ABOUT
Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health. Written by EWG staff.
DONATE TO EWG!
Help us protect your health and environment! Please donate $5 to EWG today.
GET EWG'S TIPS & ACTION ALERTS
Sign Up here to receive email updates and tips from EWG and stay informed on the issues that matter most to you.
ENVIROBLOG VIA EMAIL
Join EWG's live chat with Chef Ann Cooper
School lunch: More fruits & veggies, please!
Texas Schools are Drilling for Dollars
Why do blowouts take so long to fix?
SEARCH ENVIROBLOG
FEATURED
Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.
Why, oh why is there plastic in my aluminum water bottle?
Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure
Test Your Knowledge of Cosmetics Safety: 8 Myths Debunked
EWG's Tips for Parents: The Series
EWG's Tips to avoid BPA exposure
EWG on TV
Cutting the Pork from U.S. Farm Bill
Sunscreen safety & DC drinking water
Perchlorate in people, kids' personal care products & plastics, and sunscreen
BPA in baby formula & safe cosmetics
What can I do about fluoride in my water?
What is new carpet treated with? What can I do?
Are stainless steel water bottles safe?
Is mineral-based makeup safer?
PEOPLE TALKING TOXICS
TALK TO US
Did we miss something? Email Enviroblog.
« Best of Enviroblog 2009: Top 10 posts | Main | Cosmetics Safety Series - Part 2: Mind the (data) gap »
Extinguishing Deca: A toxic flame retardant may flicker out
By Lisa Frack
"This is the beginning of the end for brominated flame retardants."
So said Richard Wiles, EWG senior VP for policy, upon learning last week that the major manufacturers of decaBDE have agreed to stop making it.
Who agreed to what, with whom and when?
Late on December 17th, three large chemical companies and officials of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a deal to voluntarily phase out the toxic flame retardant Decabromodiphenyl ether (Deca), which is heavily used in consumer electronics, furniture, textiles and plastic shipping pallets.
The voluntary agreement with bromine industry giants Chemtura, Albemarle and ICL Industrial Products would end production, importation and use of Deca in all consumer products by December 2012. A full ban would take effect one year later.
A voluntary agreement isn't enough
The joint announcement came just two days after legislation to force a phase-out of Deca was introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). The Decabromine Elimination and Control Act of 200 (H.R. 4394) would ban Deca in all products, including those designed for children, by the end of 2013. In a statement issued on December 17th, Rep. Pingree said,
I am encouraged by this [industry-EPA] eleventh hour agreement, and if it is followed it will achieve my primary goal with this legislation--getting Deca out of our environment. The chemical industry hasn't always lived up to voluntary agreements. This bill will make sure they do.
EWG Senior Scientist Sonya Lunder had a similar take on the need for Congressional action, despite the agreement:
Deca is a potent neurotoxin and suspected carcinogen that puts children at risk. It needs to be banned. We applaud the Deca phase-out deal. It's an important step forward, but as a voluntary agreement, it does little to ensure that the substitutes for Deca are safe.Rep. Pingree's bill will give this phase-out the force of law and it will ensure that substitutes for Deca are safe. Until congress takes action to reform the federal toxic chemical law, it will take actions like this against individual chemicals to protect public health.
Why is deca a health concern?
EWG tests in show that Deca accumulates in people and their homes, and that children have the greatest exposures to the chemical. This is especially concerning because single-day exposures to Deca cause permanent changes learning, memory and behavior in newborn mice. In our 2008 report on PBDEs in toddlers and their mothers, we explain the risks associated with Deca exposure:
Like other PBDEs, Deca upsets the developing brain and reproductive system. But recent studies indicate that it also impacts the reproductive system, possibly at even lower exposure levels.In addition to its direct toxicity there are serious concerns that Deca breaks down in the environment to form PBDEs with fewer bromines, which are more persistent and bioaccumulative in people.
In the meantime, we recommend that you follow EWG's Healthy Home Tip 3 on how to avoid fire retardants to reduce your family's exposure to PBDEs.
"This is the beginning of the end for brominated flame retardants" - So said Richard Wiles, EWG senior VP for policy ...
As someone who works in this area and is well aware of the game of chemical whack-a-mole played by the industry, I find this statement overly optimistic. Surely, you are well aware of the work of Heather Stapleton of Duke and Ed Sverko of Environment Canada who have documented multiple brominated replacements to Deca that have been quietly phased into the market without any disclosure. In fact, the scientists needed to do detective work to get at the composition of some of these brominated deca replacements. One of them is decabromodiphenylethane, just one ether functional group removed from "deca". Another is a brominated phthalate ester, hey, phthalates, aren't they bad for you?
I agree that a deca phaseout is necessary and long overdue. But the systemic issue of information asymmetry still remains. The manufacturers know what the replacements are, and we have to rely on their word (as always) that they are safe. There is no disclosure on new products. This post (http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2010/01/05/how-should-the-problem-of-%E2%80%9Csecret-chemicals%E2%80%9D-be-addressed/) by Richard Denison of the EDF gets at the issue and suggests possible solutions.
Interested party, Thanks for your comment mentioning replacement chemicals which are of course an important piece of any phase-out.
You correctly point out that there is an issue with substitutes. The best way we have seen to ensure their safety is the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act or the Pingree bill in the House, which bans all use and importation of deca and requires substitutes to be safe (but DOES NOT make the ban contingent on their availability).
We are well aware of the Stapleton work. You might be interested in our 'Secret Chemicals' report (http://bit.ly/5mfKP1) and the related Wash Post story (http://bit.ly/8pYR9w) where we use flame retardants as the flagship example of how CBI claims and secrecy allow poor substitutes onto the market.
We actually do think that this is the beginning of the end for BFRs. When the US EPA forces this kind of deal, it is because it recognizes that BFRs are unsafe, and it sends an important signal worldwide.
In reviewing Richard Denison's post to which you refer, it lists ways to address the CBI issue, none of which would be likely to address the immediate issue of ensuring the safety of deca alternatives, in our minds.
We appreciate you raising these important issues and adding to the conversation here.
We have reached a pivotal point in fire safety. Recently, the fire protection industry announced a new generation of fire safety products. Citizens for Fire Safety has worked tirelessly to encourage and promote this next generation of fire retardant products that are safe, effective and environmentally friendly. This groundbreaking move is one of many in the industry’s unwavering commitment to environmental sustainability and fire safety.
This commitment has been hailed by the US Environmental Protection Agency, credited by the International Association of Fire Fighters, and will undoubtedly prove to be the paramount model of sustainable fire safety in the future.
The EPA agreement sets forth a rational, effective transition to newer alternatives, while allowing critical services such as police, fire and airlines to continue to use existing fire safety products that are critically important to saving lives. Proactive fire safety companies have already announced the production of environmentally-friendly fire retardants which minimize the use of raw materials, energy, byproducts and waste. This progressive thinking is largely a result of the efforts of Citizens for Fire Safety and their coalition of supporters across the nation.
As we make this transition, we must remain watchful of legislation that would preemptively ban existing products, leaving communities without adequate fire safety protection. This kind of legislation has been recently considered in states like Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Alaska, New York and Connecticut. While these states should be commended for their vigilance in the fight for fire safety and environmental health, we believe that the timeline that has been worked out with the EPA is the most appropriate. Let’s trust the scientists of the federal environmental agencies and not act precipitously to put our families and children at risk of serious injury or death. An effective national solution to this critical issue is the only solution that is truly safe.
In order to stay at the forefront of fire safety, Citizens for Fire Safety needs your support. It is our job to keep you informed as an important new generation of fire safety emerges. If you have any questions regarding the EPA announcement, state legislation, or require more information, please do not hesitate to contact Citizens for Fire Safety at 310-310-2616 or info@cffsi.org.
Sincerely,
Jason Sabo
Citizens for Fire Safety
T.310.310.2616
F.310-496.1335
Jason@jcipr.com
Excellent editorial supporting EPA deca-bde phaseout over statewide bans:
http://topics.treehugger.com/article/0f068AfbGK62o
I would urge all Enviroblog readers to actually *hesitate* to contact the Citizens for Fire Safety, a well known industry front-group that has been anything but helpful and health-minded.
If you cut through the double-speak Jason's sole purpose posting here seems to be to thwart state-level efforts to regulate harmful chemicals.