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

USDA Guidelines Questioned

  • Professor Paul Marantz says even a small error in the federal food guidelines can have a big public health impact. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

Some people say the government is partly to blame for America’s obesity problem – because of the federal dietary guidelines. Julie Grant reports on efforts to improve how the government offers nutritional advise to Americans.

Transcript

Some people say the government is partly to blame for America’s obesity problem – because of the federal dietary guidelines. Julie Grant reports on efforts to improve how the government offers nutritional advise to Americans.

You’ve probably seen those colorful food pyramids they put out, the ones that tell you how many servings to have of each kind of food each day. Those recommendations are used by schools, nursing homes, and the federal food stamp program to design menus.

Robert Post works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which puts out the food pyramid.

“IT’S THE CORNERSTONE FOR BUILDING HEALTHY EATING PATTERNS. CHOOSING THE RIGHT AMOUNTS OF FRUITS, VEGETABLES, GRAINS, MILK PRODUCTS, AS WELL AS PROTEIN SOURCES SUCH AS MEAT AND BEANS.”

Post says people need to know how to get all the nutrients they need, without over-indulging in foods they don’t need.
That’s why the guidelines also set specific limits on things like salt and fat.

But some researchers think the guidelines actually have the potential to cause harm.

Paul Marantz is professor of epidemiology and population health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
He doesn’t think the guidelines should give specific recommendations about how much fat and salt people should eat.

“THOSE SEEM TO CARRY PRECISION THAT IMPLIES THAT WE HAVE A GREATER DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE THAN WE ACTUALLY DO, SO PICKING THESE NUMBERS AND REQUIRING THAT PEOPLE HUE TO THESE GUIDELINES IS A PROBLEM.”

Marantz says even a little bit of error in the food guidelines can have a big public health effects.

He and his colleagues wanted to find out the potential impact of past dietary guidelines.

They looked at 1995, when the nutritionists were telling people to avoid fat.

“MOST OF US REMEMBER IN THE OLD FOOD PYRAMID THAT MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO AVOID WAS FAT AND ONE COULD EAT GRAINS AND PASTA AND BREAT AND THE LIKE WITHOUT CONCERN.”

Marantz says Americans did eat more pasta and bread – that added lots of calories, and lots of weight.

His research, which was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found what Marantz calls a ‘strong correlation’ between the dietary guidelines against fat and obesity in Americans:

“CORRELATION IS BY NO MEANS CAUSATION. WE CANNOT INFER FROM THIS THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF DIETARY GUIDELINES THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING THE EPIDEMIC OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY. BUT THE CONNECTION IS STRONG.”

Marantz wants the government to give general advice for healthy eating, but not specific guidelines. He gives the example of sodium. Marantz says no one really knows how much salt is appropriate for each person. But there’s a push to put specific limits on sodium in the new guidelines.

Robert Post of the USDA says anything that gets into the 2010 recommendations will be based on what he calls the Gold Standard of scientific evidence. He says a committee of nutritional experts has been meeting for two years to create the new guidelines…

“WE CAN BE ASSURED THROUGH THIS VERY INTENSIVE REVIEW OF SCIENCE AND THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IT PROVIDES THAT THE CURRENT ADVISE ON CARBOHYDRATES FOR EXAMPLE IS BASED ON THE LATEST RESEARCH.”

Post says any recommendations for fat and sodium will also be based on the preponderance of current science. The committee is expected to make its recommendations this summer, and new dietary guidelines should be published by the end of the year.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Studying Cancer Near Nuke Plants

  • The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.(Photo courtesy of the Rancho Seco Reactor)

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

Transcript

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

The federal agency that’s looking for an up-to-date cancer study is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC.

It’s asked the National Academy of Sciences to do that study, but the Academy hasn’t made up its mind. The academy asked the NRC, the nuclear power industry, and the public to explain why a new study’s even needed.

It broadcast the hearing over the Internet.

“Our first speaker is Sarah Sauer, private citizen.”

Sarah Sauer is 16, but looks much younger.

“I am one of the statistics you’ll be studying. When I was seven years old, I was diagnosed with brain cancer. I hope in this study you will remember who you’re doing this for.”

“Thank you Sarah, let me invite your parents to say something if they’d like to.”

“I am Cynthia Sauer, Sarah’s mom. For my family and i this study is long overdue. nine years ago today, Sarah was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. The pain has been so shattering that we still cannot give it words.”

Cynthia Sauer tells the National Academy how her family once lived near the Dresden nuclear power station, about 50 miles Southwest of Chicago.

She’d learned that power plant leaked radioactive water years ago.

Cynthia Sauer can’t say for sure the plant caused Sarah’s cancer, but she wonders … because other kids were diagnosed with cancer, too.

“I began searching for answers to my questions regarding the leaks and the numbers of children diagnosed with cancer in our small town.”

Cynthia Sauer turned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.

“The scientists in the ad hoc committee statement clearly stated the study was flawed and that further monitoring and investigation was needed.”

What are the flaws? For one, the old study concluded people living near nuclear power plants do not face extra risk of dying from cancer … but it didn’t answer whether they’re at risk of getting cancer.

It ignored cancer survivors or people who moved before dying of the disease.

Sauer tells the academy that … this is why we need a new cancer study – we just can’t be confident in the old one.

And that’s a problem because at least three million people live within ten miles of a nuclear power plant.

Some US Congressmen want the safety issue settled, and in fact, so does the nuclear power industry.

Ralph Anderson is with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

He says other studies suggest power plants are safe … so the industry has nothing to worry about from a new study – unless the Academy misinterprets results:

“There have been studies where people simply collect the data and let the computer go to work to bend the data in a wide variety of ways. We have been the victim of a number studies that have done precisely that. So, you end up with weird age groups and things like that because the data’s carefully selected to prove the point. That’s what we’d like to see avoided.”

So the public, the government and industry want some kind of follow-up study on cancer rates near nuclear power plants.

But that might not be enough for The National Academy of Sciences to move forward.
Many scientists say we can’t begin good studies, because it’s hard to collect the necessary data.
In fact, one group that says that … is the same group that conducted the original cancer study twenty years ago.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Weather Modification Making It Rain

  • The cloud seeding generator sprays heated silver iodide into the air-which then acts like a magnet, attaching to ice particles until snow forms.(Photo courtesy of Christina Aanestad)

We need a lot of water. We use it to grow food, wash our cars and even make electricity at hydro-dams. But in some areas there might not be enough water. The federal government estimates places in 36 states might experience drought conditions by 2013.

So, scientists and power companies are looking at manipulating the weather to create more water. And, as Christina Aanestad reports the practice, called weather modification, is more common than you might think:

Transcript

We need a lot of water. We use it to grow food, wash our cars and even make electricity at hydro-dams. But in some areas there might not be enough water. The federal government estimates places in 36 states might experience drought conditions by 2013.

So, scientists and power companies are looking at manipulating the weather to create more water. And, as Christina Aanestad reports the practice, called weather modification, is more common than you might think.

“A mile and a half to go–we should see the cloud seeder.”

I’m traveling through the rugged terrain of Burney Falls, in northern California with Paul Moreno. He’s a spokesperson for Pacific Gas and Electric, one of the nation’s largest power companies and it wants to modify the weather in this remote area- it’s a process called cloud seeding.

“There it is……”

Energy companies, water districts and the federal government have conducted weather modification since the 1950’s. Today, it occurs in about a dozen states in the US-mostly the West and Midwest.

Moreno points to a large metal box.

“were’ looking at a cloud seeding generator that is off the ground about 12 feet on a steel platform and inside the cabinet is a tank that contains the silver iodide solution. The silver iodide solution is sprayed kind of atomized, like a perfume atomizer.”

This is how it works: the generator sprays heated silver iodide into the air-which then acts like a magnet, attaching to ice particles until snow forms. The purpose? More snow means more water and, more water means more power for Pacific Gas and Electric’s hydropower project.

At least… that’s the theory.

“It’s never been proven to actually work.”

Matt Ryan is a 25-year weather consultant.

“The idea that you can drug the sky into dropping more rain onto you is part of the problem in and of itself. Silver iodide which is the drug of choice throughout the cloud-seeding industry is a class-C toxic non-soluble inorganic chemical. When they say that it is Class C-You can’t flush this down the drain…it’s toxic.”

But not everyone thinks it’s a serious threat. Brant Foote heads the Research Applications Lab at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado. He’s studied cloud seeding for decades.

“In general what we’ve shown is that health hazards of cloud seeding is negligible.”

But, Foote seems less certain about whether cloud seeding actually works.

“It’s been a tough nut to crack. There have been a lot of attempts to evaluate cloud seeding and more often than not with inclusive results, rather than with either negative or positive.”

Whether it works or not is beside the point to some. They just don’t like the idea. Mark Franco is headman for the Winnemum Wintu Tribe in Northern California. He doesn’t think people should be playing around with nature. He says instead of trying to artificially make precipitation, maybe we should be putting more effort into conserving water.

“One of the things people forget: when you’re running out of water, don’t use as much. Use water efficiently, people need take responsibility for the usage and waste of water.”

But, despite concerns about whether cloud seeding is a good idea… or whether it even works… some states support the science with millions of taxpayer dollars. And, utilities like Pacific Gas and Electric spend millions of ratepayer dollars on cloud seeding projects in the US.

For The Environment Report, I’m Christina Aanestad.

Related Links

Getting Chemicals Out of Drinking Water

  • Chemicals used as industrial solvents can seep into drinking water from contaminated groundwater or surface water. (Photo courtesy of Mr. McGladdery CC-2.0)

Some chemicals are getting into drinking water, and it’s not so easy to get them out. The Environmental Protection Agency says it’s working on the problem. Lester Graham reports on the agency’s plans:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency is outlining a plan to reduce the amount of chemicals getting into drinking water. Lester Graham reports.

The EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson told members of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies about the new plan. She said it would work to improve technology to clean up water, get tougher with polluters, coordinate efforts with the states, and deal with contaminating chemicals in groups rather than individual chemicals.

James McDaniels is President of the water agencies group. He says that last idea might speed up the process of getting some contaminants out of water.

“Focusing too much on one contaminant and not looking at it holistically and not really seeing what the other ones are. We all have limited reso urces and as utility managers, looking at these things more holistically makes a lot of sense to us.”

Pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other chemicals make cleaning up drinking water a real challenge for the water agencies.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

EPA Questions Pet Pesticides

  • The EPA plans to develop more stringent testing and evaluation requirements for both existing and new products.(Photo courtesy of Isiegert CC-2.0)

Tens of thousands of pets are getting sick when their owners use flea and tick pesticides the wrong way. The Environmental Protection Agency wants the companies to change the directions on the labels. Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

Tens of thousands of pets are getting sick when their owners use flea and tick pesticides the wrong way. The Environmental Protection Agency wants the companies to change the directions on the labels. Rebecca Williams has more:

EPA officials are concerned about spot-on pesticides for fleas and ticks – the drops you put on your pet’s back.

EPA has been investigating these products because of a recent huge jump in reports of negative effects on pets. Most are mild… such as skin irritation. But there have also been reports of vomiting, seizures and in some cases, death.

Steve Owens is with the EPA. He says these products are poisons. And he says the labels are not always clear.

“The consumers in many cases were left to guess for themselves the appropriate amount to be used on their particular pet.”

The EPA is working with companies to put more detailed directions on the labels.

In the meantime, Owens says you should be really careful about reading the directions. He says it’s especially important not to use dog products on cats.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Deodorant Maker Fouls the Air

  • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) come out of our vehicle tailpipes, out of smokestacks, and they’re in a lot of every day products. (Photo courtesy of NinaHale CC-2.0)

The makers of a popular deodorant body spray have been fined more than a million dollars for polluting the air in California. Julie Grant reports it’s part of an increased effort to reduce air pollution.

Transcript

The makers of a popular deodorant body spray have been fined more than a million dollars for polluting the air in California. Julie Grant reports it’s part of an increased effort to reduce air pollution.

The makers of Axe body spray – popular among teenage boys – have been fined for causing environmental problems in California. Dimitri Stanich is spokesman for the California Air Resouces Board. He says California has specific low limits on how much air pollution can come from consumer products.

And if they get a tip that a product is over the limit – they head to the pharmacy.

“THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD HAS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT WILL BUY PRODUCTS OFF THE SHELF AND THEN TAKE IT BACK TO THE LAB IN SACRAMENTO. TECHNICIANS THEN WILL PIERCE THE CANISTER AND DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF VOCS IN THERE.”

VOCs – that’s short for volatile organic compounds. VOCs come out of our vehicle tailpipes, out of smokestacks. And they’re in a lot of every day products: some aerosol sprays, most paints, even some cosmetics. Stanich says there are lots of reasons a manufacturer might use a volatile organic compound. In a product like Axe, he says the VOCs make it spray better.

“MOST OF OFTEN IT IS PART OF THE PROPELLENT USED TO FORCE THE PRODUCT OUT OF THE CANISTER AND INTO THE PRACTICAL PURPOSE THAT THE CONSUMER IS USING IT.”

And once those VOCs hit the air – from deodorants, tailpipes and smokestacks – they mix with the heat of the sun – and create ground level ozone. Pollution.

The multinational corporation, Unilever, owns the Axe brand. Stanich says that between 2006 and 2008, Unilever’s parent company, Conopco, sold more than 2.8 million units of Axe spray that failed to meet California’s clean air standards.

The state has fined Conopco 1.3 million dollars.

It’s all kind of a bummer. At least for some teenage girls.

Katie Schombeck and Julia Rombach say the boys locker room reeks of Axe. And they love it.

“YOU SMELL IT AND YOU’RE LIKE DRAWN TO IT, IT SMELLS SO GOOD.”

“I DO THAT ALL THE TIME. I REMEMBER HANGING OUT WITH GUYS, AND LIKE IF THEY SMELL GOOD I’LL BE LIKE ‘HEY COME HERE FOR A MINUTE’ AND SMELL THEIR SHOULDER AND BE LIKE ‘YOU SMELL GOOD.’”

“I’LL GIVE THEM A BIG HUG, JUST BECAUSE THEY SMELL GOOD.”

But these 16 years olds didn’t realize body spray could be bad for air quality.

“BUT IT NEVER REALLY DAWNED ON ME THAT AXE…I DON’T KNOW, YOU DON’T REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT.”

Compared to all those cars and trucks and smokestacks – it doesn’t seem like a little deodorant spray could cause that much of a problem. But Dimitri Stanich with the California Air Resources Board says all those little bits add up.

“WE SPRAY A LITTLE PERFUME HERE, WE SPRAY A LITTLE DEODORANT THERE, SOME WD-40 ON THE VEHICLES WE’RE WORKING ON. THE LIST GOES ON. EVERYTHING THAT’S A CONSUMER PRODUCT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CONTRIBUTE TO OZONE.”

Stanich says on peak ozone days, people have a harder time breathing, especially those with asthma.

California has a particularly bad ozone problem in its cities – and also has tougher clean air rules than most of the country.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to tighten federal air quality standards – to reduce ozone pollution everywhere else.

Julian Marshall is professor of environmental engineering at the University of Minnesota.
He says most health officials support tougher air standards.

But there are lots of ways to reduce exposure in your own home:

“BUYING LIMITED QUANTITIES OF PRODUCTS THAT EMIT VOCS, OR BUYING LOW VOC PRODUCTS. WHEN YOU GO TO BUY PAINTS FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE LOW VOC PAINTS.”

To reduce exposure, Marshall says get rid of old chemicals and those you don’t need.

In the meantime, California officials say Unilever has corrected the problems with Axe – and reduced the emissions from its spray can. Making a lot of teenage boys – and some of their girl – friends happy.

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