In an editorial in the LA Times, dated Jul 13 by Mr. Russell Long, it was noted that California should exempt certain children’s products from the states strict fire safety standards. Well, last week the California Assembly Appropriations Committee voted to stall Senate Bill 772 --a measure that would have provided for those exemptions. After a hard-fought battle between proponents and fire safety advocates, California legislators got it right. Rather than pass a flawed piece of legislation, they choose to look at this issue closely, delay action and allow the scientists and policy experts the opportunity to make the right decision.
As the California sun grows more obscured by soot and smoke, and flames threaten our homes and businesses, we are once again confronted with the painful reminder that fires don’t just happen to “someone else.” Each year the faces of families whose lives and homes are destroyed by fires flash across our televisions and computer monitors. We watch as mothers and fathers survey the ruin that was once their family home and pray that this tragedy does not come to our own doorstep. Each year brave firefighters risk--and often sacrifice-- their lives to rescue those unable to rescue themselves from a blaze. And each year, Senator Mark Leno introduces a piece of legislation to prohibit the use of flame retardants. It is proven that these flame retardants add crucial minutes to a would-be victim’s escape time. Inadequate fire protection translates directly into more patients in our burn centers, the devastation of families and lives, and the loss of homes and property.
Proponents of these flame retardant bans have made a bevy of claims that cannot be substantiated by sound science. As experts on the science of flammability and flame retardants and emergency medicine, respectively, we would like to address some of the claims made throughout this debate. Concerning the toxicity of flame retardant chemicals, proponents of these ban bills have muddied the waters in terms of science, speculation and sensationalism. The purported numerous studies demonstrating the toxicity of flame retardants do not exist. The studies that exist on this topic are isolated to mice and rats and consist of dosages far exceeding those present in products or seen in environmental studies. No “plethora of other health concerns” exists.
In a recent editorial by Russell Long of Friends of the Earth, Long asserts that these flame retardant chemicals are known carcinogens and he lists a number of chemicals. The problem is that he is mixing oranges, apples and cantaloupes. The chemical he references, Penta-BDE, has not been manufactured for many years, and therefore will not be found in any new products. The only product still in use worldwide is DECA (Deca-bromo-diphenylether). Deca was approved last year for continued use in Europe under a decade long Risk Assessment involving 1100 studies. Deca has been proven highly effective and safe after the most extensive risk assessment of any such chemical.
Rather than continually introducing ill-conceived legislation each year that lacks scientific reinforcement, we must bring all concerned parties to the table—burn doctors, environmentalists, scientists and industry leaders—to determine how best we can protect our environment while maintaining California’s strict fire safety standards.
Gordon Nelson, Dean, PhD, College of Science, Florida Institute of Technology
Andre Feliz, MD, Graduate Group of Comparative Pathology, University of California, Davis