November, 28 2012, 02:04pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Serena Ingre, 415-875-6155, singre@nrdc.org; Hetty Chin, 415-875-6152, hchin@nrdc.org
Study: Toxic Flame Retardants Found in Nearly All Tested Couches in U.S.-Wide Analysis
The most commonly found flame retardant in testing was banned from children’s pajamas in the 1970s
San Francisco, CA
Nearly all of the couches tested in a country-wide analysis contained toxic or untested flame retardant chemicals at concerning levels as high as 11 percent of the weight of the foam in the furniture, according to a new study published today in the journal of Environmental Science & Technology. The findings of the study are central to NRDC's work over the past five years to reform California's upholstered furniture flammability standard, TB 117, and provide additional scientific evidence of the need to implement a new standard that provides more fire safety without the use of toxic flame retardant chemicals.
"Testing revealed that my couch contains over a pound of the toxic flame retardant chemical chlorinated Tris, which was banned from children's pajamas in the 1970s" said Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH, senior scientist with NRDC's Health Program whose couch was sampled in the study. "When I bought this couch new five years ago, I had no idea it contained a cancer causing chemical. There was no warning label and there was no ingredient list, leaving me helpless as a consumer. We should have the right to protect our families from this toxic exposure, and the first step to solving this threat is for California to finally implement a safer furniture flammability standard that will protect millions of people and ensure better fire safety."
The study, "Novel and High Volume Use of Flame Retardants in U.S. Couches Reflective of the 2005 PentaBDE Phase Out," found that 85 percent of couches tested contained toxic or untested flame retardants in their foam and all couches but one purchased in California contained measurable levels of a toxic or untested flame retardant chemical. Forty-one percent of couches tested contained the toxic chemical chlorinated Tris, which was banned from children's pajamas three decades ago after being linked to cancer but was never banned for any other use. Since the 1970s, chlorinated Tris has been recognized as a mutagen which damages DNA. Based on this cancer causing effect, it is now listed under California's Prop 65 as a carcinogen. As of October, 2012, any products containing this chemical have to carry a warning label.
The second most common chemical found in the couch study was pentaBDE, which was phased out of use in 2005 in the United States because of its potential to build up in people and animals and potential toxicity. The chemical has been linked to decreased fertility, hormone disruption, lowered IQ, and hyperactivity in humans. Because people keep their couches on average 10 years or longer, many couches in people's homes may still contain pentaBDE.
"By updating California's flammability standard we can protect people from fires and prevent exposure to flame retardant chemicals linked to neurological and reproductive harm as well as cancer," said Arlene Blum, PhD, co-author of the study and executive director and founder of Green Science Policy Institute. "The good news is that California is on its way and by next summer we should be able to buy furniture without flame retardants that is more fire safe."
The results of the study also showed that there is no easy way for consumers to find whether their couch contains toxic or untested flame retardants. Of all the couches tested with a California flammability standard Technical Bulletin117 label, 98 percent were found to contain flame retardant chemicals. Of the couches with no TB 117 label, more than half (64%) also contained flame retardants.
Recommendations:
We can reduce exposure to toxic flame retardants by acting on the following NRDC recommendations:
- California Governor Jerry Brown must implement TB 117-2012 as soon as possible. In June 2012, Gov. Brown directed the Bureau of Electronic Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation to take action on the state's outdated 40-year-old flammability standard. The new standard, TB117-2012, is expected to change the current open-flame test to a smolder standard for fabric and increase the level of fire safety so furniture makers can meet the flammability standard without use of toxic and untested chemicals.
- The Consumer Product Safety Commission must finalize the draft furniture flammability standard to protect public from toxic chemicals. Similar to the proposed California standard, the CPSC standard will be a fabric smolder standard to increase fire safety without the use of toxic chemicals. The agency should finalize its draft standard right away.
- Congress must also support and pass the Safe Chemicals Act, which would update and reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. Under the current law, chemicals are presumed to be safe until found harmful, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has little power to ban even notoriously deadly chemicals like asbestos. The reason toxic chemicals, like chlorinated Tris, have been allowed to remain on the market thirty years after they were recognized as carcinogens, is because of the failing of TSCA. The proposed legislation being considered will give EPA more power to regulate the use of dangerous chemicals, including flame retardants.
More Information About Flame Retardants:
For decades, an ineffective California flammability standard, TB 117, has resulted in the foam inside our sofas, recliners and love seats being saturated with toxic flame retardants. Not surprisingly, this large volume of chemicals does not stay in the foam but slowly evaporates and attaches to dust particles that are ingested or inhaled by us, our children and pets. This is why toddlers who play on the floor and cats who groom their fur have much higher levels of these chemicals in their bodies as compared to adults. In fact, house dust in California homes and Californian children are the most polluted in the world with toxic flame retardant chemicals.
Not only are flame retardant chemicals harmful to human health, no data shows significant fire safety benefit from them. In fact studies have found that when foam containing flame retardants burns, it creates more carbon dioxide, soot and smoke - the leading cause of residential fire deaths - making such fires even more dangerous.
See Sarah Janssen's blog for more information about flame retardants here.
NRDC works to safeguard the earth--its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. We combine the power of more than three million members and online activists with the expertise of some 700 scientists, lawyers, and policy advocates across the globe to ensure the rights of all people to the air, the water, and the wild.
(212) 727-2700LATEST NEWS
Booze Hound! Lina Khan, Not Done Yet, Targets Nation's Largest Alcohol Seller
"The FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," said one advocate.
Dec 12, 2024
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Thursday sued Southern Glazer's Wine and Spirits, alleging that the nation's largest alcohol distributor, "violated the Robinson-Patman Act, harming small, independent businesses by depriving them of access to discounts and rebates, and impeding their ability to compete against large national and regional chains."
The FTC said its complaint details how the Florida-based company "is engaged in anticompetitive and unlawful price discrimination" by "selling wine and spirits to small, independent 'mom-and-pop' businesses at prices that are drastically higher" than what it charges large chain retailers, "with dramatic price differences that provide insurmountable advantages that far exceed any real cost efficiencies for the same bottles of wine and spirits."
The suit comes as FTC Chair Lina Khan's battle against "corporate greed" is nearing its end, with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announcing Tuesday that he plans to elevate Andrew Ferguson to lead the agency.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, director of corporate power at Demand Progress Education Fund, said Thursday that "instead of heeding bad-faith calls to disarm before the end of the year, the FTC is taking bold, needed action to fight back against monopoly power that's raising prices."
"By suing Southern Glazer under the Robinson-Patman Act, a law that has gone unenforced for decades, the FTC is doing what our government should be doing: using every tool possible to make life better for everyday Americans," she added.
According to the FTC:
Under the Robinson-Patman Act, it is generally illegal for sellers to engage in price discrimination that harms competition by charging higher prices to disfavored retailers that purchase similar goods. The FTC's case filed today seeks to ensure that businesses of all sizes compete on a level playing field with equivalent access to discounts and rebates, which means increased consumer choice and the ability to pass on lower prices to consumers shopping across independent retailers.
"When local businesses get squeezed because of unfair pricing practices that favor large chains, Americans see fewer choices and pay higher prices—and communities suffer," Khan said in a statement. "The law says that businesses of all sizes should be able to compete on a level playing field. Enforcers have ignored this mandate from Congress for decades, but the FTC's action today will help protect fair competition, lower prices, and restore the rule of law."
The FTC noted that, with roughly $26 billion in revenue from wine and spirits sales to retail customers last year, Southern is the 10th-largest privately held company in the United States. The agency said its lawsuit "seeks to obtain an injunction prohibiting further unlawful price discrimination by Southern against these small, independent businesses."
"When Southern's unlawful conduct is remedied, large corporate chains will face increased competition, which will safeguard continued choice which can create markets that lower prices for American consumers," FTC added.
Southern Glazer's published a statement calling the FTC lawsuit "misguided and legally flawed" and claiming it has not violated the Robinson-Patman Act.
"Operating in the highly competitive alcohol distribution business, we offer different levels of discounts based on the cost we incur to sell different quantities to customers and make all discount levels available to all eligible retailers, including chain stores and small businesses alike," the company said.
Peterson-Cassin noted that the new suit "follows a massive court victory for the FTC on Tuesday in which a federal judge blocked a $25 billion grocery mega-merger after the agency sued," a reference to the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal.
"The FTC has plenty of fight left and so should all regulatory agencies," she added, alluding to the return of Trump, whose first administration saw
relentless attacks on federal regulations. "We applaud the FTC and Chair Lina Khan for not letting off the gas in the race to protect American consumers and we strongly encourage all federal regulators to do the same while there's still time left."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Senate Prepares for NDAA Vote, Progressive Caucus Says It Is 'Past Time' to Slash Pentagon Budget
"This legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal.
Dec 12, 2024
As Senate Democrats prepared to move forward with a procedural vote on the annual defense budget package that passed in the House earlier this week, the Congressional Progressive Caucus outlined its objections to the legislation and called for the Pentagon budget to be cut, with military funding freed up to "reinvest in critical human needs."
CPC Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said following the passage of the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025 (H.R. 5009) that "it should alarm every American taxpayer that we are nearing a trillion-dollar annual budget for an agency rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse."
Jayapal, who was one of 140 lawmakers to oppose the package, emphasized that the Pentagon has failed seven consecutive annual audits.
Despite being the only federal agency to never have passed a federal audit, said Jayapal, the Department of Defense "continues to receive huge boosts to funding every year. Our constituents deserve better."
As Common Dreams reported last month, more than half of the department's annual budget now goes to military contractors that consistently overcharge the government, contributing to the Pentagon's inability to fully account for trillions of taxpayer dollars.
The $883.7 billion legislation that was advanced by the House on Wednesday would pour more money into the Pentagon's coffers. The package includes more than $500 million in Israeli military aid and two $357 million nuclear-powered attack submarine despite the Pentagon requesting only one, and would cut more than $621 million from President Joe Biden's budget request for climate action initiatives.
Jayapal noted that the legislation—which was passed with the support of 81 Democrats and 200 Republicans—also includes anti-transgender provisions, barring the children of military service members from receiving gender-affirming healthcare in "the first federal statute targeting LGBTQ people since the 1990s when Congress adopted 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and the Defense of Marriage Act."
"This dangerous bigotry cannot be tolerated, let alone codified into federal law," said Jayapal.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday that the legislation "has some very good things we Democrats wanted in it, it has some bad things we wouldn't have put in there, and some things that were left out," and indicated that he had filed cloture for the first procedural vote on the NDAA.
The vote is expected to take place early next week, and 60 votes are needed to begin debate on the package.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of exorbitant U.S. military spending, said in a floor speech on Wednesday that he plans to vote no on the budget.
"While middle-class and working-class families are struggling to survive, we supposedly just don't have the financial resources to help them," he said. "We just cannot afford to build more housing, we just cannot afford to provide quality childcare to our kids or to support public education, or to provide healthcare to all."
"But when the military industrial complex and all of their well-paid lobbyists come marching in to Capitol Hill," he continued, "somehow or another, there is more than enough money for Congress to provide them with virtually everything that they need."
Jayapal noted that the funding package includes substantive pay raises for service members and new investments in housing, healthcare, childcare, and other support for their families.
"Progressives will always fight to increase pay for our service members and ensure that our veterans are well taken care of," said Jayapal. "However, this legislation on balance moves our country and our national priorities in the wrong direction."
By cutting military spending, she said, the federal government could invest in the needs of all Americans, not just members of the military, "without sacrificing our national security or service member wages."
"It's past time we stop padding the pockets of price gouging military contractors who benefit from corporate consolidation," said Jayapal, "and reallocate that money to domestic needs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Urge Biden to Limit Presidential Authority to Launch Nuclear War Before Trump Takes Charge
"As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled," wrote Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Ted Lieu.
Dec 12, 2024
Two Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden Thursday, urging him to place more checks on potential nuclear weapons use by mandating that a president must obtain authorization from Congress before initiating a nuclear first strike.
The letter writers, Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), argue that "such a policy would provide clear directives for the military to follow: A president could order a nuclear launch only if (1) Congress had approved the decision, providing a constitutional check on executive power or (2) the United States had already been attacked with a nuclear weapon. This would be infinitely safer than our current doctrine."
The two write that time is of the essence: "As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress's constitutional role is respected and fulfilled."
The Constitution vests Congress, not the president, with the power to declare war (though presidents have used military force without getting the OK from Congress on multiple occasions in modern history, according to the National Constitution Center).
During the Cold War, when nuclear weapons policy was produced, speed was seen as essential to deterrence, according to Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation of American Scientists, who wrote an op-ed for The Washington Post last year that makes a similar argument to Markey and Lieu.
"There is no reason today to rely on speedy decision-making during situations in which the United States might launch first. Even as relations with Moscow are at historic lows, we are worlds removed from the Cold War's dominant knife's-edge logic," he wrote.
While nuclear tensions today may not be quite as high as they were during the apex of the Cold War, fears of nuclear confrontation have been heightened due to poor relations between the United States and Russia over the ongoing war in Ukraine, among other issues. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for potential nuclear weapons use not long after the U.S. greenlit Ukraine's use of U.S.-supplied long range weapons in its fight against Russia.
This is not the first time Markey and Lieu have pushed for greater guardrails on nuclear first-use. The two are the authors of the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, a proposed bill first introduced in 2017 that would bar a U.S. president from launching a nuclear first strike without the consent of Congress.
"We first introduced this act during the Obama administration not as a partisan effort, but to make the larger point that current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous," they wrote.
In their letter, Markey and Lieu also recount an episode from the first Trump presidency when, shortly after the January 6 insurrection, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley ordered his staff to come to him if they received a nuclear strike order from Trump.
But Milley's ability to intervene was limited, according to Lieu and Markey, because his role is advisory and "the president can unilaterally make a launch decision and implement it directly without informing senior leaders." They argue this episode is a sign that the rules themselves must change.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular