Action Day: Let’s De-Tox Baby Products
Posted July 6th, 2009 by Elisa BatistaQuick Note: Please check us out at Daily Kos and “recommend” our diary!
Last week Senate Bill 772, a California bill that would stop a de facto requirement for toxic chemicals in the foam of children’s furniture and baby products, barely made it out of the Assembly environmental committee.
The bill was originally expected to pass unanimously as it would rid products like baby bassinets, nursing pillows and high chairs of toxins researchers have found cause cancer, neurological impairments like hyperactivity and reproductive problems like low sperm count. However, the bill received a well-financed attack from the bromine chemical industry that had persuaded some people from the African American and Latino communities to testify that there was a fire safety hazard from these products and their children’s safety would be increased by their use.
Nothing can be further from the truth. The six to 12-second flame resistance provided by flame retardant chemicals in foam has shown no measurable benefit in terms of actual fire protection. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), fire deaths declined by 38% in California from 1980 to 1999, but decline was similar or even greater in states that do not require the toxins. Considering that most victims of fires die from smoke inhalation and not the actual flames, alternative fire-fighting measures like smoke detectors and sprinkler systems have proven more effective.
But research has shown that flame retardants can cause a host of life-threatening illnesses, including endocrine problems, thyroid problems, cancer, and neurological disorders. And it is low-income residents and communities of color most likely to be exposed to these chemicals and fall victim to these diseases as they purchase products laden with the toxins at the big box stores. Other communities can opt out by purchasing more expensive imported or toxic-free product lines of baby products. Furthermore older or second-hand products are more likely to have crumbly foam that will escape and cause the greatest health hazard.
Finally, as the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association has pointed out, this mandate has not only offered false protection in the event of a fire but it has added an extra burden to their businesses, not only exposing their workers and offspring to these harmful chemicals, but passing on the added costs to consumers. Ridding baby products, furniture and ideally all products of unneeded and toxic flame retardants such as are currently found in baby products is good for our health and good for business.
The business and professions committee will hear testimony regarding this important bill tomorrow (Tuesday) at 10 a.m.. Please join me and other activists at the Capitol building in Sacramento.
Because manufacturers are loathe to create multiple lines to meet the needs of different states, most likely, families in other states are laying their babies to sleep in products with this toxic foam. So this is not an issue limited to California. If you can’t make the hearing, please consider calling the following legislators. Actually, call anyway:
Business and Professions Committee Mary Hayashi – Chair Dem-18 (916) 319-2018 Assemblymember.Hayashi@assembly.ca.gov
Bill Emmerson – Vice Chair Rep-63 (916) 319-2063
Assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
Connie Conway
Rep-34 (916) 319-2034
Assemblymember.Conway@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Eng
Dem-49 (916) 319-2049
Assemblymember.Eng@asm.ca.gov
Edward P. Hernandez
Dem-57 (916) 319-2057
Assemblymember.Hernandez@assembly.ca.gov
Pedro Nava
Dem-35 (916) 319-2035
Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov
Roger Niello
Rep-5 (916) 319-2005
Assemblymember.niello@assembly.ca.gov
John A. Perez
Dem-46 (916) 319-2046
Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov
Ira Ruskin
Dem-21 (916) 319-2021
Assemblymember.Ruskin@assembly.ca.gov
Cameron Smyth
Rep-38 (916) 319-2038
Assemblymember.Smyth@assembly.ca.gov
Many thanks all!
6 Comments
December 13, 2011 at 4:23 am by Echo BlevinsIt’s really a great and helpful piece of info. I am happy that you shared this useful info with us. Please stay us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
[Reply]
October 6, 2011 at 1:07 am by n rio orangeTo think that I am fallen, I was looking for the info for several days and then I fall a little random on this page , thank you
[Reply]
July 7, 2009 at 2:26 pm by NicoleIt’s disturbing to find the words “toxic” and “life-threatening” being thrown around in this article without any substantiation. As a concerned California citizen, I have done my research on SB 772. And I cannot ignore the facts.
Children need protection, plain and simple. And not just from the smoke, as stated in this article, but from the life-threatening flames. Children are one of the most vulnerable populations to fires. According to a National Fire Prevention Association and Villanova University study, nearly two-thirds (63%) of all fatal victims of fires are children 5 years old and younger. Half of all fatal home fires started by children playing involve initial ignition of household items like bedding, mattresses or upholstered furniture, EXACTLY THE ITEMS THAT SB772 IS TRYING TO EXEMPT.
Furthermore, your article states “Research has shown that flame retardants can cause a host of life-threatening illnesses, including endocrine problems, thyroid problems, cancer, and neurological disorders.”
What research? There has never been a scientific study that links current flame retardant products to “public health concerns” In fact, a recent European Union study found that there are “no measurable neurotoxic impacts even at elevated levels.” The Environmental Protection Agency’s studies have affirmed these findings and have shown these products are approved for use.
A ban on these life-saving products serves nobody’s interest but the legislators who support the bill and the manufacturers who lobby them. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this issue, but it seems that the “research” behind SB 772 is severely misguided.
[Reply]
Anonymous Reply:
July 7th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
@Nicole, Do you have statistics as to how many people have been saved by flame retardants? There are still too many fire deaths, yet flame retardants are practically in everything in our home. The reality is a six-to-12 second resistance on baby items are not going to save many lives, if any. Education and smoke detection will.
BTW, did you know that cancer is the leading cause of death of fire fighters? We had a fireman testify on the bill’s behalf today. He said it is common knowledge that these flame retardants emit dioxins and are harmful in a fire.
[Reply]
Elisa, thank you for writing about this really important issue. I know you’re as appalled as I am at the ways the industry front groups are convincing people that these chemicals are good and necessary, when in fact they’re toxic and unnecessary.
As Pete so aptly stated, these flame retardants fail a simple cost-benefit analysis. (BTW- thanks for sharing your very important perspective as a Dad and firefighter Pete!! Keep speaking up- we need you!)
[Reply]
July 6, 2009 at 5:43 pm by Pete BansenAs a Dad and a firefighter for nearly 30 years, I am appalled that this is even an issue. Brominated flame retardants are a toxic, plain and simple. Knowing what we know about these products, there is no way that they should be used in products used by or near babies and small children. The minimal fire resistance they offer doesn’t live up to a simple cost/benefit analysis. The bromine industry should be ashamed for their efforts to lobby government to continue to mandate use of a known toxic in products for children (or anybody, for that matter).
[Reply]
Leave a Comment