until proven guilty.

Companies don’t have to prove chemicals are safe before putting them on the market. If government officials want to ban a chemical, they have to prove it’s harmful.

There are flame retardants called PBDEs – or polybrominated diphenyl ethers. There’s a good chance they’re in your couch or office chair or carpet padding. They’re toxic. Pretty much every American has some level of PBDEs in their body. The European Union has banned three kinds of PBDEs. Several U.S. states have banned them. But even people who want the federal government to ban them say we can’t.

“The EPA does not have the power or authority to ban these chemicals.”

Mike Shriberg is with the Ecology Center. It’s an environmental group.

“The last time EPA tried to take significant action against a chemical was on asbestos. A chemical that is widely known to cause cancer. And the agency’s actions were overturned in court essentially saying they lacked the authority to ban even this extremely well known hazardous chemical.”

Our nation’s chemical law is called the Toxic Substances Control Act. It’s supposed to give the Environmental Protection Agency power to regulate chemicals.

The EPA did not want to be recorded for this story. But in an email statement, a spokesperson said the agency can ban chemicals under the Act. But it has to prove they present an unreasonable risk. And the spokesperson said quote,

“Flame retardants are particularly challenging to make this finding because their commercial benefit is they save lives in fire situations.”

Some people say the EPA’s hands are tied. Deborah Rice is a toxicologist with the Maine Center for Disease Control. She says the chemical industry made sure of that.

“This Toxic Substances Control Act was passed by Congress over 30 years ago and it had major input by the chemical industry and it hasn’t been reformed since because of major lobbying by the chemical industry. That’s what kept the U.S. unable to really protect the health of its citizens or the environment.”

Rice has direct experience with input by the chemical industry. In 2007, the EPA asked her to chair a panel to help set safe exposure levels for a PBDE flame retardant. The chemical industry felt Rice had expressed bias against the chemical. The industry asked the Bush Administration’s EPA to remove Rice from the panel. The EPA removed her.

To this date, there are no federal bans on any PBDE flame retardant.

The company that made penta-BDE and octa-BDE started voluntarily phasing them out in 2004. EPA just reached an agreement with the three big chemical companies to phase out deca-BDE in three years.

Critics of these kinds of agreements point out they’re just voluntary. The Ecology Center’s Mike Shriberg says the agreements are not binding.

“EPA is essentially forced to begging for a piece of paper that’s meaningless if not followed by the companies. That’s why we’re in this mess we’re in.”

Shriberg says the only way to fix things is to overhaul our nation’s chemical safety laws.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links