Unbeknownst to many consumers, there is a hidden health hazard lurking in some of the children’s products, furniture, mattresses and electronics that they use every day. A class of toxic flame retardants frequently used in manufacturing these items poses serious health hazards to the public. Due to these hazards, Consumer Federation of America, with a broad spectrum of scientists, health care professionals, affected communities, consumer advocates and sustainable businesses has been pushing for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to protect consumers and issue regulations on these dangerous chemicals as used in four classes of consumer products.
On December 9, 2015, the CPSC held a public hearing on a petition seeking regulations to protect consumers from health hazards caused by a class of toxic flame retardants frequently used in children’s products, furniture, mattresses and the casings surrounding electronics. The petition was filed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Women’s Association, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Green Science Policy Institute, International Association of Fire Fighters, Kids in Danger, Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., M.P.H., League of United Latin American Citizens, Learning Disabilities Association of America, National Hispanic Medical Association, Earthjustice and Worksafe.
The hearing generated an outpouring of interest. CPSC did a great job in accommodating the 28 witnesses who shared their views with the Commission. Notably, those opposed to the petition were all manufacturers of flame retardants or their trade groups while supporters of the petition included a broad spectrum of scientists, health care professionals, affected communities, consumer advocates and sustainable businesses.
The vast majority of the panelists, including Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and Director of the National Toxicology Program, expressed strong support for the petition. Dr. Birnbaum and several other scientists stressed the importance of regulating these chemicals – non-polymeric organohalogen flame retardants in additive form – as a class, rather than individually, given their similar physico-chemical structures and characteristics and the negative health outcomes associated with all chemicals within this class.
While representatives from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) opposed the petition claiming it is overbroad and redundant, the scope of the petition was clarified by Eve Gartner, Senior Counsel with Earthjustice. She explained that contrary to the ACC’s portrayal, the petition is limited to organohalogen flame retardants in certain products when they are used in non-polymeric, additive form. Numerous speakers also advised the CPSC that EPA’s work on flame retardants is still under development and it is not clear what non-polymeric, additive form, organohalogen flame retardants are within the scope of their current review.
Dr. Jennifer Lowery, Chair of the AAP’s Council on Environmental Health Executive Committee and Chief of the Section of Clinical Toxicology, the Medical Director of the Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Innovation, and the Medical Director of the Center for Environmental Health at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, testified in strong support of the petition and explained that children are particularly vulnerable due to their increased opportunities to be exposed to environmental chemicals, and “their unique physiologic, developmental, and behavioral differences.”
Witnesses also spoke about efforts to regulate some of these flame retardants in states as well as the unique disparate impact that these chemicals have on specific communities such as Latin American communities.
A representative from the International Association of Fire Fighters discussed the risk that flame retardants pose to fire fighters. In his words, organohalogen flame retardants killed more fire fighters last year than fires did. This perspective was echoed by fire scientist Vyto Babrauskas who explained that the use of non-polymeric organohalogen flame retardants in additive form in these products adds no meaningful fire safety.
For CFA, I urged the Commission to adopt mandatory standards under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and discussed CPSC’s legal authority to adopt standards under the FHSA, reviewed courts’ interpretation of FHSA and spoke of CPSC’s history of using its authority under FHSA to address chemical hazards in consumer products. I also explained why labeling would not offer sufficient protections.
While this hearing serves as the beginning of a regulatory process within the CPSC, we hope the strong start clarifies the critical role that CPSC should have in protecting consumers from the health risks posed by consumer products containing these chemicals.
Rachel Weintraub is the Legislative Director and Senior Counsel for Consumer Federation of America and testifies on behalf of consumers before Congress and before the Consumer Product Safety Commission concerning numerous product safety issues.