Tainted Catch: Brominated fire retardants (PBDEs) found in San Francisco Bay fish: Part 4: Regulatory failure

The evidence against PBDEs was strong enough that bans were proposed in Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands in the mid-1980s and early 1990s. Industrial users of the chemicals agreed to voluntarily phase them out in Germany in 1986, with the manufacturers and users in the other two countries later following suit. In 1993 Germany placed official restrictions on PBDE use because of their tendency to release dioxins when burned under its Dioxin Ordinance. [85] As concern spread to other countries, the European Union launched a scientific review of the safety of PBDEs, originally with respect to electronics waste. In February 2003, the EU announced a ban on two common PBDEs (Penta and Octa) in all products as of August, 2004. [89] The EU is also considering a ban on Deca for use in electronic products by July 2006. Pending the completion of further studies, the EU Chemicals Inspectorate will decide whether to ban on Deca in other non-electronic products as well as of 2006. [90]

Even before the ban takes effect, the early efforts to reduce PBDE use in Europe are paying off. Researchers have found that PBDE levels in Swedish breast milk rose exponentially from 1972 to 1997, but since that year have begun to decline: PBDE levels in Swedish women dropped about 30 percent between 1997 and 2001. [91] These results are encouraging. This shows that if regulations are enacted and PBDE use ceases or declines, the human body burden of PBDEs will also decrease after a lag-time of several years or more.

Despite that fact that PBDE concentrations in Americans and their environment are at least ten times higher than those found in Europe, the U.S. government has so far done nothing to counter this rapidly escalating problem. PBDEs are virtually unregulated for use in commercial products. In 1994, EPA determined that the waste stream from the production of Octa and Deca “should not be listed as hazardous.” [92] The only other regulation governing PBDEs is the requirement that companies manufacture or use large amounts of Deca report their chemical emissions under the Toxics Release Inventory.

California Bill a First Step

State legislation was introduced in California this year to ban the use of several types of PBDEs by 2008. While this bill, AB 302 by Assemblywoman Wilma Chan of Oakland, is a welcome first step, it lacks some key provisions to assure that these chemicals are removed from our homes and our bodies as quickly as possible:

• AB 302 exempts the most widely used PBDE product (Deca), which is common in electronics produced in the United States, but the European Union has been considering banning Deca in electronic products by 2006. This is troublesome, as numerous studies have shown that the types of PBDEs in this commercial product can break down into other congeners that are much more bioaccummulative and bioreactive (and are included in the proposed California legislation).
• As passed by the Assembly, the bill gives PBDE producers and users until 2008 to stop using the chemicals. But if PBDE use continues at its current rate for five years, another 365 million pounds of PBDEs will be put into American couches, easy chairs, cars, planes, buses and other consumer products. [93]
• The bill also doesn’t require manufacturers to label PBDE-containing products. As it is now, it would remain impossible to know whether the couch or computer you buy contains PBDEs. Labeling would have allowed consumers to make more informed decisions, providing extra incentive to manufacturers and users to speed their conversion to new fire retardants, materials, or design.

Not surprisingly, the European and California drives to regulate PBDEs have met fierce opposition from manufacturers and users. In 1997 Great Lakes, Albemarle, Dead Sea Bromine and other companies formed the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum (BSEF). Ostensibly dedicated to providing “extensive scientific information on bromine and bromine products” and facilitating “open communication about bromine products across the globe,” the Forum is in fact a lobbying front dedicated to casting doubt on the mounting evidence against brominated chemicals. [94]

For example, BSEF denies that the burning of bromine-contaminated waste increases the formation of dioxins and furans, though numerous studies show otherwise. The group also tries to downplay the environmental and public health threats of PBDEs, claiming the chemicals are only used “in controlled applications where emissions to the environment are highly unlikely.” [94] Yet volumes of evidence show that PBDEs are not only escaping into the environment, but that they have become a ubiquitous global pollutant.

Chemical manufacturers been vocal opponents against the California legislation. Great Lakes Chemical, which says it spends $2 million a year to lobby against BFR regulation, pushed for a longer phase-out date and the exemption for Deca. [95]

Affordable Replacements

For most uses of PBDEs there are already chemical replacements on the marketplace at equivalent or slightly higher cost. Aluminum trihydroxide and various phosphorous-based compounds are some of the most common alternatives. But rather than replacing one chemical with one that may turn out to be even more toxic, the answer is to redesign products so that chemical flame retardants are not needed to meet fire safety regulations. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recently reported: “CPSC laboratory tests have demonstrated that the properties of actual filling materials have little or no effect on the small open flame ignition resistance of full-scale chairs” — in other words, the use of flame retardants in foam does little to improve upon the fire safety of foam furniture. [96] For other products, simply increasing the density of polyurethane foam can eliminate the need for chemical flame retardants. This can also be achieved using manufacturing materials that are naturally less flammable. [97]

Some U.S. companies have begun to phase out PBDEs, even without a regulatory mandate. Computer and electronics companies such as Apple, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Motorola, Panasonic, Phillips and Sony are already producing some PBDE-free products, and some have committed to completely phasing out PBDEs and other brominated flame retardants. [97] The furniture giant IKEA has phased out BFRs in all its products by changing product design, using naturally less-flammable materials, and employing alternative flame retardants if needed. Hickory Springs of Conover, N.C., a major polyurethane foam producer, is working with Akzo Nobel, a chemical manufacturer, to test a non-halogenated phosphorous-based flame retardant. Hickory Springs says it was motivated by requests from companies such as IKEA, Crate & Barrel and Eddie Bauer to stop using PBDEs. [98]

Unfortunately, data on the toxicity of the alternative fire retardants already in use or under development is scarce. This is largely because of well-documented shortcomings of the nation’s toxics laws. The chief regulatory statute for commercial chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is infamous for the lack of authority it provides the Environmental Protection Agency. [99] The looming PBDE crisis is another disturbing illustration of the failures of a regulatory system that allows persistent, bioaccumulative toxins on the marketplace before they have been adequately tested for safety.

Under the current system, the EPA reviews new chemicals through a process that does not require health and safety test data and that discourages voluntary testing. Companies submit only basic toxicity data for fewer than half of all applications for new chemicals, and the government approves 80 percent of these with no restrictions and no requests for tests. Eight of 10 new chemicals win approval in less than three weeks, at an average rate of seven a day. [99]

No Safety Studies on Many Toxic Chemicals

Worse, when TSCA was enacted in 1976, more than 63,000 chemicals already in use were “grandfathered” — granted blanket approval for continued use in consumer and industrial products. In 1998, the EPA and the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund reviewed all of the toxicity and environmental fate studies publicly available and found no information — not a single test — for 43 percent of the 2,600 chemicals produced in the highest volumes in the U.S. [99, 100]

The chemical industry has since agreed to do more tests to assess potential toxicity to children for a select number of the most widely use chemicals under the Voluntary Children’s Chemical Exposure Program (VCCEP). The three most widely used PBDEs were included in the first group of 23 chemicals to be assessed as part of this program, but the usefulness of the VCCEP program is highly limited. Its purpose is to make “health effects, exposure, and risk information” of these chemicals available and provide “the means to understand the potential health risks to children.” [101] But because the program is voluntary, chemical manufacturers are unlikely to hand over any information that might be damning for their chemical products, nor do they have much incentive to fill any significant scientific data gaps that are identified in the process.

There is no question that fire safety is important and that making products fire-resistant can save lives. Chemical flame retardants have become ubiquitous over the last few decades, but a wide variety of fire safety strategies exist. Using less-flammable materials or changing the product design so that it is inherently more fire resistant are chemical-free solutions. Using less toxic chemicals as flame retardants is another option. We do not have to expose ourselves to toxins to protect ourselves from fire.

EWG recommends:

• The EPA must ban all PBDEs as quickly as possible — no later than 2006.
• In the interim, all products containing PBDEs must be labeled so that consumers have the option of choosing products without them.
• All potential replacement fire retardants must be adequately tested to ensure that they are neither persistent, nor bioaccumulative, nor toxic. Changes in product design that decrease the need for chemical fire retardants should be encouraged over simply switching to a different chemical.
• A nationwide biomonitoring program is needed to identify chemicals that are accumulating in our bodies and in the environment, and determine whether levels are increasing or decreasing.