Good morning and welcome to this public
meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission I since this
is our first hearing public hearing since the Hurricanes Harvey and Irma I
just want to express that the Commission's thoughts and prayers are
with all of those who have been affected by these devastating storms and I also
want to thank our staff who's worked incredibly hard to promote our message
of safety especially with regards to portable generators carbon monoxide
poisoning and all of the hazards that can arise post the the acute part of the
storm and the hurricane so they worked very hard in collaboration with our
stakeholders and I want to make sure I know how they know how much I appreciate
everything they've done I also want to thank the first responders for what they
are willing to do to go down and help all of those affected in Texas as well
as Florida and Louisiana today we were supposed to have Matthew Vinci testify
on behalf of the International Association of firefighters he was
deployed and called up to help down in Florida so someone else will be here to
sit in his place and testify on his behalf but I do want to thank him for
his efforts and what he's doing to help all of those victims of the Hurricanes
this morning we have one item on our agenda and it is a hearing to give
members of the public a chance to provide oral comment on the petition
requesting the Commission initiate rulemaking under the federal hazardous
substance act to declare several categories of products containing
additive organo halogen flame retardants to be banned as quote banned hazardous
substances this is our second public hearing on this meet at matter the first
took place on December the 9th 2015 we were in a different hearing room on that
day and if I recall the shirk' have just had knee surgery
when a public hearing is not required excuse me while a public hearing is not
required for a petition having stakeholder input on this issue or any
other issue is extremely important to this commission so this second hearing
today and I do want to commend my colleague Commissioner Adler was at his
request and he has put a lot of work into making today happen and getting
people here to testify and I do want to commend him for his work in his interest
in this issue I'm also want to just say thank you
ahead of time to all of the presenters who will be here today thank you for
your time and the effort to be here and to provide this commission with your
input and your insight and your expertise on this issue to begin I'll
just give an overview of what today is going to look like so that everyone
knows what to expect today has been divided into six panels and I believe
there is a schedule that has been handed out this morning each presenter will
have five minutes to deliver their comments our acting secretary ms alberto
mills will keep track of the time and here I want to just pause and say thank
you to miss Mills miss Hammond for in the office of secretary in general for
what they've had to do to get today organized of the amount of testimony and
the logistics for us to be sitting up here and for all of you to be out there
is in thanks to them so thank you very much for all of your efforts we
appreciate it I would ask that our presenters are
pay attention to the light that's in front of them as you see the light turn
yellow that means you have one minute left to present throughout the course of
the day we will be having people participating not only here in person
but on by phone MS mills will remind those of you on the phone when you have
one minute remaining she will just mention one minute left so that you have
a sense of time I will also ask to all of those of you calling in if you are on
the phone and you are not speaking please put your phone on mute because of
there's always oftentimes there's some feedback that is distracting after all
the panelists have presented each Commissioner will have
five minutes to ask questions I just want to explain one of the issues that
came up during the course of preparation or preparing for today a few
organizations requested that multiple people be able to testify today and
while everyone's written testimony I want to emphasize that everyone's
written testimony has been submitted and it is a part of the record we ask that
members just given the volume of speakers today we ask that members of
the same organization either split their five minutes or designate a speaker
there were three organizations that that was an issue with they all decided that
one person would be would present but the other person and I will call your
attention to that during the course of the day the other person will be
available in certainly available to ask can sir any questions that the
Commission might have and I just want to say I appreciate everyone's flexibility
and understanding of the complex nature of today in the interest of time and out
of respect for our panelists I want to make every effort to stay on time so
that everyone can honor any obligations that they have today I apologize ahead
of time if I have to gavel down to anyone during your the course of your
testimony or any one of my fellow commissioners but I do want to be
cognizant and aware of people's time we will keep the record open until
September 20th 2017 if you do not get a chance to comment on something today you
really want to respond to or you have something additional that you would like
to say you are welcome to supplement whatever testimony you have provided or
comment further in writing any supplemental materials or information
will be incorporated into the record so we will begin now with our first panel
thank you for your patience during the housekeeping portion of today's hearing
our first panel includes dr.
Linda Birnbaum the director of the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology
program dr. Birnbaum thank you for joining us today my understand that your
schedule was a little bit filled I'm sure it usually is and we appreciate you
taking the time and making the effort to be here this morning
to share your testimony dr. Birnbaum will have ten
to testify me you may proceed thank you good morning commissioners I'm Linda
Birnbaum director of the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences and also director of the national toxicology program I am a
principal investigator in the National of Institute's intramural research
program as well I was formerly the president of the Society of toxicology a
member of the Academy of toxicological sciences and in 2010 I was elected to
the National Academy of Medicine it is an honor to be invited to testify
today's hearing by the consumer product commission chairperson a Marie Buerkle I
previously testified before the Commission in December of 2015 on the
general topic of non polymeric halogenated flame retardants and I refer
the Commission to my previous written testimony by way of background on the
adverse effects associated with these chemicals today at the request of the
chairwoman I will refer to and expand upon some important aspects of my
previous testimony and address the findings of the CPSC staff report on the
topic issued on May 24th 2017 I thank the CPSC staff for their efforts to
address the complex public health issues associated with mixtures of halogenated
flame-retardant chemicals and consumer products however I'm here today to
respectfully disagree with a staffs draft recommendation to deny the
petition and I urge the Commission to carefully reconsider the toxicological
and public health hazards associated with organo halogen flame retardant so
FRS as I stated in my 2015 testimony all members of the proposed class of
chemicals that have been adequately studied have significant human health
concerns by studying these chemicals we have developed a strong understanding of
ofr biological activity mechanism of action and potential to do harm as
individual chemicals are studied and found to be hazardous new closely
related compounds are routinely brought to market as replacement often these new
replacements are regretable and just as harmful as the original or worse
unfortunately scientific research cannot keep pace with the flood of new
chemicals and commerce and as mentioned in
PSC report data information gaps in toxicology arise these gaps are often
filled by comparing the chemical structures of replacements with more
well-defined chemicals the process known as Reed cross for example there have
been serious environmental concerns associated with environmental exposures
to one class of O FRS call polybrominated diphenyl ether mixtures
or PBDEs these concerns have persisted for nearly two decades due to the high
resistance of PBDEs to both environmental and biological degradation
ongoing human exposure and evidence of toxicity to these compounds as well as
structural similarity of PBDEs to polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs there are
over 200 compounds classified as PBDEs and all commercial formulations involve
complex mixtures of different PBDEs since my testimony in 2015
studies have demonstrated that these environmentally persistent compounds are
bioaccumulative they're also found at higher concentrations in fetal blood
than in the mother's blood two of the major commercial formulation mixtures
have been shown to cause cancer in both rats and mice these mixtures are known
to be associated with persistent neural problems in children and in july 2017
the state of California listed Penta bromo diphenyl ether mixtures
specifically de 71 as a known carcinogen researchers at the University of
Cincinnati have shown an association between childhood behavioral changes and
prenatal exposures to pb de 47 these effects appear to continue into
childhood by affecting reading ability and IQ a recent systematic review has
concluded that early life exposure to PBDEs is associated with developmental
neurotoxicity in humans other experimental studies and animals and
observational studies in humans have shown that PBDEs are endocrine
disruptors and are associated with metabolic alterations concern over
persistence and toxicity led to voluntary removal of all PV de
commercial formulations from production in the US and bans
Canada Europe and Japan the lower molecular weight PBDEs have been listed
for elimination under the Stockholm convention of
persistent organic pollutants and deca bde is currently proposed for listing as
well but PVD E's are not the only of' ours that have been shown to have
significant effects as far back as the late 1970s brominated and chlorinated
Tris were restricted based on cancer concerns productions of high volumes of
hexa bromo cyclododecatriene is found in the environment wildlife and people in
vitro and animal studies have indicated it is an endocrine disruptor is toxic to
the liver and causes adverse neurodevelopmental effects and has also
been nominated for elimination under the Stockholm Convention the
largest volume Roman Aidid flame-retardant tetra bromo bisphenol A
has recently been shown to be carcinogenic in rats and mites it's an
endocrine disruptor and alters neural behavior in animal studies concerns
about the developmental effects of FM 5:50 a new replacement bfr have been
raised in several studies I think it's important to also address a related
class of halogen native flame retardant chemicals referred to as per and poly
fluorinated alkyl substances or pee fuzz this class of chemicals includes PFOA
and PS but also includes hundreds perhaps thousands of shorter longer and
branch chain formed of these ofr chemicals today I'm going to refer to
them simply as pee fuss P FOA its salts and p4 related compounds were nominated
for listing in the Stockholm convention in 2015 because of their documented
human health effects including cancer alterations and lipid metabolism
endocrine disruption and immune suppression the manufacturing and use of
these chemicals began in the late 1940s and continues today
like many industrial chemicals P foz have been used in a wide variety of
consumer products in addition to their uses flame retardants and foaming agents
they occur in food containers water resistant clothing furniture carpeting
and cookware P files are highly resistant to heat and do not easily
degrade in oil or they tend to bioaccumulate in tissues
meaning that they are often found in blood and other tissues and
concentrations greater than the surrounding environment pthose usually
occur as complex mixtures and are ubiquitous in the environment due to
their environmental persistence by accumulation and potential for
long-range environmental transport these chemicals can be found in groundwater
surface waters soils and air in most regions where they've been manufactured
disposed of or used P foz have been measured in animal and plant tissues
throughout the world including the Arctic P foes have been identified in
nearly all human serum samples tested in the u.s.
These exposures are largely due
to contaminated household water and consumer products the chemicals are
president breast milk and have been shown to readily cross the placenta into
the developing fetus though keifa's have been commercially available for decades
recent additional concern has arisen due to their pervasive occurrence in some
metropolitan drinking water supplies at concentrations above the health
advisories issued for P fo and P Fuss by EPA in November of 16 of 70 PPT in fact
many states have established individual advisory levels lower than the piays
vizor e contamination of drinking water sources by these chemicals has been the
subject of numerous congressional hearings is of increasing concern to
state and local governments and was described by one of my colleagues is one
of the most significant emerging health threats of our time all the chemicals
that I've described today are either formulated as mixtures contain
fluorinated byproducts the synthesis or break down into chlorinated fluorinated
and/or brominated compounds in biological or environmental systems thus
an environmental exposure studies all ofr s will be found as mixtures in
various dynamic states of purity metabolism or degradation it will always
be difficult or impossible to Turman the makeup of such change in chemical
mixtures well I commend the CPSC staff for undertaking the ólafur evaluation I
believe their review is limited in the data considered as many new studies have
been recently published their conclusions related to data gaps will
never be filled with new chemicals coming to market constantly further I
they ask the question whether the accumulated data they reviewed suggested
that any members of this class were safe for use in consumer products the draft
state report states that toxicological properties of the individual ORS are not
uniform and show variation and their potential health effects and their
potential toxicity under F HSA the report goes on to state that available
data indicate that one cannot consider a FRS as a class under the FAA HSA because
one cannot conclude that every ofr would meet the toxicity prong of the FH essays
definition of hazardous substances the F sha seems to contradict this summon
statement in Section two where it states that a hazardous substance is any
substance or mixture of substances which is toxic and may cause substantial
personal injury or substantial illness during as approximate result of any
customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use chairwoman Buerkle
mixture of Oh F ARS including those mentioned during my testimony have been
shown to have adverse bioactivity and present a hazard from overt toxicity
mixtures of Oh F ours are the offending substance and the identification and
assessment of individual components is neither possible nor feasible all
components we have tested are a public health concern but we will never be able
to test all of these chemicals the CPSC conclusion that we can't
adequately address complex mixtures such as dust and therefore should not act
inhibits our ability to protect public health as these compounds continue to by
accumulate in the environment and in children's blood I support action to
minimize the ongoing public health hazard posed by O FRS the nature of the
toxicological science surrounding the ofr class of chemicals is complex and
once again we appreciate the attention staff has paid to these issues I
personally know of no halogenated Oh F ARS of those studies which has not been
shown to cause problems however I believe the Commission may want to seek
the advice of a formal advisory board such as the toxicological advisory board
used by CPSC to consult on complex matters
from 1979 to 85 and recommended in the FH essay I thank the Commission and
chairman Burke chairwoman Buerkle once again for the opportunity to address
this important issue I remain at your service to provide any further
assistance that you might require during this decision-making process thank you
thank you very much dr.
Birnbaum and I will begin the first round of questions
from the Dyess I just have I'm actually going to list my questions and then I'll
let you have the remaining remainder of my time to answer those questions so
within the staff briefing package they identified several issues you've
referred to them in your testimony the first was that there are data gaps and
that we don't have enough information on individual chemicals – that would allow
us to ban a certain chemical be a classification of chemicals of class of
chemicals so I want to understand that without that information your the
petition and your supporting the petition requests that we would ban this
this class of chemicals my second question has to do with the links staff
indicates – in their briefing package that there's no direct link to do
household dusts and that there's and also there is no direct link to the
products that are being asked to be banned so if you could speak to those
two issues what's the justification if we can't draw a link to those products
and lastly staff mentions this in their briefing package but it's also after
being on the Commission for four years kind of the information I've received is
that the petition which staff also says uses outdated data indicates it's not an
accurate reflection of the marketplace so for instance one of the commenters
talked about mattresses and the fact that no u.s.
Manufacturer is using flame
retardants and mattresses so again because you've referred to this time
lapse and the difficulty with the data which I acknowledge that staff yesterday
and indicated their ten-year cycles but how in terms of gathering the data and
having the ability to go forward with findings but so I'm those are my
questions but primarily it's the staff has raised
these issues I think they're valid issues and I would appreciate if you
could speak to those thank you so the issue of data gaps there will always be
data gaps when you have new chemicals continuously coming on the market the
other issue is that these chemicals while you can test them on a one-off
basis or that is not the way they are found in the environment and that to
which people are exposed when studies have looked at what is in human breast
milk or human blood is you find a whole plethora of different ofr s in their
bodies and that is the reality of the exposure that is not to one is to a
complex mixture and in fact you will never have you will never be able to
feel the data gaps on all the individual compounds I think the point that every
chemical that has been tested in this class when it has been looked at has
shown adverse effects the issue about no direct link to dust there is now data
which indicates the presence of ofr s in house dust and the net that dust has
been like linked to the levels of exposure in people a number of studies
have been published within the last two years that clearly show what's in house
dust gets on people's hands and gets into people's bodies and the third that
there's a time lapse for them that some of the things in the petition related to
use are not up to date I would agree with that science is moving very rapidly
as the marketplace is moving rapidly and as concerns arise from the scientific
literature the marketplace responds so in fact as we look across the spectrum
of products that was requested to be banned many of them flame retardants and
I look to the furniture industry as well as mattresses flame retardants are not
being used in those products yes there are old products out there but in the
new products they're not being used and so that that to me is an issue that as
we go forward seems like there's a self-correction going on without the
banning of those products the other thing I wanted to just talk about
briefly is the dose makes the poison so just because we there is the
of an organic halogen flame retardent in urine or in blood that doesn't
necessarily make it toxic it depends on the level I mean if you drink too much
water right which we we all love water but if you drink too much of it it
becomes toxic but it's the dose that's so critical not just the presence of it
it's not only the dose I'm a commissioner chairman it is also the
timing and so that there is growing data both from animal studies which are
conducted some of them are conducted at low doses but in the human general
population exposures where we are seeing in now a multitude of different studies
effects being associated with for example in utero or infantile exposure
at levels that are present in the environment today thank you my time is
almost about to expire and again thank you for your time this morning and I now
refer to Commissioner Adler thank you very much madam chairman and thank you
and your staff for being so helpful in developing the logistics of this I know
it was a challenge and I really want to commend you for that dr.
Birnbaum I read
through the submissions today and I noted that one of your nan nie HS
colleagues described you as the nation's preeminent toxicologist and author of
over 700 peer-reviewed scientific papers books chapters and reports and you have
a string of honors and awards that I can't begin to count in addition and I
note and I see your chief toxicologist is with you that you preside over an
institute of many many many eminent scientists and you have a budget seven
times bigger than ours I note in passing so I guess my question is in either your
research or that of the NIH s scientist do you have any reason to believe that
any of the ofr s that have yet to be studied will be shown to be in effect
safe not to present a significant hazard to the public that's a very hard
question to answer thank you because you know you're going into the unknown but
based upon read across approaches based upon what we know about a wide variety
of chemical structures of different Oh FRS all of them appear to have the
potential to have adverse effects in other words the staff has pointed out
that there are varying levels of toxicity with respect to O FRS but I
analogize that to automobiles whether I get hit by a sedan or by a truck I'm
going to be just as dead and so the question is have we run across an ofr
that seems to have such a low level of inherent toxicity that you could even
speculate that it might be shown not to present a serious health hazard to human
beings in my knowledge I know of none that don't have the potential to cause
serious effects and again I would stress that they are never present one at a
time it is a complex mixture to which you are exposed yeah and thank you for
playing out the fact that mixtures in the real world are what we have to
contend with especially in dust I guess here's another simple question do we
need fr chemicals in the four product groups that are subject to this petition
I think it's very important to ask the question you know that should always be
the first question do we need it the second question would be does it
work and the answer to both questions I would suggest well the answer the first
questions is in most cases I would suggest no we don't need I know they're
not in mattresses anymore but do we need them in some of the baby products do we
need them in some of the household products and then the question or are
there alternative products and then the other question of does it work is
another one and at the concentrations that these flame retardants are present
in consumer products in fact they do not provide the retardation of the flames in
other words it doesn't slow down the burn yeah I note that there is a push I
think within NFPA National Fire Protection Association to actually have
upholstered furniture standard meet the business flammability standard which
saturates furniture with fr chemicals but for consumer products again it's the
concentration and it's your contention that that concentration
provides minimal marginal safety at best thank you have no further questions at
this time Thank You Commissioner Robinson thank
you thank you so much dr.
Birnbaum for both your presentation in 2015 and today
and for your very helpful involvement in this in this issue for the agency I just
want to say that from everything that I've read I'm absolutely convinced that
the of the OA fires that have been studied that all of them are toxic
migrate out of products and present a risk of adverse health impact and I
think from reading the staffs package that they completely agree with that as
well but the areas of concern that they
raised as chairman Buerkle pointed out the data gaps and what they basically
say that they're troubled about treating them these as a class because they have
limited data showing individual ofr compounds that I'm sorry the data showed
that they have varying toxicity and expose your exposure potential there's
varying properties of individual o of our compounds indicate that OA fires
represent several subclasses and even then within the subclasses that there
are variances and there are a number of ofr compounds about which we have no
data regarding their toxicity and then their second area of concern is the fact
that even though we know the chemicals are in household dust and the dust gets
into people that we have no direct link of these four product categories that
the petition talks about contributing to the household dust or the degree to
which they to which they contribute it so let me but let me just first of all
follow up on something that chairman Buerkle said with respect to the
household dust and I I mean I'm having trouble thinking how the others ever
going to be data that would support these four products and what what they
contribute to the hustle dust but but could you just comment on why you don't
believe that should be a concern in terms of us regulating this class of
chemicals so we know that these chemicals are the cases that we are most
concerned with are not the polymeric forms that's not the issue the issue is
things that are just mixed in with the product they are not chemically bonded
to the product so over time they get out of the
into the dust it's very difficult to actually prove that pathway but we know
that they're in the product we know that they're in the dust and we have have
shown how it gets from the dust into people so I think there have been data
we've shown where measurements of some of these chemicals in the products
there's a relationship with the amount that's in the dust over time more gets
into the dust and again dust gets into people not only via their hands but also
a certain amount by inhalation okay and I just say that anytime I refer to oh I
fires today I just say this generally I'm referring to what we're talking
about in the petition which is a non polymeric additive organo halogens why
and I'm gonna follow up and get on another question that chairman Buerkle
asked about self-correction why don't you think this self correction as she
refers to it isn't enough why should we ban these ofr s so uh my understanding
is that even new products some things which are not required to have oh if
ours aren't showing or FAR's when they're actually tested we also import a
great deep number of products which have offers in them but I think I think the
biggest thing would be is that some new products on the marketplace today when
they get tested actually have ofr is in them so over time and maybe that the
marketplace does a great job of responding consumer demand so the the
tactic illogical advisory board that you talked about from 79 to 80 to 85 I have
not had a chance to talk to Commissioner Adler out there so maybe he knows about
it but I didn't know about that and you didn't refer to our chap which we had
with respect to phthalates but can you tell us if they're different or or are
you sort of thinking of the same thing I'm gonna turn it over one second to
Kris Weiss he's my chief toxicologists my bethesda office who actually will be
deployed as of tomorrow so we're lucky to have him here today the question
again is our phthalates included no no it's just with respect to whether
there's a difference between a chap as we convened for phthalates I mean is it
the same kind of body at or toxicological advisory board like they
had last night seven i see the board that that we're referring to is a
collection I believe of nine toxicologists okay that from the period
of I believe 1979 until 85 was required by the the law to participate in
decisions such as this unfortunately and for reasons that I don't understand that
board and that process was sunsetted in in 1985 so the advantage that the
Commission gained from that advice stopped at 1985 I'm not sure the
rationale for that what I think we're suggesting is that the board the
Commission consider reinstating such a board with highly complex problems like
this it's it's multifaceted as you as you well know and as the staff
report indicates and we believe that it would be an advantage to the Commission
and and to public health frankly if if a similar board was reestablished thank
you so much I'm out of time Thank You commissioner okay thank you madam chair
good morning dr.
Weiss good morning director Birnbaum thanks again for
coming in to both of you and dr. Birnbaum it's good to continue our
conversations on this topic obviously we've had a number of conversations both
here and in North Carolina which I think indicates as indicated to you and your
staff how much it is mattered to me in your estimation who is most at risk from
these products or from these flame retardants being in these products I
think my concern is almost always for the early stage of life so I think my
greatest concern is for the fetus before it's born as well as for the infant and
young child children young children especially are at increased concern
because of their behaviors as well as their metabolism is different I
mentioned the fetus especially because we know now that the concentration in
the fetus is often higher than the concentration in the mother and
any time of rapid development and growth you have a maximal opportunity to
disturb that process and things are once disturbed during development they are
not reversible and do you believe in lay terms the children are being poisoned by
these chemicals I would say there is the opportunity for impact on children and
we have data from among the general population which is exported its
biological plausibility by studies in a variety of different animal species
where we see impacts especially on neuro behavior and on learning and memory in
children that does not go away and is that again as a layperson because I'm
not a scientist or a toxicologist in particular is that different than
poisoning is that a subset of poisoning how would you describe as a scientist
what poisoning isn't how that might be different I first look it up in in
Webster's commissioner K and see its definition I am most concerned about the
potential for poisoning is a term that had carries all kinds of baggage with it
I would rather talk about the adversity that we see so if children have a couple
of IQ points less or if children have ADHD for example I think that raises the
concern for their ability their success in school and in life is in general and
that sounds pretty serious to me how serious do you think those effects are
to you I would rather see children able to develop to their full potential I
agree and in terms of a public health issue how big a public health issue do
you believe this is I think we are all exposed the studies had been done when
we've looked at various classes certainly of the PBDEs for certainly of
the for example the pas certainly have some of the chlorinated and as well as
the other brominated flame retardants what we find them is pretty much in
almost everywhere we look in the environment but also in people so as a
person how much does this scare you I'm just trying to get to your sense of it
it relative to other hazards that you deal with I think this is something that
would be advantageous for the future of our species that sounds like a big deal
and as commissioner pointed out you're probably the most preeminent
toxicologist on these issues in the United States of America if not the
world and yet here you are for the second time having to come in and talk
to us about it and in the interim unfortunately we've seen less movement
that I would have desired what do you think it's going to take in light of
what you just said in particular that in essence children are being denied their
full potential by these chemicals what do you think it's going to take for
policymakers to agree to finally do something about it
well I've happened to be a supporter of the class approach because I think as I
said before that there is no way that we can ever test every chemical you get rid
of one and then you find another one is substituted which turns out in many
cases to be just as bad or worse and I think continuously we have what's called
regrettable substitution or some people call it the chemical conveyor belt but
whatever term you use these new chemicals can be just as bad as the old
ones so I think unless we approach it as a class we're going to find ourselves in
the same situation five years ten years down the road and my sense is that for
those who will pay attention especially all day today that there will be
skepticism expressed by some folks up here about that approach is there
anything else that you can add to try to urge individuals to accept that approach
and move forward to protect kids in particular science is never a hundred
percent certain but the evidence builds and I think the evidence is built to the
point that there that all of these chemicals and all future chemicals of
this class if they are not chemically bonded to the substrate are going to
escape into the environment and then into people and you have any doubt about
that thank you Thank You commissioner mejor robic I
have no questions thank you again thank you our sincere appreciation dr.
Birnbaum for your presence here today if your willingness to as Commissioner Kay
said to come back here again and share your expertise with us into
mr.
Weiss I would just like to offer our best wishes to you and safe travels and
please be safe thank you both very much we will now transition to our second
panel we now welcome our second panel for
today's public hearing and I just want to begin by saying thank you to all of
you for being here on our second panel excuse me we have MS Eve Gardner
Earthjustice Northeast office miss Rachel Weintraub Consumer Federation of
America dr.
Jennifer Lowery from the American Academy of Pediatrics mr.
Ricardo Simmons from the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops Ms
Maureen Swanson from learning disabilities Association of America and
joining us via the phone for the second panel dark dr. Arlene Blum from the
green science Policy Institute and I just want to say that while dr. bloom
will be presenting I want to also note that Ms Avery Lindemann also from the
Green Policy Institute is also on the line and will be available to answer our
questions so with that I would ask our panel to begin their presentations and
we'll begin with miss Gardner and again my sincere appreciation to all of you thank you very much chairman bernanke
that worked third time is the charm I am co-counsel with Consumer Federation
of America representing the petitioners in this matter and I very much
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today
petitioners strongly urge the Commission to reject the staffs analysis and grant
the petition I will discuss two pervasive errors in the staffs analysis
first the staff recommendation misconstrues the legal requirements for
a rule under the fh sa under this statute a product is hazardous based on
toxicity if it meets two criteria first if it has the capacity to produce
illness or injury through ingestion inhalation or absorption through any
bodily surface and second if it may cause substantial injury or substantial
illness as a result of customary use that is it just those two criteria staff
however describe a much more complicated analysis that has no basis in the
statute as just one example on page 11 staff state that once a substance is
determined to be toxic then and here I'm quoting a quantitative assessment of
exposure and risk is performed to determine whether the chemical may be a
hazardous substance which includes consideration of dose response
bioavailability and exposure and quote but that is not at all what the F HSA
says under the statute if a product is toxic based on the capacity to produce
injury then the only remaining question is whether the product may cause
substantial illness or substantial injury as a result of customary use
there is nothing in the F HSAs may cause harm standard that requires the
Commission to quantify the number of children who will be harmed before it
can regulate unlike the CPS a the F HSA does not require an unreasonable risk
determination it does not require quantification it is also important to
remember that there's solid precedent for this commission to regulate by class
under the F HSA many many years ago this commission regulated all toys
intended for use by young children that present hazards because of small parts
and when that rule was challenged the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the Commission's decision and said the legislative history of the F HSA appears
clear in favoring general prescriptive regulations of the broadest most
comprehensive type and would favor case-by-case proceedings only where such
general prescriptive regulations prove impossible so that's a quote from the
court the second pervasive error is that the staff is wrong in thinking that this
problem the problem with of' ours will simply go away without federal action
the CPSC staff says repeatedly in their recommendations that recent agency
testing found that 22% of children's products still contain ofr s given how
toxic these chemicals are and how pointless it is to flame retard
children's toys and furniture this is a shockingly high number second history
shows that voluntary shifts in the market are not permanent in the absence
of federal regulation yes chlorinated Tris was phased out of children's
pajamas in the 1970s but it reappeared in our couches ten years ago the third
point on the fact that that that the this problem is not going away is that
the NFPA and other private standard-setting agencies or agencies
are currently working to develop an open flame flammability standard for
furniture if that happens in the near future and there's a very good
likelihood it will that would lead to increased use of IFRS and furniture and
children's products unless the Commission take steps now to stop that
from happening by banning these substances in conclusion the staff
recommendation should be denies because the record demonstrates that the entire
class of of' ours meets the capacity to cause harm and may cause harm definition
of hazardous substance as dr.
Birnbaum explained all of' ours for which there
are data have been associated with long-term chronic health effects there
are inherent characteristics of of' ours that explain why these ads
health effects are occurring knowö FRS that have been studied have found to be
safe these chemicals by their nature are semi
volatile they will migrate out of products they will attach to house dust
they will persist in the indoor environment people will absorb these
chemicals into their bodies into their blood and for this reason we know
virtually everyone in this country has a volatile mix of these chemicals in their
bodies and finally labeling is inadequate because there's no way for
consumers to protect themselves or their children from these chemicals they are
looking to this commission to protect them and we urge you to do that
thank you thank you very much miss Weintraub I appreciate that the CPSC is
holding this hearing and providing the opportunity for comments on the petition
that CFA Earthjustice kids endanger and others submitted to the CPSC urging the
adoption of mandatory standards to protect consumers from the hazards
caused by the use of non polymeric additive form organo halogen flame
retardants in children's products furniture mattresses and the casing
surrounding electronics I am Rachel Weintraub legislative director and
general counsel at CFA a non-profit Association of approximately 280 Pro
consumer groups that was founded in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through
advocacy research and education today we'll discuss the CPSC's legal authority
to adopt standards under the f HSA and will respond respond to
misinterpretations made in the staff briefing package about the CPSC s legal
authority and other issues the CPSC under the f HSA has authority
to ban products that pose a hazard when labeling would not adequately protect
consumers from the hazard the F HSA establishes that to ban a product the
CPSC may by regulation declare to be a hazardous substance any substance or
mixture of substances which is toxic if such substance may cause substantial
personal injury or substantial illness during or as approximate result of any
customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use
a critical aspect of this definition of a hazardous substance is that a toxic
determination is based on the capacity and potential to cause harm based on
exposure from customary use notably the staff briefing package does not
focus on the may cause aspect of the FHS a is definition nor does it reiterate
the efficacies definition of toxicity to include a substance that has the
capacity to produce personal injury the failure to include and consider the
statutory language in the staff briefing package misconstrues the efficacy is
standard for hazardous substance and leaves out the critical legal analysis
that clarifies that the CPSC authority to take action is consistent with the f
HSA in addition the staff briefing package numerous times includes that the
mere presence of organic allergens in the blood or urine of individuals does
not indicate harm the fact that measurable levels of Organa halogens are
present in virtually the entire population indicates exposure to these
chemicals that is the key point the argument that the mere presence of
organic allergens and humans is not indicative of harm ignores the
cumulative impact of multiple chemicals acting on the same endpoints fails to
consider the science of low dose exposures especially for children and
fails to consider the legal standard required by the FH sa requiring capacity
to cause personal illness to meet the definition of toxicity further the staff
briefing package reiterates that it cannot proceed with the petition because
it cannot consider Organa halogens as a class the staff however does not
consider the comments provided by numerous eminent scientists such as who
we heard earlier today who support classifying organic halogens as a class
staff also reiterates that toxicity data is incomplete but fails to consider data
that provides an adequate basis for determining the toxicity of Organa
halogens such comments should be considered the briefing package includes
that since various entities such as the European Union and some states have
passed laws restricting Organa halogen use that that has an impact on
decreasing exposure and thus would make CPSC rule a
necessary rather this actually supports granting the petition because it
indicates that such rules are effective and decrease potentially harmful
exposure declining use is not a justification for not acting as these
chemicals are still used in consumer products that some manufacturers are
moving away from using these chemicals is evidence of broader support for
action to ban the use of Organa halogens in consumer products the briefing
package states that the existence of fire safety standards that do not
require the use of organic halogens indicates also a lack of need for a rule
to ban organic halogens organic halogens however are used in consumer products to
comply with fire safety standards while not required they are often the most
cost effective way to comply with such standards the fact that a standard does
not require their use does not mean that organo halogens will not be used in
conclusion under the f HSA the CPSC has explicit authority to protect consumers
from the health hazards caused by the use of these chemicals the staff
briefing package however fails to consider scientific evidence supporting
the petition uses flawed rationales to justify denial of the petition and does
not consider all aspects of the HSA standard for hazardous products and
toxicity we urge the Commission to use their authority to grant the petition
and protect consumers thank you very much dr.
Lowrey
thank you for the opportunity to present this morning about the child health
impact of organic flame organo halogen flame retardants my name is dr. Jennifer
Lowry and I am here representing the American Academy of Pediatrics or the
AAP I serviced a chair of the APS Council on environmental health and on
their executive committee in addition to my role within the APA I also work at
Children's Mercy in Kansas City where I am the chief to the section of
toxicology and environmental health and the medical director of the division of
clinical pharmacology toxicology and therapeutic innovations I am here today
to express aap s continued support for CPSC action to protect children from the
harmful health and developmental effects of organo halogen flame retardants
or bars the AAP is concerned by the CPSU staffs June recommendation to not begin
rulemaking and following the petition requesting Banyon of all of ours in for
product classes under the F HSA the AAP is one of the original petitioners and
we continue to strongly support CPSC moving forward on this important child
health issue as children grow and mature their unique physiologic developmental
and behavioral differences make them especially vulnerable to chemical
exposures chemical exposures can disrupt the critical and rapid stages of
development that occur in prenatal and early childhood life particularly
involving the neurologic and endocrine systems even low dose exposures to
chemicals during these periods can have major lifelong health effects organo
halogen flame retardants are associated with a wide range of serious adverse
health effects including reproductive impairment neurological effects
including IQ decrements and learning deficits endocrine disruption and
interference with thyroid hormone action genotoxicity cancer and immune disorders
inexplicably the CPSC staff recommendation package
does not adequately account for these well-documented health risks of this
chemical class the effect that chemical additives to consumer products have on
learning attention and other health problems and children is real much of my
clinical practice is dedicated to aiding children and overcoming ADHD and other
learning disabilities so that they can thrive as testimonies in 2015 and today
tell you organo halogens are not necessary to end products and have been
shown to be associated with serious harm to children pediatric research continues
to demonstrate significant negative health effects for low dose exposures
and cumulative exposures acting on similar health endpoints children face a
longer exposure time Hort horizon and are uniquely susceptible to even small
changes to the endocrine system during key developmental stages we are
therefore concerned by the rationale in June recommendation to reject the
petition that argues the mere presence of organo halogen flame retardants in
the blood and urine it's insufficient to demonstrate that an
adverse effect or disease may occur current research does not support this
assertion children that these exposures will not present to an emergency
department with an acute exposure causing symptoms that are obvious at one
time instead the low level chronic toxicity that is indolent improve and
present subtly in fact much of what we know about the toxicity of organo
halogens and other chemical additives to products is that it is not obvious until
it is too late the assumption that a chemical is safe because we don't see a
cute effects from its exposure it's completely false there is no reason for
children to have these harmful levels of organo halogens in their blood in urine
and CPSC has the authority to address these hazards in the consumer products
it regulates lastly while flame products are now available that are without ofr
this is not across all of these products mattresses and drapes are available to
are priced exceedingly high resulting in environmental and justice issues to
those who are more vulnerable thus banning these chemicals now will level
out the playing field to those that need it most the AP strongly supports this
petition and we are dismayed a CPSC staff current recommendation is to take
no meaningful action at this on this issue we urge the Commission to move to
regulate this chemical class to protect children from the unnecessary health
risks thank you again for the opportunity to speak today and we look
forward to working with you on this important issue
thank you dr.
Lowery mr. Simmons thank you for this opportunity to present my
testimony before you today my name is Ricardo Simmons and I present before you
on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to
comment on the petition to ban ofr retardants from consumer products The
Conference of Catholic Bishops is an assembly of the hierarchy of the United
States and US Virgin Islands who jointly exercise certain Paschal functions on
behalf of the Catholic faithful in the United States there are 17 Cardinals and
446 active and retired bishops in the US representing over 70 million Americans
in almost 200 diocese across the country the
Bishop's speak not as technical experts but as people of faith who offer a moral
perspective rooted in a rich faith tradition which calls us to care for
God's creation and protect the common good and the life and dignity of human
persons especially the poor and vulnerable from conception until natural
death two years ago Pope Francis published an encyclical on the
environment that proposed an integral ecology whereby everything is connected
the fate and health of the environment is deeply intertwined with human social
and economic health the Pope asked the question which we can ask ourselves now
and I quote what kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us
to children who are growing who are now growing up children inside and outside
the womb are uniquely vulnerable to environmental hazards and exposure to
toxic pollutants in the environment their bodies and behaviors leave them
more at risk than adults to such health hazards because children are exposed to
environmental hazards at an early age they are susceptible to developing
slowly progressing environmentally triggered illnesses such as asthma
certain cancers learning disabilities and other conditions that adversely
affect childhood development in short exposure to toxic chemicals is
significantly more harmful to children born and unborn in an effort to develop
the leadership of Catholic organizations and networks to help address
environmental hazards affecting children's health a coalition of major
Catholic organizations formed a Catholic coalition for children and safe
environment case in 2007 case members hosted a major conference on the effects
of environmental toxins on unborn children protecting human life and
caring for creation held at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops this
event brought together prominent leaders from Catholic from the Catholic
community government and public health sector to learn more about how unborn
children are exposed to environmental harm how this exposure affects them
later in life and what can be done to better protect them building on this
collaboration in 2008 life justice and family convocation included a session on
toxins environment and child in the womb to learn and disseminate information
about environmental threats that may affect children's health the conference
monitors in Meishan about the effective
environmental threats on children's health and advice identify chopper to
knees to strengthen policies that protect children born and unborn from
exposure to harmful toxins and chemicals well as far we can't chemicals present a
real health concern among many things this class of chemicals has been
associated with serious human health problems including cancer increased time
of pregnancy decreased IQ and children impaired memory learning deficits
hyperactivity hormone disruption and lowered immunity as people of faith were
a call to care for God's gift of creation and to protect the most
vulnerable among us caught in a spiral of poverty environmental degradation the
poor and powerless are disproportionately impacted by the
effects of exposure to environmental problems as their lands and
neighborhoods are more likely to be polluted to be near toxic waste dump
site or to suffer from water contamination Pope Francis reminds us
that and I quote each year hundreds of millions of tons of waste are generated
much of it non biodegradable highly toxic and radioactive from homes and
businesses from construction and demolition sites from clinical
electronic and industrial sources the earth our home is be cut is beginning to
look more and more like an immense pile of Filth commissioners you have the
unique opportunity to address this injustice and a duty to protect our
children and our families the conference urges the CPSC to ban these toxic and
pervasive chemicals from children's products furniture mattresses and the
casings around electronics doing so would help to protect the health and
were for welfare of all people especially the most vulnerable members
of our society including the unborn and young children from harmful exposure to
these toxic chemicals thank you Thank You mr.
Simmons miss Swanson Thank
You commissioners for the opportunity to comment today my name is Maureen Swanson
and I direct the healthy children project for the learning disabilities
Association of America Lda Lda is the oldest and largest national volunteer
organization advocating for children with learning children and adults with
learning disabilities with chapters across the country
one in six children in the United States has a reported learning or developmental
disability including autism attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other
learning and developmental disorders like halogenated flame-retardants
learning and developmental disabilities persist with lasting impacts on children
families and society on average it costs twice as much to educate a child with a
learning or developmental disorder as to educate a child without one I also
co-direct project tender which is targeting environmental neurodevelopment
risks tender is an alliance of more than 50 leading scientists health
professionals and children's health advocates who in July 2016 published a
scientific consensus statement on toxic chemicals that are interfering with
fetal and children's brain development in the published consensus statement the
tender experts named PBDEs as chemicals that are putting children in America at
increased risk for neurodevelopmental disorders including ADHD learning
disabilities intellectual impairments and autism so since the cpsc hearing in
December 2015 we now have published scientific
consensus that PBDEs have the capacity to harm brain development and that even
low-level exposures may result in learning behavioral or intellectual
deficits the tender statement also outlines the scientists concerns with
halogenated flame retardants that are replacing PBDEs noting that the
replacement flame retardants are similar in structure to PBDEs and emerging
evidence shows they are similarly neurotoxic halogenated flame retardants
look like thyroid hormones and can disrupt thyroid function this is true of
PBDEs and of the replacement flame retardants thyroid hormone is essential
to healthy brain development again the science is even clearer now than it was
two years ago that halogenated flame retardants can change baby's brains and
can result in lifelong intellectual and developmental impairments halogenated
flame retardants cross the placenta to the fetus and are detected in you
Millican cord blood and in breast milk these chemicals migrate
furniture baby and children's products electronics enclosures and mattresses
into household dust the US EPA estimates that children ages one to five ingest on
average four to five times the amount of dust that adults ingest a 2002 I'm sorry
2012 study found that toddlers were significantly exposed to PBDEs from dust
particles on their hands and on objects such as toys and bringing their hands
and toys to their mouths there was a strong correlation between the PB de
levels on their hands and the levels measured in their blood but maybe those
levels are so low that they don't matter that is what the staff recommendation
claims that these levels are so low that they probably don't matter
after all we're talking about parts per billion here's what I would like the
Commission to understand parts per billion sounds deceptively small
consider chemicals that are designed and prescribed to children to alter behavior
like Ritalin the prescribed dose of Ritalin for a child with ADHD is active
in the child's body at about the same level as the level of flame retardants
found in the child's body so this behavior altering prescribed chemical
Ritalin is acting on the child at the same level the same dose as the level of
flame retardants in the child are acting on that child's body and those levels
are parts per billion we know that the fetus infants and
children are regularly exposed to halogenated flame retardants in part
because these chemicals migrate from products into house dust and are
ingested we know how agitated flame retardants are active in children's
bodies at levels that can disrupt thyroid hormone and function which in
turn disrupts brain development and function and we know that the resulting
harm to children's minds is permanent as an advocate for children and adults with
learning disabilities and as a parent I cannot understand why the Commission
would allow this class of toxic chemicals to continue to be used in
products that are in our homes and schools and childcare centers
based on everything we know we urge the CPSC to issue this rule and protect
infants and children from these neuro toxic chemicals thank you thank you very
much and now joining us via phone line is dr.
Bloom Arlene Blum dr. bloom are
you still connected to us dr. bloom will pause for a moment see if see if mr.
Magoo can help us out here Arlene if you can hear us maybe your
phone is just unmute Claire dr. bloom dr. bloom is Miss Mills
on the phone I'm so high I was on you I apologize my thank to the chair and the
commissioners for allowing my remote testimony and apologies for not being
able to get off you I really appreciate the chance to speak with you
I'm Marlene bloom the executive director of the green science Policy Institute
and a research associate in chemistry at the University of California Berkeley
during my presentation today I will briefly discuss the chemical class
approached how it applies to flame retardants and consumer products and why
this approach is necessary for protecting the health of our population
from these harmful chemicals and consumer products as we know most
unfortunately most of the 80 thousand registered chemicals and consumer
products and in commerce in the u.s.
Today lack adequate toxicological
information and as we've heard already several times after a chemical begins to
show adverse health effects it can take years for it to be phased out or banned
and then the replacement is often a closely related chemical in a cycle of
regrettable substitutions meanwhile the incidents of health and ecological harm
including neurological endocrine and immune disorders reduce fertility and
cancer all of which may be associated with chemical exposure is increasing
rather than attempting to address these tens of thousands of chemicals on the
market one at a time the chemical class approach provides an understanding of
why some entire chemical families or classes commonly found in consumer
products are all likely to be harmful reducing the use of entire classes of
chemicals of concerns especially when their function is not essential as in
the case of many claimants will prevent regardless
institutions and lead to healthier consumer products among the thousands of
synthetic chemicals the class of organic halogens is uniquely problematic as
we've heard these chemicals are often toxic and resistant to degradation
leading to their persistence and bioaccumulation in our bodies indeed
there were only been 24 chemicals globally banned as persistent organic
pollutants under the Stockholm convention and all 24 are organo
halogens harmful flame retardant in the past has been found at pound levels in
consumer products in a typical home as we've heard this this has been reduced
due to the lack of benefit and the serious harm to our population however
as we've also heard there are efforts to once again bring back their youth there
is a the National Fire Protection Association has working on an FDA 277
which would be an open flame standard for furniture we've heard in Europe
they've just developed a new standard for children's mattresses that would be
most likely to be met by flame retardants which has an open flame
component so the fact that right now we're in a pretty good place and these
chemicals are not being required and therefore not being used to the same
extent as they were in the past doesn't mean that that could not change in the
future as we've heard beginning my work on this began in 1977 when we found that
a flame retardant brominated Tris was used in children's pajamas that it ended
up in the children was a mutagen and likely to cause cancer again it was
replaced with chlorinated Tris and that one minute remaining to this day that
when one flame retardant is phased out it is usually replaced
with another organo halogen so I would just like to say that this series of
harmful and unneeded organo halogens in products since the 1970s has doubtless
been a contributor significantly to health problems in our population to
cancer to infertility to neurological problems in our children by approving
the organo halogen petition the CPSC has the opportunity to end this series of
regrettable substitutions so we can have healthier consumer products and a
healthier population thank you thank you very much dr.
Bloom and I will just say
that avery Lindemann is also on the line i believe and she is available to answer
any Commission questions as well as dr. bloom so this will begin the round of
questions by the Commission and I will begin ms Gartner you mentioned that
there was some precedent here at CPSC with regards to toys regulating
children's toys so I just wanted to first of all clarify what you were
referring to I'm sorry I was referring I was trying to make the point that that
the Commission has has a history of regulating products by by class not just
regulating a particular product and so the Commission took the step of
regulating all toys that are used by small children and that have small parts
and requiring certain precautionary labeling which is ultimately what the
statute is is it's a precautionary statute and that was challenged by the
toy industry which said well you can't just regulate the entire class of of
toys you need to you know pick a particular product and regulate that
product if you think it's warranted and the court the court rebuffed that
challenge of how the Commission's authority and said very
clearly that the the history of the FH essay shows that Congress intended this
Commission to regulate broadly and prescriptively across you know across an
entire class that that was how Congress intended the FH essay to be used so
obviously chemicals are different than small parts but I still think that the
they both present hazards and I think that the point is that this is a statute
it's a precautionary statute that's intended to be used in a broad
prescriptive way to protect humans thank you very much I think I would just make
a distinction that that was CPSIA not FSH sa no that was it was Iraq in the
70s but that that was a regulation versus a band well this will show and I
apologize because I what I thought might be apropos because of the two issues
that both of you and Ms Weintraub raised here that I would ask our general
counsel not this morning but before we vote on this petition next week to
provide the Commission some legal advice on FHS a and the what the appropriate
response would be and what the bar is for for the Commission thank you miss
Swenson I just wanted to in your testimony you referred to first of all
you said since 2015 there was yet another study and in your testimony
there aren't any footnotes or references to the study unless I'm not unless I'm
not looking at I think I am but I don't see any footnotes or references so that
study along with the 2011 and the 2012 study that's in your testimony if you
could provide that to the Commission I think that would be extremely helpful
and hopefully illustrative of your point absolutely I apologize I had those
references to the earlier studies the 2012 in my written comments submitted
several years ago but I I just got to add those references and then the
the tender consensus statement that was published I provided to the Commission
but I will absolutely put that in the references as well thank you those
quickly thank you very much it would be greatly appreciated and then in my
remaining one minute and 30 seconds I just would ask any of you on the panel
on our second panel to address some of the staff concerns that I raised with
dr.
Birnbaum in the first panel this data gap the fact that we don't have
enough information on each chemical specific chemical to to allow us to then
ban a class of chemicals that's troubling I think to the scientists
these data gaps also the fact that the petition uses older data rather than
newer data and doesn't accurately reflect the marketplace so I'll leave
that up to whoever would like to speak to that well I'll quickly say I think as
dr. Birnbaum said especially in this rapid environment there will always be
data gaps Read Across is a method that is used within the scientific community
to make assumptions based on what is known now to protect to project about
what will rapidly be occurring in the future there will always be data gaps
but we also have vast amounts of data as dr.
Birnbaum said confirming that of
those that have been studied of this class they are they all show adverse
health effects so I think that's very significant for that first point thank
you my time is expiring and and so I guess I would just ask all of you going
forward wouldn't it make more sense to then perhaps not necessarily CPS or
excuse me CPSC but maybe another agency that's more well suited and has a budget
that could accommodate this kind of a inquiry but at least where we have found
a connection with toys to a certain degree that that would be the first
inquiry rather than going so broadly and banning all of these various chemicals
by the classes and through the products that you've identified Thank You
Commissioner Adler picking up on the Chairman's question we've heard numerous
references that we should defer to EPA and let
pa take action with respect to these chemicals we know EPA's investigating
them and I throw this open to the panel as well can anybody explain reason why
we should defer to an EPA or should not defer to EPA I can I can start with that
so I would strongly urge the Commission not to just wait for EPA to act so as
the Commission knows Congress recently amended the Tosca statute I think
there'll be a witness speaking to this later today but under that statute EPA
has selected 10 chemicals to be the first batch of chemicals to undergo risk
evaluation that batch includes a single flame retardant HB CD which is within
this Organa halogen flame-retardant class but it's not the most it's
primarily used in building insulation so it wouldn't it's not the primary or
anywhere near the primary flame-retardant use in the products at
issue here we have no idea if or when EPA will conduct risk evaluations for
other Organa halogen flame retardants it's a completely unknown question they
had the opportunity to address these organic halogen flame retardants that
are used in consumer products and they chose not to I think it there's really
no reason to delay this commission this is squarely within this Commission's
jurisdiction to protect consumers thank you very much I'd like to ask dr.
Lowery a question you talked about the cumulative effect of ofr s as a hazard
and I guess I would ask this do you have any knowledge about any ofr that would
contribute such a small amount of toxicity that it should be permitted to
stay on the market well as dr.
Birnbaum alluded to you you can't actually just
look for one of the ofr s in a person's body and find only one it is a mixture
it's going to be from all of the different products that a child is
exposed to including the four different kinds of products that we're talking
about here and it's so it's that you know could it be that one that's causing
something sure but do we know no and in fact we know that from all of the ofr s
that are on the market many of those who have
been studied that we have the ability to study cause harm and then again as dr.
Berman said we haven't found one that is okay and I'd like to ask dr.
Bloom a
question if she's still there you point out that among thousands of synthetic
chemicals produced by industry the class of organic halogens is quote uniquely
problematic having to do with things like their toxicity fat loving nature
and resistance to degradation can you provide a bit more detail about what
makes these uniquely problematic as opposed to other hazardous chemicals in
other words why should the CPSC be focusing on organo halogen flame
retardants as opposed to other potential hazards in the marketplace well I think
in the original petition we have scientific statements from a dozen
scientists some of the points are that these sorts of chemicals are not natural
to any mammalian biochemistry so there are no organo halogens in any mammals
and our bodies just don't know how to deal with them so for example there's
something you could think of as as cellular bouncers that keep toxics out
of ourselves but they don't know how to deal with organo halogen so they go into
our bodies and then many of the detoxifying mechanisms and ourselves
they also don't know how to deal with them so they tend to go into our bodies
and stay and across the population cause harmed and and I would refer you to the
statements by experts listing many many other reasons why but that one to get
started quickly thank you very much miss Swanson you state that halogenated flame
retardants I'm sorry to be so quick about this work time is short change
baby's brain sin can result in lifelong intellectual and developmental
impairments Oh fr-s are obviously not the only source of developmental
disabilities and children but they seem according to you to play a significant
role in causing harm do you have any sense of how serious of' ours are with
respect to the overall issue of learning disabilities or am I asking a known as
turbo question well as others have pointed out children
all of us and especially children are exposed to such a mixture of chemicals
many of them are some of them toxic but we know the body of evidence keeps
accumulating and it all is arriving at the same conclusions on the Oh hrs that
I'm sorry the oh FRS that that the Oh FRS are contributing to learning and
developmental disorders that are then lasting you know that that this brain
disruption often through disruption of the thyroid and that's that's typically
how the halogenated flame-retardants act on a child's brain is through
thyroid disruption some of them are also directly neurotoxic they do act directly
on the brain and so those that interferences dr.
Birnbaum pointed out
it is is not cannot be reversed so I would refer again to the the tender
consensus statement that the scientists and health professionals did a careful
consideration of all the toxicological and epidemiological evidence as well as
exposures prenatally into children of different chemicals and arrived at
really a small number of chemicals that they felt comfortable saying are the
prime examples of toxic chemicals that are contributing to learning and
developmental disabilities and PBDEs were among those prime example chemicals
so they're they're being called taking us way over our time and I know thank
you for the answer and your answer on parts-per-billion really chilled me
thank you very much Thank You Commissioner Robinson thank you I just
can't resist saying first of all that these this issue before us is very much
within our jurisdiction if he has been very muscley about trying to take over
things within our jurisdiction as is evidenced by them trying to take over
what we're trying to do to make portable generators safer and I am very sad to
say that our chair seems to agree that the EPA should
be able to take that over and the direction APA wants to take us in as
pointed out recently by former EPA director Christy Whitman is very very
anti science and when we look at what just happened in Houston with the eight
flooded Superfund sites and the fact that our EPA is missing in action I
think that this tiny agency has to do everything we can to protect our public
with respect to our air and anything else we can that's within our limited
jurisdiction but this definitely is MS Swanson I would like to follow up on
some of the studies that you cited because our staff seems to have been
concerned about the links that I think frankly must much of it is impossible
for there ever to be data on but they want to take these four specific
products link it through some data to the actual dust link the dust to the
blood and the blood to adverse health effects so much of this I think is
logical but let me just walk you through because in the you cited a 2011 study of
baby products that found 80% of the items contained ofr s and then you
talked about finding from that that there were high higher levels of ofr s
in the dust do you know of and then you talked about PBDEs in the 2012 study
that showed from the dust into the children's blood I'm just wondering if
you've given us all that you know about in terms of the studies that would make
those links from the product to the child's blood and or to adverse health
effects well I've cited some of the studies that
I know of fitter the that are the most relevant but I believe that dr.
Stapleton who's testifying later today is she's an exposure scientist and a
toxicologist who a few of the studies that I cited are her work and so she
will be able to much better provide the you know
the very most updated right we have great witnesses that know me before us
today I would like to turn him as gardener and MS Weintraub for a minute
and just ask if you have any thoughts on whether we should find a way of limiting
your petition in in any way which has been suggested such as naming more
specific classes of Oh FRS or individual ofr s whether you've thought about
limiting the number of products and and I just I any thoughts you have on
whether that's something that we should think about um I think that the data
presented in the petition and that has been forthcoming indicates that no there
is no evidence to support narrowing the petition in any way based on the class
or the products in terms of certain products not containing FRS in terms of
mattresses my understanding is that that is actually not true that there are
mattresses on the market that contain FRS that will be discussed later today
but ultimately I think if that decision to narrow the petition is to be made it
should be made at a stage later after the Commission has already granted the
petition within the petition process is looking at the data before it and if
there is a compelling reason weighty evidence supporting a narrowing in some
way then that is the time to narrow it certainly not at this point in time okay
and again I'll just as to both of you and either of you may answer but I'm
interested in what you would have to say about why we shouldn't just let the
market do self correction and let industry police itself I can take that
on I think that you know the answer and I tried to address this briefly is that
it just it will not work and we know that there's four all four of these
categories of products there is no actual standard that compels the use of
flame retardants and was part of why we we chose these four
categories nobody is requiring the use of flame
retardants in furniture in mattresses and kids products and yet they are still
being used in these products the market is not is maybe reducing it but it's not
eliminating it and even some of these PBDEs that we've known for a decade are
truly toxic everyone agrees that PBDEs air toxics they're still being found in
TV casings Washington state data shows that deca BD e is still being used in
children's products these are all products that are being imported into
this country but the data is overwhelming that of the toxicity of
PBDEs and they're still being used so the market really isn't is fallible
they're not going to go away unless the door is closed and this commission is
the perfect body to close that door thank you very much I'm going to connect
Tom Thank You Jimmy I apologize but perhaps Commissioner K would let you
finish up commissioner K sure dr.
Larry go ahead please well I
just wanted to mention that I've had conversations with parents who want to
choose to buy products that don't have flame retardants in it and they are
available but they're actually more expensive to not put them in than to put
them in and so that again it brings up an environmental justice issue where
those that are going to be more vulnerable or poverty and minorities who
are already exposed in larger quantities to other toxins are not going to be
afford those products without the flame retardants thank you for that and that
actually I think segues well as well into mr. Simmonds statement and if you
want to just elaborate a little bit more on the moral imperative that exists here
please I think that would be helpful yeah certainly and thanks for the
opportunity to share I think it's also important to bring up the moral
perspective and the sense of justice I mean the fact that those who have less
opportunity and our disadvantaged suffered the most certainly something
that all of us as a society must consider and the bishops respectfully as
non experts speak yeah certainly there there might not be
you know complete information but there's a Prudential judgment with the
information we have science can really never tell us what to do and it is a
Prudential judgment and from their perspective from moral voice they have
shared that view thank you for that I certainly share that view as well and
dr.
Bloom as mr. Simmons just said that there could potentially be some
scientific uncertainty here you heard or if you were hopefully
you're on the line or you were listening in and you heard director Birnbaum
testimony where she didn't seem to believe that there really is any doubt
about how harmful these chemicals are to our children do you have any
disagreement with that no I completely agree at another point I would like to
make is that these chemicals are used in these products at extremely high levels
in some organic halogens are used at 5% levels in our 2011 study of juvenile
products we found a children's changing pad that was 13% carcinogenic tris in
plastic there used at levels of about 20% and so that means in a typical home
there can be pound levels I don't think there are any other toxic where you
would actually find pounds in a home so in terms of the hazard posed and the
opportunity for reducing hazard and protecting health this petition provides
a unique opportunity to really make a big difference in the products and the
health of all consumers dr.
Bloom are you aware of any legitimate science that
would call into question both your testimony and dr. Birnbaum testimony
about the real and present danger these chemicals present to children
we have been I've been following the literature since the 1970s when we first
found Tris and baby pajamas and wrote a lead article in science pointing out the
potential for harm to American children and I have to say in the 1970s three
months after our lead article in science the consumer product
Safety Commission took action in three months and banned the use of brominated
Tris so I think that that's a great model of how this Commission can in the
past took action and I really hope that that will be possible once again so in
light of the demonstrated and real harm to children lower IQs autism rates other
learning and developmental delay delays and other health effects and the real
costs those have on societies and families in particular I would imagine
dr. bloom that there has to be a darn good reason for why as policymakers we
would turn a blind eye to addressing these chemicals and allowing them to
continue what would be the policy rationale and the benefit to society to
allowing these chemicals to continue to come into our homes I I can't think of
any I mean it is a little bit the class concept is a little bit of a new thing
but when you have three thousand kinds of highly fluorinated chemicals many
hundreds of kinds that work out of halogen flame retardants where
regulating them one at a time is going to it's just not going to happen I I
think it's time that that that sort of the class concept needs to be considered
and the Commission I think it really provides an opportunity for you to take
action and help protect all of us and does anyone else in the panel one and
offer a justification that would give us a reason to maintain the use of these
chemicals in the home and have children be exposed to them okay thank you Thank
You Commissioner Maher avec thank you madam chairman and I appreciate all the
testimony we just heard today I want to direct some questions to miss Gartner
and his wine travel fee could I I hope you can help me reconcile a disconnect
that has truly vexed me for the my entire time on the Commission and it
gets down to demand drivers and in looking at your petition and looking at
the categories of products I think it's been well understood I've looked at the
demand drivers why would a manufacturer pay millions of dollars to put ofr s in
particular products without a demand I can't see ofr sales people being so
persuasive that to get somebody to spend millions of dollars and the
complications in terms of its impact on manufacturing to add these chemicals if
there were not a demand and in looking at the product categories and how the
voluntary standards and have have evolved over the years the demand no
longer exists for juvenile product I recognize fully that you still express
real concern for their existence and some of those products but the demand
drivers are not there they're not there in the mattress side fortunately the
electronics community has moved away from the old ul approach to a ISO
approach that would only require the the level of resistance to flame to be
around the heat sources therefore not requiring around the hole casings etc
and then we're left with furniture and then we're left with that one big
category which still presents an opportunity for a demand driver and I
don't see any disconnect with our staffs recommendation to have us deploy
resources time and money towards the advancement of a large open flame
standard for upholstered furniture their perspective is laid out in their
response to the petition so I don't see any irrationality behind them also then
suggesting that we should move forward with the NFPA standard is it NFPA 271 so
277 – thank you very much 277 so I don't see any disconnect there
but as Andrew Carnegie said the older I get I less attention to what people say
and look forward to look at what people do but yet this commission continues to
vote in our operating plans to advance NFPA 277 but yet you hear all this
concern about the demand drivers for flame retardants yet at the same time
we're gonna have a vote in October on an operating plan to continue to deploy our
staff to advance a large open floor now not just open flame as we now open
flame where it's a first item ignited the NFPA standard is a large open flame
so it'll it'll be so resistant that when there is a conflagration in the house
that piece of furniture won't contribute to it you can imagine the amount of
flame retardants that would be required can you help me understand why after
hearing what you heard here today and seeing no disconnect in terms of our
staffs opinion how the opinions expressed today and also continue to put
resources towards NFPA 277 I'm not sure that I fully can Commissioner I think
you know we would certainly say that the Commission should not be devoting
resources to promoting a large open flame standard that that adoption of
that standard will inevitably drive high level use of toxic flame retardants and
furniture and would be a major step backwards so we we would certainly urge
the Commission not to not to fund that effort but we would also I think it is
really critical to close the door on the Organa halogen flame retardant so that
if that standard does go forward regardless of that Commission's
involvement that the however that standard is met it's not met with these
flame retardants that we know are damaging our children's brains in future
and in terms of demand drivers flammability standards whether they
require organo halogens or not will end up being complied with through the use
of organic halogens because they are one of the least expensive alternatives
effective probably in terms of related their ability to resist flame excuse me
possibly not yet another reason another reason to prohibit their use right so as
the fact that there are standards that do not necessarily require flame
retardant um does not at all mean that they will not be in the products and
that there lies the driver miss wine tribe if you are a commissioner would
you vote in our operating plan to continue to deploy
staff towards the completion of NFPA 277 as a commissioner I would have to you're
not going to like this answer but I would have to look at it much more
carefully with my very wise counsel and to better understand the issue okay
thank you very much thank you very much that concludes this our second panel
this morning and I will again would like to thank all of you for being here to
dr.
Bloom for joining us via telephone and miss Linderman thank you for being
available to us this concludes our second panel and at this point the
Commission will take a 10-minute break and then we'll resume for panel number
three thank you all very much mr. Taylor are you on the phone yes I am
on the phone can you all hear me we can hear you just fine thank you very much
welcome back to the continuation of this public hearing and of the Consumer
Product Safety Commission our hearing will now resume and just a reminder this
is a public hearing to solicit comments on the petition requesting that
Commission rule initiate rulemaking under the federal hazardous substance
act to declare several categories of products containing additive organo
halogen flame retardants to the banned hazardous substance we've heard from two
panels this morning and now we will begin from to hear from our third panel
on this panel we're pleased to have and I should say to all of you if I
pronounced your name incorrectly please feel free to correct me our first
panelist is dr.
Thomas Azam it's from science strategies our second panelist
is dr. Diana Zuckerman third is mr. Rick Goss fourth is dr. Elena Rios fifth is
ANSI is it an si ancho ancho Miller and joining us via phone is mr. Steven
Taylor the campaign for healthier solutions so I thank you all for being
here for giving us your time and attention to this matter and we will
begin the testimony this morning with mr. estimates
thank you very much chair Buerkle and the commissioners appreciate the
opportunity to talk to you my name is tamas mitts my way background I have a
doctorate in toxicology certified in toxicology and United States by American
Board and also a registered toxicologists in Europe I've spent much
of my career looking at a wide range of chemicals and their potential hazard
toxicity exposure and risk and like to comment a little bit about the the
petition and the staff report in particular I'm offering my petition
these are my opinions about doing it under the office auspices of the
American Chemistry Council where I chair of the Science Advisory Council for the
flame-retardant Alliance and that group consists of three toxicologists and
three fire science expert and I'm here really to support the CPSC
recommendation the staff recommendation to deny the petition they did a
tremendous job and not everything in there yeah I have read and understand
but I'll talk about the science pieces of it at least and there's two points
that I think really were compelling to me and I can give some examples of why I
support it one is the need to examine flame retardants in as individuals I
clearly understand as a toxicologists I'd like to group things together and do
Read Across when possible but there are several examples of where that isn't
possible and I'll go inside in a minute and second of all the importance of
considering exposure potential and risk again this is something that
toxicologists deal with all the time I'll often get asked the question if we
do the following restrict ban substitute will it materially affect the health
that people were protecting that's the kind of question I get all the time and
I'll give some perspective on that and why I think the the petitions should be
denied and really supporting many of the conclusions that the staff made with
regard to the idea of grouping you know many of the chemicals I think we talked
a lot about the different ways of doing this many of the molecules have been
studied for years and there is compelling evidence that would say that
there's reason to be concerned about either they animal toxicology or some of
the human data but but the one example I think that it's a couple examples that
really break with that and I like to talk about TCP P which is one of the
molecules we we often hear about TCP is not neurotoxic it's not reproductively
toxic it's not a PBT and I'm saying that not just my opinion there's literature
there's regulatory pronouncements to light effects so there's a molecule
that's used in significant quantities it doesn't have those properties yeah so
that really runs counter to the idea that you can group all these things
together because they happen out of halogen and that's a widely used and
widely studied molecule TVPA is another one where and many of those properties
don't apply and there's data to show that it doesn't mean that they shouldn't
be looked at carefully because I think they should and the exposures to them
should be looked at carefully but trying to do it all at once just isn't
isn't effective and it isn't sincere Tula science second of all with regard
to the risk and I think the staff did an excellent job of supporting this as well
it's it's tempting again to look at biomonitoring data and say we have this
in our body so we must regulate it I examined roasted coffee which contains a
number of chemicals which on the prop 65 list is known human carcinogens their
mixtures and I'm not a coffee drinker but people that are exposed to half a
dozen two dozen of these every day and their mixtures and we do it because the
levels are such that we don't think the risk is significant so merely saying
that because we are exposed to mixtures we have to regulate either of those
individually or as a class isn't isn't consistent with how we deal with others
hazards in in society so I'd consider that it's very important to look at the
individual molecules take a look at the exposure potential and whether
eliminating from the products you're talking about would one affect the
exposure level at all in many cases it probably won't and two is the level of
exposure such that there should be a concern anyway I think later show you
here some very good testimony on chemicals that have been found in
various products dr.
Stapleton will do an excellent job of that
but in many cases when you take a look at the monitoring data and the dust
levels and their potential exposure you would fall below the threshold of four
risk regulation and one of the thresholds I look at is prop 65 which is
a very strict regulation when it comes to risk and in many cases the exposures
would fall below a threshold of regulation under that under that statute
so in closing I support the analysis of the staff in recommending denial of
petition based on two primarily two reasons one the lack of the scientific
support to group chemicals together from a standpoint of toxicity and to the
importance of considering exposure of risk because not all chemicals be the
present industrial president bio monitoring fluids present the same risk
and to prioritize you need to be considering potential risk thank you
very much thank you very much dr. Zuckerman
thank you I'm president of the National Center for Health Research which is an
independent profit Research Center we don't accept
money from the chemical companies or any other companies that whose products
would be influenced by our testimony I also want to say that I come from the
perspective I have postdoctoral training and epidemiology from Yale Medical
School I was a researcher at Harvard and Yale and I am a scientist but I'm not a
toxicologist I can't even pronounce some of these words but as an epidemiologist
I'm used to looking at research and on humans how do we look at exposures on
humans and the impact on human health and look at the patterns of those
studies and and those findings so we've been very impressed with what the
Consumer Product Safety Commission has done on other endocrine disrupting
chemicals and children's products and we hope that you'll take a similar approach
to these flame retardants I want to start by saying the EPA website
currently states that organo halogens are highly persistent bioaccumulative
and cause adverse effects in human and Wildlife in humans and Wildlife because
of the widespread use of these organo halogens and household items and
consumer products indoor contamination may be a significant source of human
exposure especially for children this is all direct quotes one significant
concern with regard to health effects associated with exposure to organo
halogens is endocrine disruption so that's a direct quote from the EPA
website today oh if ours migrated into the air and
dust as you've heard and into a film on surfaces such as walls and fabrics and
even tables like this and they can get on our skin and although they can be
washed off they just come back on so the bottom line is that once ofr s are
indoors they stay indoors they don't disappear and that means that humans
will be exposed to them day after day and also just to say you know this is
dust that we can't see you know this looks like a very very clean
but it's filled with dust that comes off these products that are in this room and
in every room that we're in every day so our Center was not involved in the
petition but it has a lot of footnotes on numerous relevant studies that we
found very persuasive and we want to say that as I think dr.
Birnbaum said since
that time there are even more studies that are even more persuasive and so we
can see clearly that the ingestion of dust containing ofr as a problem that
there's a hand-to-mouth transfer from the dust on our hands to direct us hand
contact or for children putting their hands in their mouths which they always
do and that the skin exposure from air or from clothing exposed to O FRS is
happening from indoor air and dust and we're breathing it in as you know many
children's products contain ofr s and they're exposed to the children are
exposed to these products and Columbia research has shown that pregnant women
and children are exposed in their homes to detectable levels as well to these
flame retardants including the O FRS and they point out that children infants and
fetuses are more vulnerable to the health effects the concentrations in the
dust are higher the closer you are to the product the presence and the number
of products with O FRS is statistically significantly associated with
contamination levels and that means it didn't happen by chance statistical
significance means it's a real finding a scientific solid finding and when one
removes the product from the room those levels go down
so in conclusion all afar's are directly admitting being emitted from the
products that are in our rooms and in our homes and the contaminants are in
our dust and in the air and we as humans are exposed to them all the time
and there is a variation in these different of' RS but the as dr.
Birnbaum
mentioned they're more similar than different in terms of all of them so far
have been found to harm human health and while in the ideal world we'd look at
each one individually that's not possible and so I suggest
that instead they be banned as a class and then if individual afar's are found
to be safe I don't think that will happen but if any individual ones are
found to be safe then they shouldn't be banned but we should assume based on the
patterns that the science tells us that as a class they should be banned thank
you thank you very much mr. Goss sorry thank you madam chair members of the
Commission my name is Rick Goss I'm the senior vice president for environment
and sustainability at the information technology industry Council or iti I'm
here today representing the interest not only of iti but of the consumer
Technology Association and IPC collectively our three organizations
represent the very definition of the manufacturers of electronic devices that
are contemplated under this petition here I'd like to start by thanking the
Commission and the staff for addressing this very important and complex issue
here and I'll add that the electronic sector in the high-tech sector certainly
has an abiding commitment to sustainability we have a commitment to
all of our consumers looking to constantly make our products more energy
efficient more recyclable to substitute out chemicals of concern to identify
preferable substitutes etc so we welcome this very focused inquiry in terms of
the impacts on the electronic sector here today in terms of my key points on
behalf of the techno electronic sector we do agree with the staff report in
terms of the conclusions that that report has reached here we believe that
the petition is written is overly broad in terms of its application to an entire
class of compounds here we also believe that it is insufficiently justified
terms of making the case that such a broad band needs to be imposed these
types of chemicals and compounds here I will certainly refer to the written
testimony that we submitted here in terms of some of the more specific
technical and scientific reasons why we believe that the staff report landed in
the right spot but allow me to focus on the reason why the electronics and tech
sector uses these flame retardants in certain of our products and certain
applications I would respectfully disagree with some of the prior
witnesses that flame retardants serve zero or minimal minimal efficacy and
electronics products in fact they are essential in electronics products
certainly there are ignition sources within electronics we need to be able to
meet safety and consumer protection standards and requirements in terms of
making sure that that safety risk is met that we do not have ignition or
flammability issues here and while the use of these flame retardants is not
compelled they are certainly unbalanced one of the better ways that the
electronics industry has to meet these safety requirements and these product
requirements here we have a limited number of potential avenues to choose
from in terms of meeting the the safety requirements that are set forth and that
our consumers demand from us here and I'll say when when we are designing our
products oftentimes we we are looking to hit a balance here there are in certain
occasions no perfect outcomes here certainly we are aware of the literature
on PBDEs and other types of flame retardants here but they also serve a
very important safety reason here and I think that that has been lost a bit in
terms of the discussions so far today that these flame retardants are designed
into the product for a very specific reason and on balance we believe that
the use of flame retardants of these particular o FRS and other flame
retardants we use are justified and needed based on the safety and
protection that they provide in our products here I would I would note that
the specific formulations that we use and in the specific uses here have
clearly been shown to increase fire safety and again several of the the
prior witnesses said that these had zero efficacy and I would I would certainly
disagree with that in terms of it being overly broad I would I would note that
there's been a lot of discussion today about PBDEs in particular that's a class
of chemicals that has been restricted under the European Union restriction
restriction on hazardous substances law for eleven years at this point there are
no peb de uses and electronics anymore that is certainly a recognized challenge
here but a lot of the examples we've heard today have been focused
specifically on PBDEs or have been focused on mechanical parts in toys or
been focused on ad D drugs I would caution the Commission against making
specific conclusions based on some of these very broad claims overall and
again try to remind the Commission of the reason why we are employing these
particular compounds for specific purposes and electronics devices here
and that they do serve a very important safety function and consumer protection
function I would also ask the Commission to further review what the outcome would
be if it were to ban all o FRS there would certainly be quite a few
unintended consequences including potential regrettable substitutions if
that should be the case thank you and I'm happy to answer any
questions thank you very much MS Rios yes I'm glad to be here front of
the Commission I'm representing the actually president CEO of the National
Hispanic Medical Association we were established in 1994 we represent over
50,000 is licensed Hispanic physicians in the country and work with our
partners to improve the health of Hispanics and other underserved as
physicians and health care providers we are party to this petition because we
have a unique expertise as to the challenges and health disparities facing
Latino communities especially across the country and as you know Hispanics are
now the largest ethnic group in the country number numbering over 50 million
in and within the next 20-30 years we will be a third of the country
when we look at the most vulnerable segments of our population we are
alarmed by the fact that we are allowing fetuses and newborn infants to be
exposed to toxic suction such as the ofr s when they are and especially at-risk
subpopulation because their brains and organ systems are in critical
developmental window and I think is especially interesting to note that the
Hispanic population is a very young population a very fertile population
lots of young mothers and young families that are exposed to these high levels of
flame retardant chemicals of particular concern are studies that have documented
the exposure of pregnant women to ofr s which are particularly because there are
strong links between prenatal exposure to these chemicals and reduced IQ and
greater hyperactivity in children furthermore the National Health and
Nutrition Examination surveys Haines and Ann Haynes surveys of 2004 from the CDC
found that at least one form of ofr 97% of the study participants this bio
monitoring study also showed that Mexican Americans which is 65 percent of
all Hispanics in this country and non-hispanic blacks had higher levels
than the non-hispanic white population all pregnant participants in the in
Hanes CDC study had measurable levels of at least one ofr in their bodies looking
at the same Ann Haynes data researchers have found that individuals in
lower-income households less than $20,000 a year income levels had
significantly higher ofr x' exposures and flame-retardant chemicals are
transferred from the mother to the baby during breastfeeding
another major potentially potentially major route of exposure for infants and
of course in our families breastfeeding has always been a very high you know
because they can't afford to buy the baby formulas so we know we have
increased exposures thereto overall the highest levels of harmful flame
retardants in the general population are found in young children from communities
of color of low socioeconomic status and communities of color for instance a
North Carolina study of 80 toddlers found ofr s in 100
of the blood samples so Hispanic families have a lot to worry about and
from ensuring that their children are receiving a quality education to making
sure they are eating a well-balanced meal and they should not have to worry
about these chemicals that are harmful given the overwhelming scientific
evidence pointing to the harm of these chemicals we urge you to take immediate
action to grant the request of this petition and ban these toxic chemicals
from consumer products thank you thank you very much and I apologize I referred
to as miss Rios it's dr.
Rios thank you Miss Miller thank you and first I'd like
to thank you for the great pronunciation of my name I'm impressed he did well so
my name is on Shane Miller and I am with the center for environmental health I am
speaking to you on behalf of center for environmental health and also as an
extremely frustrated consumer the center for environmental health is a non-profit
national organization dedicated to protecting a public from exposure to
harmful chemicals in air water food and consumer products we're national with
headquarters in Oakland California and office in New York and I live and work
out of a great and beautiful state of North Carolina one of the ways that ceh
accomplishes our mission is through extensive testing of consumer products
for key chemicals of concern for the last five years ceh has been involved
with the testing of consumer products for the presence of flame-retardant
chemicals and testing for the presence of organo halogen flame retardants has
been a large focus of our work CH has conducted testing efforts on a wide
range of children's products and on furniture
both children's and adults sized furniture while CH has been heartened to
see a decrease in the number of products that contain flame-retardant chemicals
we are very concerned by ceh and others recent test findings in 2016 and in 2017
that correspond closely to the CPSC findings and other studies that show
approximately 25% of furniture and children's products still contain
unnecessary flame-retardant chemicals in 2016 CH tested 29 new foam containing
children's products that were purchased from major retail stores from across the
United States products included changing pads child sized furniture bassinet pads
high chairs and more of the 29 products tested analytical laboratory testing
found that seven of the twenty-nine children's products tested approximately
25 percent still contained flame-retardant chemicals and more than
one half of the products with flame retardants contain organic ala jhin's
one of the oddest findings was a foam baby bathtub a product that is designed
to be immersed in water that contained added halogenated flame retardant
chemicals flame returning a water product lights that flame retardants are
being added in products pointlessly we are very concerned that we are still
finding flame retardants in children's products because these products were
exempted from having to meet any flammability standard in January 2014
and no flame retardants have been needed in any of these products for the past
three years CHS finding of flame retardants and children's products
mirrors the CPSC zone finding that 22 percent of the children's products
tested still contain flame-retardant chemicals as well as clean and healthy
New York's testing of children's products which also found one quarter of
products containing flame-retardant chemicals ceh has also conducted four
rounds of testing on children's nap mats as used in daycare centers over the past
four years despite the fact that children's nap mats have never had to
comply with TB 1 1 7 the California flammability standard in effect until
January 2014 in our most recent testing of nap mats last year just last year we
still found 16% of the nap mats tested contain organic halogen flame retardant
chemicals the relatively new California Flint furniture flammability standard
Technical Bulletin 1 1 7 2013 allows furniture manufacturers to comply with
the California regulation without using flame ontari
chemicals although there is nothing in the regulation that prohibits their use
we serve on the Advisory Council of the California Bureau that oversees the
furniture flammability record regulations that panel reported that
while 75% of the furniture labels checked indicated that the product did
not contain added flame retardant chemicals 22% of furniture products were
labeled as containing added flame-retardant chemicals the remaining
3% failed to label the flame retardant content of the products at all again
while it's heartening to see the shift in the market away from furniture
without a flame retardant chemicals only almost one-quarter of furniture still
contains these unnecessary chemicals which is far too many Americans being
exposed to unnecessary and harmful chemicals there can be no doubt that
Oregon halogen flame retardants continue to be used in a significant proportion
of products in these categories that these chemicals migrate out of the
products and find their way into people's bodies and are associated with
serious health problems the CPSC has a duty to protect consumers and especially
children from these hazards thank you very much and now we will turn to mr.
Taylor who is on the phone joining us today
thank you can you still hear me okay we can hear you just fine thank you
wonderful my name is Steven Taylor and I am the campaigns manager for coming
clean which is a national collaboration of 200 and some organizations of
different sizes ranging from grassroots to national all focused on environmental
public health and protecting human health and the environment from exposure
to unnecessary toxic chemicals we host the environmental justice Health
Alliance which is a multi-state network of grassroots environmental justice
organizations functioning in communities across the country that are
disproportionately impacted by exposure to toxic chemicals from many sources
including from household and children's products we also host the campaign for
healthier solutions what I'm speaking on behalf of today which is
our nonprofit environmental justice effort working to promote health and
well-being in disproportionately impacted communities specifically by
working with discount retail stores commonly known as dollar stores to
remove hazardous chemicals from the products they sell so the campaign for
healthier solutions is led by and ground it in communities of color and
low-income communities that are disproportionately impacted by exposure
to toxic chemicals we use research partnerships advocacy science and other
approaches to reduce and eliminate exposure to harmful chemicals from the
products sold at dollar stores and so in my brief time I want to primarily draw
your attention to you know the particularly vulnerable population that
relies often entirely on dollar stores as sources of household products in food
including the categories of products at issue in the petition as you may or may
not know there are hundreds of communities across the country urban and
rural in which dollar stores are literally the only store selling
household products and food for many miles so there are large constituencies
and communities all over the country who literally have no other option no other
source for household products they in dollar stores as you have seen in the
petition and have heard or will hear from other commenters today and in
written comments you know there is extensive evidence that children of
color and low-income children are not only exposed to harmful levels of
organic halogen flame retardants from consumer products but are actually often
more exposed to these chemicals than white children or children of higher
incomes the dollar store customer base generally
is much more low-income than the overall profile of the United States 42% of
dollar-store customers earn less than $30,000 a year and at least 40% of their
customer base is on public assistance so the families and the communities that
rely on dollar stores you know often have less economic means to seek out
safer products and because of their geographic locations and lack of access
to other retail options they're often very reliant or entirely reliant on
dollar stores as sources of household products so because the major dollar
store chains have not required their suppliers to report to one minute
remaining presence of organic halogen flame retardants in the products they
purchase or if they have required any such reporting they are not disclosing
any of that information to the public the customers that rely on dollar stores
who again are disproportionately low income people of color without access to
other sources those customers have no assurance that the products they're
buying for their homes and families are free of these harmful chemicals and you
know as you have seen and heard according to publicly available testing
data these organo halogen flame retardants are still widely used in
products that will continue to expose children in late 2014 and early 2015 we
tested a set of diverse products purchased at the largest dollar store
chains in the country for certain toxic chemicals although we were not primarily
investigating the presence of flame retardants in those products we did
through the course of our screening find many products that contained
levels of bromine and chlorine that appear to indicate the presence or the
likely presence of a halogenated flame-retardant chemical that included
many strings of decorative mini lights a toy race car children's costume jewelry
pieces a set of spiderman dog tags so I'm I
know I'm close to time so I'll just close by saying that in millions of
families across the country that are disproportionately low income and
communities of color rely on dollar stores as their only source or their
primary source of household products it's very likely that they're continuing
to be exposed to organo halogen flame retardants through these product sources
and I hope that in considering the petition and the testimony and the
evidence before you that you think carefully about the families and the
communities and the constituencies that are already disproportionately exposed
to hazardous chemicals from any sources and are not going to have access to
other sources of products and safer products without the Commission adopting
to being proposed in its petition which we support so thank you for the time
Thank You mr.
Taylor and we will begin the Commission rounds of questions at
this point and I will begin with myself dr. awesome it's this morning we heard
from our first panels and I specifically brought up the concerns that our staff
addressed in the briefing package one of them was the data gaps and I think a
couple of folks who testified mentioned that this is something you're going to
see that this is they're constantly developing new chemicals and so there
will be gaps and there may be enough never be an opportunity to have that
whole data set in front of you could you speak to that is that sure this is it
this is a challenge because as I listened to the petitioners and think
about my own perspective on us it's hard to prove the negative and it's hard to
prove the positive it's hard to say they'll never be an adverse effect from
any chemical and under any circumstances and yet it's also difficult to say in
the absence of knowledge we have to act that it like there will be there will be
data gap so one thing I can say just from my personal experience companies
are doing a tremendous job with new molecules much more the better
techniques but our assessment methods in there were 20 years ago so I think you
as you see new chemicals and again that's I think not speaking as
an attorney because I'm not but regulatorily that's an EPA type function
the kinds of work that every company I've dealt with is dealing with this far
in excess of what it would have been 20 years ago so the kinds of data gaps that
have vexed some of the molecule especially pvd's I don't think you're
gonna see that in the future and that's something that maybe it'd be worth
getting a company expert to talk about some of the things they go through with
the stewardship they're putting into molecules is it very impressive and much
of it is because of concern by people like you and the petitioners thank you
very much mr.
Goss I wanted to ask you with regards to how these flame
retardants are designed into the product could you expand on that a little bit
and then also you spoke to the efficacy of these flame retardants if you could
expand on that as well no certainly when you ask how they're designed into the
products are you looking for a technical or a chemical answer no more of it well
I guess it's technical that chemical yes as has been noted they are they are
additive to the process and we're using them in enclosures for a number of
different devices now again these are not always ofr so we use other types of
flame retardants as well but in general the use of flame retardants these are
additive in nature we are designing them in to the enclosures and to power
supplies and other portions or components that have an electric charge
or electric current here and that is done to meet certain safety or consumer
protection requirements as I noted in my my prior testimony just a few minutes
ago yes there are other ways to to meet these ignition and flammability
requirements this particular approach using flame retardants provides one of
in our view the safest and most efficacious ways of doing so I'd be
happy to elaborate on some of the other options that are out there but the
safety record for electronics has been extremely high and when it comes to
flammability and ignition sources in large part because of the care that the
high tech and electronic sectors have taken to make sure that we can meet
those design requirements thank you and I would be interested in hearing other
options but more importantly with regards to the efficacy of the flame
Returns I'm going to assume which they say isn't
a smart thing to do that there are you've studied this you've looked at
this just to determine how effective these flame retardants are and the role
that they play in terms of prevention of fire and safety yes commissioner that's
absolutely correct I mean this is this is an ongoing process as I noted in my
in my testimony the high-tech and electronic sectors are constantly
looking at how they can improve the performance sustainability energy draw
of our products here and so this is part of an ongoing process where we're
constantly looking to see what improvements we can make and any any
platform of the product including flame retardants thank you and it would be if
it's not proprietary and you feel comfortable sharing with the Commission
I think that would be very interesting to see the efficacy and the studies
you've done with regards to these flame retardant certainly thank you mr.
Taylor
thank you for joining us via phone I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on
what you were talking about with the dollar stores because it sounded to me
like what I was hearing was they're completely they're not adhering to any
safety regulations and I'm just wondering if you can expand on that a
little bit why there is such a high propensity within this within those
stores and why it would be any different from any other store yes thank you I'm
just double-checking you can still hear me yes we can hear you just fine right
sure well I'll try to speak to your question and obviously let me know if if
I'm not getting to it the you know of many large retail companies right
including Walmart and Target have over the past several years adopted broad
corporate chemical management policies that seek to address the use of
hazardous and potentially hazardous chemicals in their supply chains and the
products they sell the largest dollar store chains Dollar General Dollar Tree
which now also owns Family Dollar have been very slow to move in
direction as some of the other large retailers and I'll note that the largest
dollar store chains collectively operate more stores in the United States than
Walmart does so over 20,000 individual stores and so while some other major
retailers have made some important attempts to require reporting from
product manufacturers and suppliers to the company sometimes disclosed to the
public – under you know the greater understanding of the chemicals used in
the products they sell or even to require suppliers to stop using certain
chemicals the dollar store chains have been you know slow on the uptake Dollar
Tree just very recently in June instructed suppliers to phase out a
certain group of chemicals mr.
Chen you know the the key point here is that the
dollar store chains have not been moving as aggressively as some other chains to
understand the apologies of the products they sell and their customer base mr.
Taylor proportionately already likely to be exposed to chemicals from multiple
sources and not have access to mr. Taylor I apologize we are way over my
time and so I'm going to cut you off perhaps with one of the other
commissioners you could finish up your testimony I should have given you a
warning that we were so so short on time Thank You commissioner Adler thank you
very much madam chairman of mr.
Goss based on your testimony is that a fair
assessment that your industry's unlikely to stop using ofr s and less force to is
that is that a fair assessment I wouldn't necessarily draw that
conclusion well what conclusion would you draw there the the conclusion I
would draw is as I said before our sector our companies are continuously
looking for better alternatives and better substitutions but it takes we
need to take into account a range of considerations that Inc
the efficacy potential negative impacts with the proposed substitutions its
characteristics its properties will it will it be not only efficient and do the
job but will it stand up over time taking that as a given then can you give
me a sense of how quickly your industry is likely to stop using no FRS I can't
give you an exact timeframe here but I can say that it is among the things that
we constantly look at and as I noted there are there are other other options
out there for meeting the same ignition and flammability requirements but we
have determined at this point that the best way forward is with flame retards
not necessarily of' ours but with flame retardants yeah and speaking
specifically with respect to O FRS there are two ways of adopting it one is to
say there's no negative scientific data and until we hear negative scientific
data we're going to use it without having an evidence one way or the other
the other is to say now we've studied this carefully and we've concluded that
there's no significant risk do you have a sense of what the prevailing
philosophy is with within your industry and if it is the latter can you give me
a sense of the type of o FRS that you've concluded in effect present no
significant risk it is in terms of the two options you presented to me on that
on a continuum here it is it is far closer to the latter here one of the you
know the hallmarks of the the techno electronic sector here is looking to
constantly innovate to look at that and meeting the commitment to all of our
customers here not only in terms of product performance but product safety
certainly as I noted we years ago phased out the use of PBDEs and other types of
o FRS that have been determined to a certain amount of certainty to have
adverse human health and environmental impacts here and can you tell me which
of' RS are currently being used within the industry I would have to check back
mass that you do that I certainly will information I'd be happy to and dr.
Oz
mitts welcome again I think I asked you at the last hearing to respond to this
whole concern about regret regrettable substitution may ask you again about
that because if I recall correctly and I may miss
characterize it if so I apologize you said well gee that's a serious problem
but I'm really wondering what is the answer to that well I don't remember
saying that but but I will sell words to that I'll update it or reiterate what I
said last time it's regrettable if you haven't studied the chemicals well and
put a lot of start of stewardship into that I'm ston my experience so what I
see companies do when they talk about asking me to take a look at their
procedures or look at individual studies I think companies are I think there
won't be regret all substitutions I think what you're gonna see for new
molecules in particular if companies see problems with the molecules without
exception they stop developing the molecules and that's my personal
experience so that is not an issue I worry about moving forward and you also
in your written testimony said that there are several published risk
assessments that demonstrate reasonable certainty of no harm which is about as
close to saying the word safe as the shortest ever would how recent are these
risk assessments and can you tell me which ofr s are mentioned sure actually
I ya the term actually comes from EPA language that's where I got the
reasonable certainly no harm there's two in particular that are worth looking at
FS of the European Food Safety Authority and I think date is 2013 is the revision
on that 4tb BPA and their conclusions I happen to have it here a couple of
points and I can send you them the doc if you would be glad to one of the
things they look at is exposure of children exposure of children to TVPA
from dust does not raise a health concern
that's Epps's opinion and F's is a pretty conservative organization I've
dealt with a lot of molecules in that group there's also a publication I can
send you to buy a wig off and I think she looked at all exposures including
dust drinking water infants older children etc and develop
margins of exposure to ways looking at risk for PD BPA as well and I can send
you that thank you very much I appreciate it Tilikum Thank You
Commissioner Robinson thank you dr.
Zuckerman I would like to turn to you
for a minute we have other witnesses who have talked about the the core of the
causal connection between higher bowls of of' ours in blood and urine and
children and the resulting effects on the on the child's health could you give
us your thoughts on the staffs position that we cannot grant this petition in
part because we can't trace the presence of of' ours in house dust specifically
to the for products that are at issue in the petition that I think that was the
part that surprised me the most in the report I couldn't make sense of it I
will say I haven't distinguished between all the studies that they looked at that
what that were included in the petition and the studies we have today and
perhaps the studies we have today are just so much stronger and better but
there's so much evidence as I said the you know if this is not the product but
if this were the product the dust concentration of ofr s here would be
higher than here and children would be differentially influenced by being
exposed to the ones here than being exposed to ones there so I mean we know
the other words the closer you are to the product the right and the more there
are that's the other thing it's not just clothes it's that you know children's
rooms can be filled with these products and so the more products there are and
the longer those products have been there and it's not disappearing you know
you take the product out but it's still in the dust okay
mr.
Goss I you I don't want to get sloppy here in terms of talking about
how essential flame retardants are in electronics because generally speaking I
don't think you'll find anybody disagreeing with that but we're very
specific in this petition that we're not talking about flame retardants inside of
electronics that are sealed in but rather in the casings and we had some
testimony the last hearing that the only reason you would need that is if you
held a candle up to a television and I was so why do you why do you include
specifically Oh eff ours in the casings of electronics when you have so many of
them that are perfectly allowable inside the the use of Oh eff ours again is very
specifically designed in two meat safety and consumer protection
standards here I'm not familiar necessarily with the the example you
shared about candles and television enclosures here I will note that between
the three associations here that I'm representing here today we make our
members make a huge range of electronic components finished products devices etc
here in terms of the use of IFRS and I'd be happy to come back with with specific
and and specifically I would love to hear why the casings that's all we're
talking about here we're not talking about internally which doesn't get into
the house test and I'd like to since I have a little bit of time here I'd like
to turn to miss dr.
Rios and to Steven Taylor you know we've we you you have
presented us with information about Mexican Americans non-hispanic blacks
and lower socioeconomic classes having have children having higher levels of oh
F is in their blood and urine and you mr. Taylor have talked about products in
the dollar store having higher Oh FRS I just be interested in and you can go to
any order you want but I'm interested I mean the implication here is that
somehow having ofr S is more expensive so why is it in your opinion we have
these lower socioeconomic classes that are more adept that the ORS are higher
in the blood and urine of the children you spoke dr. Rios about breastfeeding
but aside from that I think that mr. Taylor made the case for you know the
the uptake of of meeting the regulations and safety requirements as part of the
issue in our low-income underserved communities where facilities that stores
or products that are that are purchased that are sold are not meeting some of
the safety requirements I think that's part of the problem mr.
Taylor could you
could you just comment I mean if it's more expensive which is what I heard the
implication being from Commissioner more heroic to have ofr why would the cheaper
products are they higher if you know well I think here I mean
partly you're asking about the you know back up the the supply chain you know
and the decisions made by you know manufacturers which in some cases are in
China and you know by the sort of plastics manufacturers that sell to them
you know which is is largely beyond my expertise but you know I would say that
the even in the discount retail dollar store universe the different chains have
different products that's they sell and and somewhat different business models
so Dollar General for example sells products you know five ten fifteen
twenty dollars sometimes even higher they sell small microwaves small DVD
players the chain Big Lots which is again a deep discount store they
actually sell a lot of low-end furniture so you know you're largely asking me to
speculate but I would speculate that you know they're sourcing their products in
some cases even though they're lower-cost products from factories or
manufacturers that you know may make similar products but in some cases for
some retailers using you know higher quality somewhat more expensive
materials and for discount retailers sometimes using lower cost lower quality
materials mr.
T I'm going to be factures are sorta students the foams the fabrics
the plastics from manufacturers I apologize mr. Taylor I'm going to cut in
your time has expired and we've gone on far beyond the five
minutes it's a commissioner Kay thank you madam chair mr. Goss earlier today
was suggested that one of the reasons why the Commission should deny the
petition is that these flame retardants are not used in these products anymore
or that there's a and in the direction of them being
phased out it sounds like you're presenting testimony here today to the
opposite at least when it comes to your industry is that correct we are still
using of' ours in certain discreet uses that's correct is it
are they being phased out though is there an active campaign to phase them
out yes there is Oh fr is in your industry correct and
who is leading that what's sort of the game plan who was who was leading that I
would say our without naming brands here we have a number of leading companies
and our organizations Ritz writ large here in terms of our membership that are
constantly looking to innovate and find more effective ways to meet the same
requirements here I mean we are an industry built on innovation our
products are constantly being updated upgraded and evolving here and this is
one of the things that we have a very strong commitment to I'll mention here
I've been serving in this role for about 13 years the materials content of
products as one of the key things I've worked on both here in the US and in
Europe and this is just part of an evolution from our industry as part of
our commitment and you have a ballpark timeline as to when you think that these
would be phased out some of the response I gave to Commissioner Adler I I don't
want to wager a guess right now but I'm happy to come back if I can get some
more clarity from from companies as to what they believe is a timeline but your
understanding at least present day is that they continue to exist and continue
to be put on the market in your products they continue to be used o FRS continued
to be used in discrete uses and our products correct and when your
organization makes a recommendation or makes a decision or you recommend to
your members how to handle a certain product or a chemical or you even decide
to come in and to support or not support something like this petition what
technical expertise do you rely on to make that decision not you personally
about your organization right now excellent question we have certainly
within all of our companies they have science and technical experts
toxicologists epidemiologists who work on this type of an issue full-time I
also have on my own team at iti a chemist who previously testified at the
prior hearing this same taco topic back in 2015 this
is based on the expert judgments of those scientists and technical experts
and our companies who are reading the latest peer-reviewed literature and
looking at how they can make improvements while still maintaining the
same product performance and safety profile and we'll get back to that last
little bit you mentioned at the end because I think that's actually a pretty
significant clause you added on there do you do your experts have any reason to
disagree with the testimony of dr.
Birnbaum earlier about the seriousness
of this hazard and the impact on children I believe they would one of the
concerns that we have with with the petition and some of the prior testimony
today is it is trying to draw very specific conclusions based on broad data
that is specific to other types of compounds in the same class and we don't
believe that we can make that necessarily leap from certain studies on
other types of compounds to an entire class as the petitioners under some of
the witnesses here are proposing today we would similarly question whether
there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that well yes there there
certainly are studies that show that there is some level of exposure whether
that exposure actually goes into an actual adverse human health impact here
so I would believe that yes some of our experts would take some issue with that
so you disagree with dr. Birnbaum testimony specifically I I disagree well
you asked specifically about dr. Birnbaum testimony I would disagree
generally with the petitioners conclusions and some of the supporting
testimony that says that we can necessarily make a specific judgment
under the Commission should make a specific judgment on an entire class of
Oh FRS based on certain studies on certain members of that class as we've
discussed here today there are significant data gaps here and there
would be significant unintended consequences should the Commission go
ahead and card Blas ban all of' ours but do you disagree with with director
Birnbaum's testimony that the FR is that ofr that have been studied to date are
demonstrating an alarming impact on children do you disagree with
that there there are certainly some studies that support her conclusions I
would also point the Commission to EPA studies from 2015 I believe that
demonstrated that certain other Oh FRS had a low risk and I'm happy to share
those studies with what the Commission is appropriate and but of the ones that
dr.
Birnbaum talked about our members using those despite the impact on
children my my understanding again from the context of dr. Byrne Baum's
testimony was that she was referring perhaps not explicit and excuse me not
perhaps only but largely to PBDEs is my recollection from her testimony
this morning and we are no longer using PBDEs those were restricted by the EU
Ross directive 11 years ago and we have long since moved past the use of DVDs
thank you my time has expired thank you Thank You Commissioner / thank
you madam chairman I wanted to follow up on the line of questioning mr. Goss that
was pursued by Commissioner Robinson in terms of pointing out very specifically
what's identified here in the petition with regards to the casings of the
products I was I didn't know that there'd be so much interest from the
rest of my colleagues I was hoping to ask you first I did my best effort to
paint with a broad brush and looking at the electronics from what I gathered
from visiting with by phone with ul experts who helped me better appreciate
the evolution of the voluntary standards with regards to the electronics I was
hoping to ask you to provide some let me you know to let me know where I got that
wrong or to talk about how the standard has evolved I think missioner Robinson
mentioned or mentioned that she remembered the video demonstration of a
small open flame being applied to the housing of an electronics product
I specifically remember that as well can you provide any sort of of information
for the Commission in terms of how the standard has evolved with regards to
where there is a requirement for resistance to flame yes I'd be happy
happy to provide that especially and follow-up follow-up submissions here but
if you look at you and also IEC International
Electrotechnical Commission standards for Product Safety there are certain
requirements for again for safety and flammability here that our members need
to meet and that includes in the casings are at large here because obviously I'm
sure there are probably exceptions here but practically every product electronic
product is going to be carrying a current or a charge that we need to
factor in when we're doing our design and and protective design approaches
here so if you're if the question is if you're looking for how have the
requirements evolved over the years we're certainly happy to provide
additional input on that I am with specific regards to the casing because
if I was if I was wrong in my assessment earlier I apologize to the Commission
and to the public are there still requirements for the casings yes there
are still requirements for casings too to be able to withstand a certain flame
or not be subject to ignition as the current runs through them again as I
said before there are different ways to meet these requirements but overall and
again as I said before there's no perfect outcome on balance our
manufacturers and designers believe that the use of flame retardants including
some ofr s are the most efficacious way to meet those requirements balancing the
use of those compounds with consumer safety mm-hmm in the casings yes in
casings I'm happy to apologize thank you very much thank you all very much that
ends this rounds of questions from the Commission I would like to thank all of
you again for being here for giving us your time and in your expertise sharing
it with us thank you all very much and to mr.
Taylor on the phone thank you for
joining us and again my appreciation to all of you for being here thank you
thank you thank you Oh I'd like to ask the participants for our
next panel to please be seated thank you all very much we are going to
resume our hearing this morning and I want to welcome the participants in our
fourth panel thank you for being here all of you we do appreciate your
presence on this next panel we were pleased to have mr. Daniel Rosenberg
from the National Resources Defense Council while mr.
Rosenberg is
presenting dr. Jennifer sass from natural resource Defense Council is also
available to answer questions secondly we have MS lists Hitchcock from the
safer chemicals healthy family MS Kathryn Rogers from the Silent Spring
Institute miss Kathy ATAR physicians for Social Responsibility MS Raquel Siegel
International Association of firefighters and miss Abigail's avati
the League of United Latin American citizens thank you all very much for
being here and for taking the time to testify before the Commission today with
that we will ask dr. mr. Rosenberg to proceed parents wish it was dr.
Rosenberg dr. block I'll take that thank you for the opportunity to testify
before the Commission today my name is Daniel Rosenberg and I'm a senior
attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council
NRDC I have two principal messages to deliver to you today first this
Commission should not rely upon the fact that the Toxic Substances Control Act or
Tosca has recently been reauthorized and may be starting to emerge from its
40-year slumber as a reason not to grant the petition the current petition as I
outlined in my written testimony the revised Tosca will move very slowly and
evaluate only a few chemicals at a time and over fairly long timelines EPA has
already selected the first ten chemicals on which it will be focusing its
resources for the next several years and only one of those ten chemicals HPC D is
a flame retardant the fact that EPA is planning to evaluate H BCD should not
dissuade the Commission from granting the petition for several reasons in the
first place the fact that HB d c HB c d scuse me was selected by epa as one of
its first ten chemicals for review in the company of such other No
toria substances as asbestos and methylene chloride indicates the serious
seriousness of the agency's concerns about the chemical second any evaluation
and potential restriction of HB CD will take years and there's no reason why the
public should continue to be exposed via via consumer products while UPA conducts
its review third the EPA's review of HB CD as an individual chemical is not a
sufficient substitute for what the petitioners seek a restriction on the
use of organic house and flame retardants as a class 4th there is
precedent for the CPSC taking action on a chemical to protect the public before
EPA itself takes any action in the early 1970s the CPSC banned the use of carbon
tetrachloride and consumer products now 47 years later EPA has selected carbon
tetrachloride as one of the first 10 chemicals other first 10 chemicals for
evaluation under the revised toska after the first 10 chemicals that EPA is going
to evaluate it will select an additional 20 chemicals for review by the end of
2019 a process that itself could take an additional five to ten years for
evaluation restriction etc there's no guarantee that EPA will select any other
flame retardants or a class of flame retardants for review as part of that
process there's nothing in the structure of the new tosca or its current
implementation that justifies any hope that EPA will address the health threat
posed by organic halogen flame retardants in a manner or a timeframe
that will provide meaningful protection to the public for years to come if ever
meanwhile the Commission has the authority and the opportunity to protect
the public right now and that is my second message to the Commission
consumers remain woefully unprotected from exposure to toxic chemicals in
their daily lives particularly from consumer products as evidence has grown
about the health threats posed by numerous chemicals including flame
retardants and the extent of human exposure no federal regulatory agency
has come close to adequately addressing this problem existing limits on the use
of toxic chemicals are remarkable both for how few there are but also for how
successful they have been in increasing public health protection the most
significant restrictions on the use of toxic chemicals including the ban on
PCBs and any new uses of asbestos under Tosca PCBs was a class of chemicals
not individually regulated but banned as a class the Commission's bans on carbon
tetrachloride vinyl chloride and self pressurized household products and
restrictions on lead and paint and children's products the ban on LED in
gasoline under the Clean Air Act and FDA's recent ban on perfluorinated
chemicals and food also banned as a class these are the few but very
important examples that should be the Loadstar for the Commission's decision
to protect the public from this class of toxic chemicals now the chemical
manufacturers will tell you that their products are safe the same thing they
said for years and in some cases are still saying about lead asbestos PCBs
and vinyl chloride the chemical manufacturers will tell you that the
economy will be disrupted if you ban specific uses of their products the same
thing they said for years and in some cases are still saying about PCBs
asbestos lead and vinyl chloride and the chemical manufacturers will tell it will
urge you not to take action either because more study is needed or because
some other regulatory body EPA or FDA or OSHA is the right agency to address the
problem the same thing they have said for years and in some cases are still
saying about asbestos PCBs vinyl chloride and lead we urge the Commission
not to join the legion of previous regulators who have been cowed and
diverted by the chemical manufacturers as the record makes clear contrary to
the staff report the Commission has all the information it needs to act to
protect the public and dramatically reduce human exposure to a class of
toxic chemicals that currently invade our homes and enter our bodies even
prior to birth the Commission has before Dan opportunity to take a step that will
be as significant and as beneficial as previous historic decisions to protect
the public from exposure to asbestos PCBs lead and other toxic chemicals we
urge the Commission to take that step and I just also want to thank the staff
for all the work they did in putting this hearing together thank you very
much mr.
Rosalie Hitchcock thank you good afternoon commissioners my name is
Liz Hitchcock and I'm the government affairs director for safer chemicals
healthy families I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today in
support of the petition by Earthjustice CFA and serve
our coalition partners to adopt these rules and protect consumers and children
from the health hazards caused when toxic flame-retardant chemicals are used
in household products safer chemicals healthy families is a nationwide
campaign to reduce Americans exposure to toxic chemicals our coalition membership
reflects the multiple ways Americans are exposed to and harmed by toxic chemicals
we're parents health professionals advocates for people with learning and
developmental disabilities scientists environmental groups
organized labor and businesses from across the nation and we all share
concerns about the increase in negative health outcomes associated with our
exposure to toxic chemicals in addition to our policy work safer chemicals
healthy families is the organizer of a market campaign called mind the store
which calls on the nation's largest retailers to recognize the growing
consumer demand for safer products and to restrict dangerous chemicals through
mine the store we've worked with retail giants like Target and Walmart to adopt
and implement safer chemicals policies in my written testimony I relate our
concerns about the negative health effects of toxic flame-retardant
chemicals because others will Abele cover that ground I'd like to focus
today on the movement in the marketplace away from these dangerous chemicals and
why that movement should encourage the Commission to act favorably on this on
this petition in 2014 health care giant Kaiser Permanente announced an effective
ban on chemical flame retardants in the furniture it buys for its hundreds of
facilities across the country putting thirty million dollars in annual
furniture purchasing power behind its health and safety commitments other
health care providers have followed suit big office furniture purchasers like
Facebook and Yahoo have also signed a pledge to buy office furniture without
toxic flame retardants leading furniture manufacturers and retailers are already
bringing furniture to market without these chemicals demonstrating that a ban
on their use can be accomplished without major disruption in the
at plays I attached to my written testimony a list of the retailers and
manufacturers of residential furniture that have announced that they'll no
longer use toxic flame retardants for example Ashley Furniture the largest
manufacturer and retailer furniture in the country worked with its supply chain
to eliminate the chemicals from all upholstered furniture at the beginning
of 2015 other major furniture retailers
including Walmart Macy's pr1 IKEA I could go on and on but my time is
limited our have either eliminated or committed to eliminate flame retardants
these are positive developments that might even tempt us to say that
voluntary measures work that the markets doing a bang-up job and should just
handle the problem that's a temptation that I hope that the CPSC will not fall
prey to I also attached to my written testimony testimony a recent list of
manufacturers who report still using flame retardant chemicals many of those
companies reporting that they're using the chemicals in their products are not
commonly known many are based in China you heard on the last panel from my
colleague from the Center for Environmental Health that they found
flame retardants still in use in 25% of children's products you we've seen that
in other studies by non-governmental groups that flame retardants are still
in use in products on the market voluntary actions are terrific and as a
group that does market campaigns we definitely celebrate them but we also
recognize that those commitments are not enforceable and verifiable particularly
by individual consumers and we need the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
act to make them enforceable while it's encouraging declining use and voluntary
movement in the marketplace should not be a rallying cry for inaction these
chemicals are still being used in products that our children come in daily
contact with they're in our living rooms they're in our children's rooms they're
in nap mats and children's furniture with kid-friendly image
like Elsa and Elmo they expose our families to unnecessary hazard they
expose first responders to additional danger these chemicals are hazardous
their their hazards that the CPSC can and should do something about educated
consumers have changed the marketplace for a number of household products and
in the process they're making us safer companies that have responded to the
consumer demand for safer products deserve a great deal of credit but while
market victories can seem faster than regulation the process is chemical by
chemical business by business very slow and not yet enforceable if we're if we
are to take the urgency of tackling the chemical problem seriously we have to
take bigger bites out of the problem as as soon as we can and on behalf of
consumers represented by safer chemicals healthy families we urge the Commission
to take a bite out of this problem and approve this petition thank you very
much miss Rogers thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here today my
name is Katherine Rodgers I'm a scientist at the Silent Spring Institute
an independent research organization were based outside Boston Massachusetts
we research environmental chemical exposures and their impacts on women's
health I think it's also relevant to say that I serve on the secondary task group
for NFPA 277 scientists at Silent Spring Institute were the first to measure
PBDEs in US homes in 2003 at that time they were found to be 10 times higher
than levels and European homes since then we've continued to measure PBDEs as
well as other brominated and chlorinated flaming flame-retardant chemicals and
residences as well as for recently in student dorm rooms on college campuses
and in every study that we've conducted we have found homes or spaces that have
levels of halogenated flame-retardant chemicals that exceed risk-based
guidelines these are guidelines developed by the EPA that actually apply
to soil but since there isn't a risk-based guideline for dust we've been
comparing the levels that we find to that and it's actually a screening level
that's used for Superfund sites in a study of California homes that we
did we found brominated trips the mutagenic chemical that dr.
Harleen
Bloom was talking about earlier this morning that was removed from kids
pajamas in 1978 in 75% of the homes that we tested and I was recently looking at
other studies that have looked at dust in households and for those that are
measuring these types of flame retardant chemicals our studies are not an anomaly
these levels are commonly found in homes in Massachusetts in North Carolina and
California and other places several of the organic halogen flame retardants
that have been most commonly incorporated into consumer products to
reduce flammability are vivid examples of regrettable choices that have
seriously harmed US consumers I know we've heard a lot about PBDEs but I'm
just gonna say a little bit more of them about a class as a class just because we
have a lot of a lot of evidence about them so as you know they were added in
large quantities additively to foam furniture additively meaning that they
weren't chemically bound or able to come out of the product leading to exposures
they were added despite their structural similarities to PCBs which were removed
from many uses in the 1970s and 80s a recent consensus study report from the
National Academies of Sciences concluded that PBDEs are presumed to affect IQ and
humans based on a systematic systematic reviews of human and animal evidence and
what human evidence really means is that there were high enough exposures in the
general population in children in the u.s.
In order to measure reductions in
their IQ the Naas report found that it found a decrease of 3.7 IQ points in a
child per tenfold increase in serum PVD concentrations children in the US have
some of the highest PVD exposures in the world and that's a tragedy when we have
that kind of evidence a recent analysis of economic cost of exposures to
endocrine-disrupting chemicals estimated that 11 million IQ points were lost with
an Associated two hundred and sixty six billion dollars in medical costs
in the year 2010 so halogenated flame retardants can act as mutagens as in the
case of brominated and chlorinated Tris while PBDEs HB CD and TV BPA and others
may act as endocrine disruptors so we've heard that PBDEs act to impart their
neurological effects partly by inhibiting thyroxine a important thyroid
hormone that's necessary for brain development PBE is also exhibit cell
proliferation estrogen sensitive breast cells and they produce changes in
mammary gland development in animal studies tbh BPA which we just heard that
from dr.
Awesome it's was came close to receiving a pass per safe in 2013 by
EPSA was more recently studied by the National Toxicology program and was
found to produce uterine tumors and in a rodent study we have yet to see the
human outcomes associated with these estrogen related in mammary related by
biological activities his scientists we're well aware that toxicity data
available at the time of these chemicals were introduced as flame returns and
consumer goods could have been used to anticipate these outcomes we encourage
the CPSC to adopt a more effective approach to protecting harms from
chemical hazards we're tired of discovering these
preventable harms when it's too late thank you thank you very much miss ATAR thank you my name is Cathy otter and I
am the toxics program manager at physicians for Social Responsibility PSR
has a long history of educating organizing and advocating around the
issue of toxic chemicals in they're linked to poor health I have over 10
years of experience on issues related to chemical toxic I'm also a mom of two
children Farrah AJ and Alex 85 PS are strongly supports the petition that a
broad coalition of health environmental and public interest groups submitted to
the Consumer Product Safety Commission in 2015 that seeks to ban Organa halogen
flame retardants from children's products furniture mattresses and and
household electronics as a parent you are determined to do whatever you can to
sure your children are safe when my daughter was young she put everything in
her mouth as most babies and toddlers do I mean everything toys TV TV remotes
books anything that fit during this time through my work as an environmental
health advocate I started to learn about the health dangers related to certain
chemicals and consumer products chemicals like harmful plane retardants
as many have already stated these flame retardants are linked to an
ever-increasing number of health concerns such as cancer neurological
deficits developmental problems and inter paired for fertility many persist
in the environment and can bioaccumulate as many have also already stated one of
the main routes of exposure to these harmful chemicals is believed to be
through ingestion and an inhalation of contaminated indoor dust as mr.
Taylor
earlier reference children of color and low-income kids bear a higher burden
from these chemicals than others a fact that raises serious concerns about
environmental and justice not everyone can go to stores in their communities
which may sell less toxic products or can afford to purchase safer items one
of my son's favorite toys is our couch it's a flatbed truck or a cargo ship or
a castle unfortunately the couch was purchased
several years before California issued its new safer furniture flammability
standards so it undoubtedly has toxic flame retardants in it I'm pretty
obsessive about wet mopping our living room but there's little doubt that my
kids have been exposed to some level of dust containing these hazardous
chemicals the average lifetime of a couch is 15 to 20 years per owner and
couches are often passed on to others purchased at a secondhand or thrift
store perhaps by a lone low-income family where they are used for many more
years flame retardants and furniture are a prime example of the hazardous legacy
of inadequate chemical regulations even when chemicals are involuntary withdrawn
under pressure from regulators of the public the substitutes often end up
being just as worrisome because they also contain organic halogens or some
and chemical structures as health professionals and scientists have
already stated earlier organo halogen flame retardants are indican disrupting
chemicals exposure cdc's during critical times of growth and development can
results in genic genetic modifications that are passed down to subsequent
generations and naquin related disease is on the rise neurobehavioral disorders
associated with thyroid disruption have increased over the past decade decades
rates of endocrine related cancers breast ovarian prostate and thyroid have
been increasing over the past 50 years these environmental health statistics
became very real for me in 2015 in August my mom was diagnosed with late
stage ovarian cancer and a few days before Halloween I was told I had
early-stage invasive ductal carcinoma a form of breast cancer well I will never
know what caused our cancers exposures to environmental pollutants may have
played a leading or supporting role in the onset of our disease I worry about
my children and particularly my daughter and what her future health risks might
be given my family history of anakin related cancers in women
we need binding regulatory change that by keeping toxic chemicals out of our
products and our lives can reduce the risk of chronic diseases for all
families in individuals no matter your race or socioeconomic status it's not
enough that use of halogenated halogenated flame retardants is going
down we need the CPSC to take steps that will ensure that organo halogen
flame-retardant chemicals are removed for imported low-cost products and other
items in which they are still used flame retardants are not needed to prevent
fire and improve overall safety in the four product categories outlined in the
petition so there is no reason to continue exposing children and other
consumers to these hazardous substances parents want and need the government to
step in much more robust lead to robustly to protect the health of all
families thank you thank you very much mrs.
Ego good afternoon
and thank you for allowing the International Association of
firefighters to testify today on the petition requesting rulemaking on
products containing organ a halogen flame retardants
I am Raquel Siegel the occupational health specialist at the IFF and
speaking on behalf of mat Vincey the director of education who cannot be here
because he's assisting with relief efforts in Florida the IFF is an
international union that represents over three hundred nine thousand paid
professional fire service employees in the United States and Canada
and have been actively involved in improving the health and safety of
firefighters for more than 90 years this is a critical activity for a workforce
on which fatalities and early retirement due to work-related injuries and
illnesses occur regularly CPSC jurisdiction clearly covers consumer
injury from fires and we know that the primary cause of injury and home fires
is from smoke inhalation there is strong evidence which has been submitted to the
Commission's showing that flame retardants do not in fact protect
consumers from fire related injury but given that CPSC is considering fire
risks to consumers it should also take an account the hazards to consumers and
firefighters from smoke inhalation during a home fire at a minimum the CPSC
should look at very high cancer rates experienced by firefighters as strong
evidence of the toxicity faced by our members whose homes catch fire
firefighters dying from occupational related cancers now account for more
than half the line-of-duty deaths each year this is the largest health-related
issue facing the firefighter profession we must reduce this number and removing
the class of non polymeric organo halogen flame retardants in products is
a positive step forward and protecting first responders from the harmful
effects of these toxic flame retardants in the vast majority of US workplaces
toxic occupational exposure levels have greatly declined in the past two to
three decades improved workplace conditions can be attributed to many
factors including governmental agencies legislation training programs and good
business practices including the need to keep highly skilled workers healthy and
working unfortunately firefighters have not benefited from this overall
improvement they are still entering uncontrolled hazardous environments
regularly there are various studies on a complex mixture of chemicals found in
smoke combustion that firefighters commonly encounter and the studies have
clearly documented reasons for concern about these exposures recent studies
have also shown that firefighters have higher levels of flame retardant
chemicals in their body than the general population firefighters come into
contact with toxic flame returns in their daily lives just like the rest of
the population but they have a much higher risk of suffering the negative
effects of carcinogenic flame retardants as those chemicals burn in a fire they
are exposed in the air they breathe during the overhaul fires the absorption
through their skin during and after working in a fire and after the incident
as they're exposed to the toxic soot on the on their turnout years and equipment
it is the IFF position that this exposure contributes to the reason that
our members have a significantly higher incident rate of certain types of cancer
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health has recently conducted
a landmark study of cancer among u.s.
Firefighters that included data from
over 30,000 career firefighters employed between 1950 and 2010 the research found
that firefighters compared to the general US population has statistically
significant increases in both diagnosis and death from certain cancers the IFF
supports banning the use of Argan o halogen flame retardants because when
burned there are all carcinogens that contribute to cancer and have additional
negative effects on the health of our members the IFF also supports efforts to
remove toxic flame returns from upholstered furniture and other products
and supports efforts requiring manufacturers to support products of
manufactures of such products to utilize alternative technologies in lieu of
toxic chemicals given the increasing body of evidence that indicates the
persistence bioaccumulation and potential health concerns of these fire
retardants we believe the health risks associated with the use of these
chemicals is greater than the fire risk without using these chemicals this is
because some flame returns contain can remain unchanged in the environment for
a long period of time without breaking down
and resulting continuous exposures during and after working at a fire there
are two key ways to impact the use of toxic flame retardants and products one
is through the standard setting process and the other is through regulating the
chemicals themselves these strategies can be most effective in combination
since restricting use of one hazardous flame returning cannot guarantee that
future flame returns will not be safe for human and for human and
environmental health in closing the IFF will continue to fight for the
elimination of these toxic chemicals I think the Commission for allowing first
responders to have a voice in protecting our job environment while still
maintaining the highest level of fire protection for the citizens we protect
every day thank you very much mrs.
Miss sapote thank you hi everyone my name is
Abigail sapote I'm here representing the League of United Latin American citizens
the oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization in the United States
established in 1929 I sit before you today not just on behalf of LULAC but
with the tremendous responsibility to more than 50 million Latinos who cannot
be here today to take a stand against toxic exposure this time we are dealing
with an invisible and insidious assailant that threatens the sanctuary
that is our home and hinders our community's ability to defend itself as
an organization that advances the economic condition educational
attainment political influence housing health and civil rights of Hispanic
Americans were include increasingly concerned about exposure to toxic
chemicals and its impact on the health and quality of life of Latinos from the
womb to households workplaces and communities fighting to reduce toxic
exposure in our communities is intrinsically tied to our mission the
science indicates that the highest human levels of harmful flame-retardant
chemicals in the general population have been found in young children from
low-income communities and communities of color in particular the 2003 National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey conducted by the Centers of Disease
Control and Prevention found at least one form of organa halogen flame
retardants in 97% of the study participants this bio monitor
study also showed that mexican-americans and non-hispanic blacks had higher
levels of flame retardants than the non-hispanic white population teenagers
ages 12 to 19 had higher body burdens than adults for all flame returns
retardants measured what we know is that the exposure to Organa halogen
flame-retardant chemicals can lead to serious health problems such as reduced
IQ or disruption of hormones cancer and reproductive impairments these exposures
threaten the health and educational attainment of our children and in doing
so their prospects for future and economic condition education is key to
social mobility yet exposure to flame-retardant chemicals is robbing our
children of their potential a 2012 study of Mexican American children in the
state of California found that children who live in areas with limited access to
safe outdoor play spaces tend to have higher levels of the toxic
flame-retardant chemicals in their blood while this information may be new to us
what isn't new is the fact that nearly half 45 percent of the nation's Latino
population lives in ten metropolitan areas in the states of California New
York New Jersey Texas Illinois Florida and Arizona when you consider the urban
areas where nearly half of our community lives and combine that with findings
that show that racial and ethnic minorities and low-income people have
less access to green spaces like parks or recreational programs than those who
are white or more affluent what that signals to us is that minority and
low-income children are spending more time indoors and instead of being safe
their exposure to flame-retardant chemicals is heightened for Latino
households immigrant and non-immigrant alike
what does what good does it do to operate under the assumption that if you
work hard and study you will change your circumstances and be able to provide
yourself and future generations with more opportunities and improved and an
improved quality of life if we continue to allow flame-retardant chemicals to
invade our home we're diluting Latinos and all families into believing that we
are safe in our own home and an equal footing as those who Ford to live in
green spaces and purchase our way out of toxic products this is not an option for
Latino who have a median annual personal income
of twenty one thousand dollars and forty-one thousand dollars in medium
household income furthermore despite increases in health coverage
Latinos continued to have highest the highest uninsured rate of any racial and
ethnic group within the United States at nineteen point nine percent compared to
eleven point eight percent for blocks nine point three percent for Asians and
seven point six percent for hit non-hispanic whites when you take into
account economic status and health insurance coverage you can begin to
imagine how our community is already limited in the in its ability to protect
itself from toxic exposure and deal with the health impacts associated with it
our family should not have to know what our Goha knowledge and flamer terms are
or that there are toxic chemicals that do not stay inside the products
manufacturers that put them in we shouldn't have to worry about
flame-retardant chemicals off gassing from children's products furniture
mattresses and the casings around electronics into our homes entering our
bodies and persisting in our systems when you look at our demographics and
the range of session sa socio economic factors affecting us I'm hopeful that
I've provided you with a deeper understanding of our community and the
sense of urgency I feel as I sit before you today you have the power to protect
our community and the League of United Latin American citizens urges you to
take swift action to ban these harmful and pervasive chemicals thank you thank
you very much we will now begin the round of question from the Commission I
will begin that time miss Siegel I wanted to thank you for coming on seems
like with short notice to fill in for mr.
Vinci he is a friend of the agency
and has been here before to testify I want to please send him our best wishes
and that he will be safe and that he's in our thoughts thank you I also wanted
to call attention to a couple days ago I think it was Tuesday the House passed a
bill aimed at improving firefighter health and it will require the CDC if it
actually gets passed into law but it is really a recognition and it's important
public health legislation but it will require CDC to develop and main
voluntary registry to collect data with regards to the incidence of cancer among
firefighters so there's a recognition that cancer among firefighters is an
issue and perhaps this will help in the efforts to decrease that because they as
you mentioned they are on the line for all of us and for our safety so thank
you very much and thanks for being here miss Hitchcock I had a question to ask
of you clarification so on page one and in your
testimony you talked a little bit about how the market is sort of correcting
itself that we're seeing fewer products and certainly all the initiatives have
been taken to have companies manufacturers of furniture we're seeing
fewer of' ARS in their products and my portraying that accurately I would say
yes fewer but what I tried to highlight in
my testimony is that we are seeing more commitments from retailers and
manufacturers who are recognizing and hearing from consumers the the greater
consumer demand for safer products commitments are a first step enforcement
and accountability or a next step so the answer to your question is a qualified
yes so what what confuses me and maybe just because the date of the study isn't
included on page two it talks about a Duke study 85% of couches tested in a
Duke University study contain toxic or untested flame retardant so maybe you
could put that study into some perspective or time frames it when was
that done well says 2012 okay so which I mean is the trend to that the flame
retardants are out of products this is I think and I say that in the staffs
briefing package one of the issues we've talked a lot about it this morning the
data gaps that we a lot of these studies are older now this is already five years
old so maybe you could just speak to is the
trend certainly with TB 117 California standard no flame retardants in their
products in furniture many of the manufacturers of furniture have already
adopted that standard we tried to get the Commission to adopt that standard as
well but I just want to be clear on that the trend right now is that the use of
flame retardants in furniture is going down and that Duke studies older the
Duke study is older I wouldn't I I don't have the data to speak to the
trend question I am hearing and through our mind the store campaign we do hear
commitments from a growing number of major manufacturers and retailers which
i think is a very positive thing the the reason that I'm here today to endorse
the petition and endorse the the Commission taking action is because as
an individual consumer I have no ability to police whether police the actual
action behind the commitment that retailers are making many of them I'm
sure are moving forward on those commitments but I bought a mattress a
year ago and I had no ability to to say that the that the that the mattresses I
was looking at had flame retardants did not have flame retardant flame
retardants I'm sure that the staffer in the showroom wouldn't have appreciated
me cutting into the into the mattress and sending it off to a lab which might
have been my only recourse so we're urging that the Commission take action
to level the playing field make it possible for more manufacturers to
follow suit but also make it and make it make it enforceable that they all follow
suit thank you and I would say that early it's lunchtime I hope I would say
that well my time is up oh sure either I
thank you madam chair miss Siegel first of all let me join in
thanking you for all the work that you and your organization do it's wonderful
that we have first responders here testifying so we're always trying to
balance health risks versus fire risks and I know that you as a group obviously
would have to do that and I'm impressed that you're saying to us that you think
the greater hazard is the health risk and not the fire risk and so let me ask
you if you have a thought if we were to ban organo halogen flame retardants do
you believe that the risk of fire deaths would increase in the United States no
we do not think that so for us the higher rates of fire deaths are from
inhalation so it's it's inhaling all the combustion from the fire and it's also
the particulates that are remaining on our turnout gear and equipment so you
know as I said on here they're more than half of the line-of-duty deaths are from
cancer so we are not seeing the high rates of you know just from just fires
it's more from what they're inhaling and what they're taking home with them and
what they're constantly being exposed to well do you think there would be more
fires if we were to ban organo halogen flame retardants I want to say no but I
do not know enough to answer that okay well I certainly don't know enough to
answer it either I would like to ask the scientists and is dr.
Sass here
if not we can ask the other scientists we just heard dr. oz mitts testimony
about this notion of reasonable certainty of no harm which i think is a
good test and he specifically referenced the TV BPA and one other chemical which
I wrote down is T C BP but I bet I got it wrong but I'm just curious for those
of you who are familiar with these chemicals can you state that you either
agree disagree with this notion that these have been determined
you have this finding of no reasonable excuse me reasonable certainty of no
harm miss Rogers you didn't express an opinion so I wouldn't want to confuse a
lack of data with safety for TCP P I would say that there's a there's a lack
of adequate studies to show that it is in fact safe and for TV BPA as I
mentioned earlier there was a recent study from the National Toxicology
program that showed exposure to rats produced on uterine tumors and keeping
in mind the physical and chemical properties of of' ours is there any
reason to believe that we're going to run across an ofr that carries the same
characteristics as the rest of the family or the class that will somehow
produce such a low level of toxicity that we need not worry about it is I
guess the critical question so TCP P is structurally similar to TCP T CEP is
listed as a carcinogen in California's Prop 65 and TCP P is not so there are
certainly are differences even when there are structural similarities TVB PA
tetra bromo bisphenol A is a really large molecule it is endocrine active so
yeah not we're not saying that all are I'm not saying that all of the organic
halogen chemicals act via the same mechanism as I said some of them act
they're mutagenic and more like classical carcinogens whereas others are
producing their health effects via endocrine disruption so I would just say
no they're not all they don't all exactly act the same way but there needs
to be further study is yeah and the terrible metaphor I was using is I don't
care if I get hit by a sedan or a truck if either one is going to kill me then I
worry about it so that even if there are varying levels of toxicity if there is
sufficient negative toxicity associated with them inherent toxicity that's what
we need to worry about doctor is a doctorate are okay miss art are you have
to look at a variety of chemical hazards and I'm wondering
as you look at oh f RS versus other tasks toxic risks under our jurisdiction
where would you rank the concern we should have with respect to O FRS versus
other toxic risks I think my organization physicians for Social
Responsibility our belief is that we were looking to prevent harm and we feel
that there is enough evidence now with these o FRS to take action and
to ban this whole class of chemicals I mean dr.
Bluhm earlier stated that since
the 1970s we've been researching looking at these chemicals so from my
perspective and from my organization's perspective there is enough evidence now
to take action and I think you all have the ability and right to do that and so
that's that's why I'm here I really you know really feel like this is an
opportune time for for action thank you very much Thank You Commissioner
Robinson thank you one of the questions I haven't had time to ask today I'm mr.
Rosenberg I was glad to hear in your presentation that you addressed at least
some of it and that is I I was wondering whether anyone had an example of
regulators regulating a class of chemicals and you gave us some and I
quickly wrote down the PCB ban on on as a class and F the FDA as a class
outlawed fluorinated chemicals in food are there other examples where
regulators have banned a class I just have to get back to you on that
otherwise there may be and I'm not sure that I should clarify the PCB banned am
I talking to lob with this microphone okay the the PCB ban was a was enacted
by Congress so when Tosca was first enacted in 1976 that was the only
chemical that was specifically banned so it didn't come for me anyway implemented
but they it was banned as a class as a class yeah okay if you could find any
other examples I would be very interested in hearing that howdy Miz Leo's testified about the she
was talking about the I think she was about the Ann Haynes data as well and
you also cited a 2012 study of Mexican American children in the state of
California not having access to as many green spaces I'm very curious about this
with the lower socioeconomic classes and with the Latina community that we seem
to be finding higher ofr levels in the children's blood and urine and I you
don't gasps don't speculate but do you know of any other studies that have
shown us an explanation of why miss rios talked about breastfeeding you talked
about not having as much access to green spaces but do we know why it's higher um
I can't cite a specific study the only thing I can speculate and I do have
personal testimony so a lot of Latinos in the United States they do live in
mixed families mixed status families I was a formerly undocumented for 15 years
I know that for my family there was a lot of fear of even stepping out of my
home and fear of you know being deported and so for a lot of my childhood I spent
it inside my house I lived in from the time I was 6 years old to 12 years old I
lived in a four-bedroom apartment with 12 people living in it so I think that
this is something that you know is very prevalent in our communities because it
is our community is still in the state of fear more so now than ever so that is
a speculation but it is you know very prevalent in our community I appreciate
that thank you Ms Hitchcock that you talked about the
companies that that have decided not to use Oh afar's you have any idea what
they're using is a substitute for flame retardants I couldn't speak to that now
okay and have you and the surveys if you done if you ask people why they were
moving how FAR's from their products is it just because they're good people or
is because of regulations or state laws or consumer preferences I think that the
answer is that again growing consumer demand it's and the the change in the
stay in the California standard is moving is causing companies to move away
from from these chemicals consumers don't want them they they don't have to
have them so so why use them and so so that's the answer that we've seen ok and
and so if you look at the timing does it look like the California standard was
instrumental in bringing this decrease in ofr s its I think that it is helping
the movement away from from these chemicals in the market I have nothing
further Thank you Thank You a commissioner cake thank you madam chair
miss Rogers or dr.
Rogers this is dr. Rogers miss Rogers you've heard
testimony from today from toxicologists and others about the varying state of
the science what is your view in terms of the hazards that these products or
these chemicals prevent and present and whom do you think is most at risk so
this is kind similar to a question it was asked earlier as far as how
concerning are these o FRS compared to other toxic chemicals that were exposed
to on a daily basis I think a lot of scientists would say that these would
top the list as far as thinking about if you if you were to look at exposures in
the US population and you were look at toxicity and you were to rank them both
oh if ours are really there they're merging at the top so there would be a
high priority and as far as considering who's vulnerable we've heard a lot about
hand-to-mouth activity and there's evidence that children are much highly
much more highly exposed than adults there's many studies that pair mother
and infants looking at biomonitoring studies looking
at levels and both and see that infants are up to four times higher than their
mothers and then there's also other susceptible or vulnerable populations
including people who of lower socioeconomic status I think another
hypothesis for the reason why some of these exposures are continuing to
persist in these vulnerable populations or so a hypothesis called
a hand-me-down hazard so even though PBDEs have been phased
out of use for almost a decade more than a decade they're still we're still
finding them in people's blood and we're still finding them in people's homes so
as furniture gets passed down through secondhand stores or as given away it's
not like they're they stick around it's really hard for these chemicals to go
away and I think if you were here earlier you heard the gentleman from CTA
from that consumer or from the the Technology Group talked about the fact
that they're scientists they're toxicologists either have different data
or disagree with the data that they've seen are you aware of any peer-reviewed
published studies legitimate science that would call into question anything
that you just said about how scientists would rank these hazards that's a great
point I have also met with toxicologist and scientists for flame retardant
companies and it's there is a lot of transparency with the toxicity data that
they're relying on and using so it's not like anyone can just see it I think that
there would be a lot more confidence in what the industry is doing if if people
could even a scientists could see what they're basing their decisions on and
what science they are relying on would you give us a list of questions of
specifically what we should ask for because we're happy to ask for it from
them yes may be happy to great Thank You mr.
Rosenberg we've obviously you've
been involved in these issues for a long time and as a person you come in here
and you hear firefighters and your doctors and you're specifically
pediatricians a type of doctor focusing on children you hear scientific experts
a whole range of individuals who presumably don't have any financial gain
from what happens with this petition and then on the other side you hear some
voices and dissent who might have a financial incentive or financial stake
involved in it from your perspective what more do you think policymakers need
to hear to finally get over the hump and to
start taking chemical regulation more seriously when we talk obviously about
regrettable substitution I think what I see is regrettable denial and I wonder
because there are real effects to this I wonder
from your perspective what more can be done to convince policymakers that the
harm that our children our experience on a daily basis has to end
wow that's a great open-ended question thank you the you know I think well
speaking to this petition I think by the end of the day you will you offer to all
you need to hear and I would honestly say that the turnout as you sort of
alluded to for this both at this hearing and the previous hearing is absolutely
remarkable there are very few instances that I can think of where you've had
such a broad diverse articulate well resourced well documented turnout and I
I'm super mean I'm happy to be here and I'm super impressed by the by all the
people who are speaking have spoken previously and will be speaking later
you know I think the when I think about you know Tosca issues and CPSC issues
and other FDA issues the industry frequently has a set of arguments that
they make over and over what some of which I alluded to just kind of in broad
brush but I mean that there are they're their arguments they make repeatedly
that some of which are very technical and so policy makers are like yourselves
have to then delve into a lot of technical stuff which can be
time-consuming and difficult but really there's patterns to the arguments that
industry's making and I think it's it's and I think there's a political culture
in Washington I mean most of the regulatory bodies are in Washington DC
and I think there's a political culture in Washington DC that makes it very hard
to overcome the overwhelming presence of industry and lobbyists and scientists
for hire that that certainly in the on the toxics front you know the industry
has those in spades and so I there needs to be a shift I'm
hopeful that this sort of presentation that's happened
on this issue can happen on others but it's hard because we're over outmatched
and under-resourced relative to the resources of the industry itself but I
think I'm not sure what the what the shift in in sort of a more a greater
comfort level in taking that a regulatory step needs to happen not just
at CPSC far from it FDA I said they took the respondent to a petition and banned
use of pfcs but there's a whole set of chemicals that are still being used as
food additives that needs to be overcome EPA just getting started on Tosca there
just needs to be a broader shift among regulators to recognize protecting the
public is the primary mission and to have just greater skepticism and
interrogation of the industry arguments as you have all demonstrated during this
hearing today thank you very much Thank You Commissioner Harvick thank you madam
chairman mr.
Rosenberg in your testimony I recognize that you referred to the
Tosca work EPA's work looking at hexa bromo cycling DOTA kane and that you
i'll take yet through a word that you that the conclusion is that its primary
use is in building materials so that got me thinking about the other environments
where there is a need for flame resistance got me thinking about the
airline industry automobile industry etc I believe that car seats because they're
not under our jurisdiction are not included in the petition here as well
but I understand there's a tremendous amount of flame retardants and car seats
to be able to meet the Nitsa regulations FAA if is the concern with of' ours
translate over those other product categories and our similar movements at
play to change or restrict the use of of' ours and some of those others where
i've talked and we've talked about demand drivers there's significant
demand drivers of course in those industries as opposed to maybe some of
the other industry segments that are outlined in the petition here's another
open-ended question do you know whether all fours are used generally or whatever
level of prevalence you can relate yeah I think other
witnesses / to some of them on the later panels are gonna be more conversant in
sort of the use profile of those chemicals and and in different
categories and sectors that they're used in I think some sectors may have a
better case than others for the need for them there might be people who can talk
about that later as well I think the part of what so to me
persuasive about this petition is that we're you know it is narrowly focused on
key product sectors obviously within your jurisdiction that you know really
they don't need to be there and so and with the high hazard and high exposure
profiles the that's that's and them being you know these indoor products as
people have talked about those are just a really prime place to take as Liz said
earlier take a bite out of this problem it won't solve the whole problem but it
it it would be a significant driver particularly for these home exposures
which are highly significant thank you very much that's how I have madam
chairman thank you very much and I again my sincere appreciation to the panel for
being here and for sharing your time and your expertise with us thank you very
much and so at this point we are going to take a break for lunch and because I
wasn't real careful about monitoring the time we're a little bit past what we
would planned on so the Commissioner offices have agreed that we will just
take a 30 minute break we will resume this hearing and seat panel number five
at 1:30 p.m.
thank you very much.