"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.