Welcome back to this public meeting of
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission our hearing which
started this morning at 9:00 a.m. will now continue just a reminder that this
is a public hearing to solicit comments on the petition requesting the
Commission initiate rulemaking under the federal hazardous substance act to
declare several categories of products containing a 'native organo halogen
flame retardants to be quote banned hazardous substances end quote we have
heard from four panels this morning and we are going to now hear from our fifth
on this panel we are pleased to have MS Cady Huffman
from the Alliance of nurses for healthy environments MS Jenna Reed Union of
Concerned Scientists mr.
Robert science excuse me mr. Robert Simon from the
American Chemistry Council and while mr. Simon is presenting I would just say
that mr. Mike walls from the American Chemistry Council will also be available
to answer questions and on the phone we have MS Sonja lunder from the
Environmental Working Group joining us along with dr. Hubble's this Heather
Stapleton from Duke University and Miss Pamela Miller from the Alaska community
action on toxins thank you all very much for joining us today and again each one
of the panelists will testify for up to five minutes the yellow light indicates
you have one minute remaining and for those of you are on the phone
miss Mills will alert you and you have one minute left
once all the panels have concluded their testimony we will turn to the Commission
for five minutes rounds of questions with that miss
huddling you may begin thank you thank you and thank you for this opportunity
to comment today on the petition requesting rulemaking on products
containing organic halogen flame retardants and the CPSC staff briefing
package again my name is Katie huffing and I'm the executive director of the
Alliance of nurses for healthy environments I'm
a nurse and a nurse midwife the Alliance is the only national nursing
organization that focuses solely on the intersection of health in the
environment our mission is to promote healthy people and healthy environments
by educating and leading the nursing profession advancing research
incorporating evidence-based practice and influencing policy we have over 3000
members throughout the country our members include nurses from all walks of
our profession Hospital based public health school-based and advanced
practice to just name a few nurses are the most trusted profession and we take
our duties very seriously when providing education to patients and working to
prevent disease the main work of our organization occurs through the generous
volunteer work of our nurses through our policy and advocacy workgroup these
nurses have led engagement of health professionals on the serious issues
related to flame retardants and health our work has been guided by the American
nurses associations resolution Nursing Practice chemical exposure and right to
know which advocates a course of action that reduces the use of toxic chemicals
demands adequate information on the health effects of chemicals and
chemicals and products before they are introduced on the market and creates
more streamlined methods for toxic chemicals to be removed from use based
on this resolution nurses need to advocate for consumer products that are
free of toxic chemicals as part of their standard of practice I am highly
concerned that pregnant women the growing fetus and our children are being
exposed to halogenated flame retardants every day it's my job to help women have
the healthiest pregnancies possible as such I recognize the importance of
having normal levels of thyroid hormones during pregnancy and monitor for
symptoms of thyroid dysfunction so that action can be quickly taken if an
abnormality is found that this class of flame retardants are structurally
similar to thyroid hormone and have been shown to disrupt thyroid hormone
function is highly concerning thyroid disruption during pregnancy can have a
negative impact on fetal brain development as well as other poor
pregnancy outcomes as you have heard from other
others here today with one in six kids in the US now facing the lifelong
challenge of developmental disabilities such as autism and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder we need to seriously address chemicals that could
be a component of this alarming trend I'm also concerned with the effects of
halogenated flame retardants on fertility
elevated PB de levels at human breast milk has been correlated with cooked
Accord ism as well as decreased testes size and decreased sperm counts as
infertility is increasing in this country need we need to be addressing
these possible chemical origins as a nurse midwife I'm frequently asked which
products are safe to use with their baby which nursing pillow would I recommend
what's the best group to buy due to the limited consumer information we have on
many of the flame retardants addressed in the petition it can be very
challenging as a provider to offer advice on the safest products this is
especially frustrating when it's been shown that these toxic chemicals are not
even providing added flame protection when peak speaking with my pediatric
nurse colleagues they have described that they have many ways we can counsel
parents to reduce risks of fire such as having working smoke detectors and not
smoking in the house but they have no meaningful advice to give to parents on
how to reduce the risk of kids exposures to flame retardants manufacturers are
able to add these flame retardant to their products without labeling or
testing them for health effects this entire class of halogenated flame
retardants olive's similar molecular structure and all are likely to react
similarly in the body we believe that due to the hazardous nature of these
flame retardants and the high potential for harm especially to the growing fetus
and children due to critical developmental windows of susceptibility
that the CPSC is compelled to regulate these flame retardants under the federal
hazardous substance Act also the staff briefs states that AFR's may not be
pervasive as they've been found in only 22 percent of the children's products
tested by CPSC this is not an insignificant number as children has
numerous toys in their toy boxes 22 percent can lead to significant
exposures amongst this vulnerable population our next generation deserves
to be able to grow up and free of these toxic chemicals let's
not make the mistake of regrettable substitutions and adopt the current
proposal to restrict these unnecessary and health harming class of flame
retardants thank you thank you very much miss Reed good afternoon first I'd like
to thank chairwoman Buerkle and the CPSC commissioners for the opportunity to
testify before you today on this important issue my name is Jenna Reed
I am the science and policy analyst at the center for science and democracy of
the Union of Concerned Scientists with more than 500,000 members and supporters
across the country we are a nonpartisan nonprofit group dedicated to improving
public policy through rigorous and independent science the Center for
science and democracy at UCS advocates for improved transparency and integrity
in our democratic institutions especially those making science-based
public policy decisions the Union of Concerned Scientists stands with other
members of the scientific community in supporting this petition calling upon
the Consumer Product Safety Commission to declare Organa halogen flame
retardants o FRS as a hazardous class of chemicals and to ban their use in
children's products furniture mattresses and the casing surrounding electronics
the scientific evidence laid out in the petition supports this regulatory change
the CPSC has the authority to protect the public from toxic substances that
may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness since the center's
inception we have worked to protect scientific integrity within the federal
government and called attention to incidences of special interests
mischaracterizing science to advocate for specific policy goals the chemical
industry and its trade association the American Chemistry Council zhh work to
sow doubt about the science revealing harms about chemicals impacts on our
health including flame retardants is an egregious example of this inappropriate
behavior the companies that manufacture FRS have put significant time and money
into distorting a scientific truth about these chemicals as the 2012 Chicago
Tribune investigative series noted the chemical industry has twisted research
results ignored findings that run counter to its aims and passed off
biased industry funded reports as rigorous science in doing so the
American Chemistry Council and its member companies
has promoted the prevalent use of IFRS at the expense of Public Health
looking at these chemicals through a strictly objective lens illustrates the
needs need for CPSC swift action toxicity and exposure data support the
assessment of Organa halogen flame retardants as a class of chemicals under
the federal hazardous substances Act properties that are shared by of' ours
include their semi volatility and ability to mob migrate from consumer
products into house dust and exposure has been associated with a range of
health impacts including reproductive impairment neurological impacts
endocrine disruption genotoxicity cancer and immune disorders as a class there is
an adequate body of evidence supporting the conclusion that these chemicals have
the capacity to cause personal illness and therefore meet the definition of
toxic under F H sa perhaps most egregiously bio monitoring data have
revealed that communities of color and low-income communities are
disproportionately exposed to and bear high levels of flame retardant chemicals
adding to the cumulative chemical burden that these communities are already
experiencing from increased fine particulate matter from power plants or
refineries in their neighborhoods to higher levels of contaminants in their
drinking water I've seen firsthand the persistence of the earliest form of
flame retardants polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs that still plague the
sediment and water of the Hackensack Meadowlands just a couple of miles from
where I grew up in New Jersey one of my first Jobs was working in the chemistry
division of the Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute where I
spend my days extracting PCBs and organochlorine pesticides from the soil
and sediment of the of the Meadowlands and analyzing that data despite being
banned in 1977 these chemicals are still found dangerously high amounts all over
industrial hotspots of the country and continue to bio accumulate in a range of
species the ban of PCBs happened decades ago and we are still managing the
damaging impacts of the chemicals prevalence across the country the next
generation of these chemicals organo halogen flame retardants are inside of
our own homes and a range of products thanks largely in part the
disinformation campaigns sowed by special interests the fact remains that
the sign does not support their continued use
seen firsthand the persistence of PCBs in my local environment inspired me to
use my scientific training to work to design or improve policies that minimize
public health and environmental risks and prevent future scenarios of
chemicals overburdening ecosystems and households that is why I'm here today to
ask the CPSC to act with urgency to grant this petition and further regulate
AFR's to protect our children and future generations thank you thank you very
much mr.
Simon thanks chair Buerkle and commissioners my name is Robert Simon
and I'm here today testifying on behalf of the American Chemistry Council and
the North American flag retirement liens I know there's a lot of interest in this
issue and we were trying to help facilitate the commissioners request to
consolidate some of the testimony so I'm going to present remarks on behalf of
both myself and Mike Wallace from the American Chemistry Council I'll try and
be brief just a quick comment and I know we've been before the commissioners
before on several issues and I just want to emphasize that the American Chemistry
Council represents the principle manufacturers of chemicals in the US and
we are fully committed to product safety that by nature of membership in the
American Chemistry Council you are obligated to comply with a responsible
care program which includes eight different codes including a product
safety code and that's mandatory for obligation that includes third-party
verification in our new product safety code but I just wanted to emphasize our
commitment to overall product safety I'm here today speaking in support of the
staff briefing package as it relates to the petition HB 15 1 and the staff
recommendation to deny the petition I'm going to emphasize five key points today
but our overall message to the commissioners to the public to some of
the other stakeholders are today this petition is overly broad it will
increase fire risk and it is not consistent with the f HSA so my
testimony focus on five key points first fire safety as the commissioners well
know is a critical issue for the CPSC to consider we
a lot of progress over the last 40 years in reducing fire risk a lot of that has
come as a result of the CEA's CPSC's leadership on that issue and flame
returns have played a role in that in terms of helping reduce the fire risk of
products having said that as you all know from from the number of product
recalls and product challenges that are out there that fire risk is still a very
real issue according to the CPSC zone data we respond to a fire every 23
seconds in the u.s.
So that important notion of fire safety needs to be
considered as part of this and I would just emphasize that in the review of
this petition this has the potential to undermine fire safety and even
compromise the fire safety of some products so encourage the CPSC to
carefully consider that in the context of its review of this petition second
point would be as you've heard I think even acknowledged by some of the
advocates for this petition this is an incredibly broad petition you're you're
banning an entire class of chemicals flame retardants include a broad range
of products with different characteristics formulations and
intended uses and it's just not appropriate to group all of these things
together to take that one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't make sense the
hazard and risk profile of even these substances within this class of
chemicals is just not the same and that's been recognized by government
agencies including the US Environmental Protection Agency so emphasize that
point the petition as it is currently defined would ban substances that other
government regulators have determined do not present a risk and would also ban
substances that haven't even been developed yet so again I urge the
Commission to look at this holistically in terms of the broad implications of
this good example would be under both Democratic and Republican
administrations new flame retardant products have been approved including
under the new law Berg Chemical Safety Act this would run counter to that a related point would be is the
substances that are the subject of the petition have already been or currently
being reviewed for their safety by US EPA under a comprehensive new regulatory
system in place for regulating chemicals the CPSC clearly has a critical and
important role to play in consumer products but this petition would
duplicate some of the work that's already underway or has been done by US
EPA to assess the safety of chemicals and regulate those chemicals and a big
piece of this we were here with the last time testifying about hopefully the
potential of the new Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act after the last hearing in
January 2016 it's glad here to say many of the people around this room not just
the chemical industry but environmental groups labor unions etc we work to help
pass the bipartisan Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act that is a new law that has
gone into effect it significantly enhances the way we regulate chemicals
in the US and I think that's an important factor to consider and I'll
just end with a final point which is because we we believe this the petition
advanced is an inappropriate and very troubling application of the FHS a and
and should be denied I would just end with a comment just directly from the
staff package that I think emphasizes the broad nature of this the FHS a
requires consideration of the connection between the toxicity of a substance
exposure to that substance through customary and reasonably foreseeable use
of a product and resulting in substantial personal injury or
substantial illness associated with the exposure staff considers that the ofr
represent a broad class of chemicals defined largely by their functional use
and the presence of either bromine or chlorine the data on OA ofr show varying
toxicity and exposure potential among individual of our compounds these
varying properties of individual individual of our compounds indicate
that AFR's are in fact represent several subclasses of chemicals and should not
and should be examined separately and one cannot conclude that all substances
would be considered hazardous substances under they J say that's part of the
reason why we encourage the Commission to take into account the staff report
and the science on these she's appreciate the opportunity to
testify today I'm happy to answer any question Thank You mr.
Simon ms lender
hello thanks for including me and allowing me to testify by phone my name
is Sonia lender and I'm a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group a
nonprofit organization over the past 14 years my organization ewg has performed
original bio monitoring studies to document human exposure to organo
halogen flame retardants we've collaborated collaborated with academic
laboratories to measure PBDEs impaired serum samples from toddlers and their
mothers and mothers milk and umbilical cord blood ewg is also partnered with
heather Stapleton's lab to measure metabolites of chlorinated Tris and para
master 550 and preschool age children and their mothers these studies suggest
widespread exposure to toxic flame retardants particularly during pregnancy
infancy and early childhood children's exposures are commonly three to five
times greater than their mothers in its briefing package the CPSC staff raised
concerns about the petitions goal of banning all additive Organa halogen
chemicals yet dozens of studies have documented the way these chemicals can
Tony the food chain persist in the environment and threaten human health
the testimony today documents a clear pattern of regrettable substitution or
as we learn today to call it regrettable denial where restrictions on a specific
ofr s result in the use of new poorly studied halogenated alternatives most
recently toxicity concerns have prompted four states Maryland New York Vermont
and Washington to ban two forms of tryst in foam products we see that without
clear red relax entry strict Olaf ours as a group a portion of the market will
shift to new poorly studied telogen ated chemicals perpetuating this cycle most
recent sorry Organa halogen flame retardant share physical and chemical
qualities that weren't there consideration as a group under the
federal how does their disc Substances Act the halogen carbon bond imparts
thermal stability but also results in persistence and longevity of these
chemicals in the environment and contributes to their toxicity to human
health when incinerated they form highly toxic
and persistent compounds like dioxins and furans in response to this petition
the ACCC cited an EPA press release claiming that the agency has identified
50 flame retardants that are unlikely to pose a risk for human health
neither the ACCC nor the EPA have stated whether any of these alternatives are
halogenated the statement is likely based on the analysis of the EPA's
designed for the Environment Program that was also mentioned earlier by Rick
grosse and the testimony in 2015 in a report all of the 10 halogenated flame
retardants that EPA examined were rated as high hazard in at least one category
either for their hazard to human health or environmental persistence and
bioaccumulation EPA did name two chemicals as a lower level of concern
for polyurethane foam but both were not halogenated a study by Miriam diamond
who will testify later today reviewed 94 fire fire retardant so that could be
substitutes for those currently using consumer products she found that 40% had
medium or high concern for environmental persistence and the rest posed a low
concern and concluded the replacement fire retardants have to be evaluated as
a class because the 1 by 1 regulatory approach is problematic for ensuring
that alternative flame retardants will be less hazardous and oppress others
despite an encouraging market shift away from additive flame retardants and
household products ofr has continued to be used in some new products as noted in
testimony today we conclude that voluntary actions by manufacturers and
state by state restrictions on individual chemicals are not sufficient
to keep these chemicals out of new products and we note that handheld XRF
devices allow for rapid and affordable and non-invasive compliance monitoring
in fact meaning that a category wide ban on halogens could be simpler to enforce
than a ban on specific authors the CPSC staff allege that there was insufficient
data to prove that these four product categories in the petition are the
source of ofr is measured in people and they'll bring up the point that the
chemicals are using vehicles and also one minute remaining thank you but
research has shown that consumer products are the primary source of human
exposure to flame retardants in our testimony written testimony we attach
this D finding that twice as many pounds of PBDEs
were added to polyurethane foam in household products than vehicles so in
closing we would urge the to grant the petition as we've written
and beyond organic halogen flame retardants in these four product
category thank you thank you very much next is dr.
Heather Stapleton dr.
Stapleton are you on the phone thank you yes we can thank you very much great
thank you good afternoon yes I'm Heather Stapleton I'm an
associate professor of environmental chemistry and exposure science at Duke
University my research has focused on identifying additive chemicals and
consumer products evaluating human exposure pathways and investigating
potential effects from exposure to flame retardants for the past 17 years I've
been conducting research specifically on flame-retardant chemicals and I have
more than 70 peer-reviewed publications focusing on this topic in addition I
testified in front of the US Senate subcommittee in May of 2012 on a hearing
just focused on climate earnings today I'd like to take a few minutes to
summarize some important research findings that have been generated for my
group particularly over the last year which directly relate to several issues
raised today specifically relating to our understanding of human exposure
related to use of flame retardants and furnitures and mattresses since 2008 my
research group has been testing furniture products particularly sofas
chairs mattresses and a number of baby items for flame returning chemicals as
of today we have tested more than 2000 of these products and we have a very
good knowledge base regarding where flame retardants are used and how their
use has changed over time contrary to what you've been told our research has
shown that flame retardants are actually used in adult mattresses sold on the
market today particularly mattresses made of memory foam and our data
suggests this is not decreasing we also know that companies are still applying
flame retardants to furniture despite the change in the flammability standards
from California this was documented in our publication in 2016
digitus research my laboratory has been conducting its extensive bio monitoring
studies to evaluate exposure among the general public and is to understand how
exposure relates to product use in a recent publication by Hoffman and Al we
demonstrated that exposure to the halogenated organic phosphate flame
retardant TDC PP also noted chlorinated Tris has increased significantly among
the u.s.
Population over the past decade we also demonstrated that exposure to
this chemical which is considered a carcinogen a
significantly greater and young children relative to adults in fact our research
found that infants have the highest exposure to TDC BP among any age class
and furthermore this exposure was significantly associated with the number
of baby furniture items the parents owned in the home this association is
further supported by our testing program which found that TDC PP is the most
common flame retardant applied to baby furniture items that contain
polyurethane foam these studies provide a link connecting application of TDC P P
and baby furniture items with exposure and infants as a follow-up to this study
we recently estimated the average daily intake of TDC P P for an infant using
our measurements of the urinary metabolite we found that exposure range
from 0.01 to 15 micrograms of TVC PP per kilogram body weight per day when you
compare that exposure to the acceptable daily intake for non cancer health risks
reported in a CPSC document in 2006 our results find that 2 to 9% of infants are
currently receiving exposure that is higher than that threshold suggesting
some infants are receiving receiving exposure that could result in health
risk this is also published earlier this year to further understand relationships
between flame-retardant use and furniture and exposure among the general
public we recently conducted a separate study in which we actually sampled the
cushions from sofas in 140 homes and collected paired samples of house dust
and blood from participants residing in those homes we found strong and
statistically significant associations between the brominated flame retardants
and the sofas in concentrations in the house dust and in the participants blood
so for example if a bf are a brominated flame retardant was present in the sofa
there were significantly higher levels of that flame retardant in the house
dust and in the participants blood compared to someone living in a home in
which that verminator flame retardant was not in their furniture this is the
very least provides evidence that the use in sofas is linked with personal
exposures in the home these exposures are concerned given that new recent
research demonstrates exposure to flame retardants is associated with reduced
fertility and pregnancy and women and thyroid cancer thyroid cancer is
considered the fastest-growing cancer based on incident one minute remaining
and we have recently published a paper which found statistically significant
associations between the concentrations of three different
flame retardants in house to us with thyroid cancer and this heart
association was particularly strong for Dekker bromo diphenyl ether a burma
native flame retardant enclosing i believe this research these research
studies demonstrate unequivocally unequivocally that use of flame
retardants in these products is clearly tied with exposure among the general
public well I understand the fire risk is a very well-funded concern we should
think critically about technologies and approaches used to meet flammability
standards in my opinion we should be of absolutely avoiding the use of small
molecule additives which will always migrate out of products and result in
some sort of exposure it's just thermodynamics given the
inherent challenges in evaluating hazard profiles profiles for chemicals it would
behoove us to try and eliminate exposure rather than spending considerable time
and effort trying to determine which chemical has a better toxicity profile
thank you for your attention thank you very much dr.
Stapleton MS Miller yes
good afternoon can you hear me yes we can hear you just fine thank you
thank you good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony
today my name is Pamela Miller and I am the executive director of Alaska
community action on toxics a non-profit environmental health and
justice research and advocacy organization and were based in Anchorage
Alaska we strongly support the petition and rulemaking to ban the class of
organic halogen flame retardants from the four categories of consumer products
given the evidence of toxicity and hazards to human health
the Commission has an historic opportunity to make policy that will
protect the health of millions of people across the u.s. who are routinely
exposed to these harmful chemicals and especially the house of vulnerable
populations who are disproportionately exposed in their homes and workplaces I
am here to speak to the need of protecting vulnerable populations that
might not be immediately obvious because they are distant from manufacturing
centers but are nevertheless highly and disproportionately exposed people of the
north and arctic particularly indigenous peoples we urge the Commission to
consider the special vulnerability of northern and arctic indigenous peoples
and their future generations when considering this petition far from
pristine the it contains some of the most highly
contaminated animals and people in the world it is an important indicator
region for assessing properties and effects of chemicals once chemicals
enter the Arctic their deterioration is slowed due to low temperatures and low
intensity sunlight which makes them available for long-term incorporation
into biological systems northern and Arctic peoples bear a burden of health
disparities including cancers reproductive disorders birth defects
learning and developmental disabilities the fenceline of chemical manufacturing
distribution use and disposal extends to the Arctic because chemicals can travel
hundreds and thousands of miles on atmospheric and oceanic currents where
they accumulate in the bodies of fish wildlife and people of the north in a
process known as global distillation people of the north especially children
are likely to be more highly exposed to flame-retardant chemicals in indoor
environments because of the longer winters the need to insulate against the
cold and less ventilation in their homes people experience high exposures through
traditional foods as well as in their home environments so this is really a
consideration of multiple exposure routes and high exposures they also have
limited choices in purchasing from retail stores in rural Alaska that sell
inferior products chemicals are passed through successive generations from
mother to child and harm the ability of children to learn their languages
traditional life ways songs stories and knowledge these neuro toxic chemicals
are harming the brains and health of our future generations because these
chemicals escape the products in which they are used through evaporation or
weathering many of these organo halogen compounds are now pervasive in the
global environment people are primarily exposed through an inhalation ingestion
and thermal absorption Roman ated flame retardants including PBDEs and H BCD are
now ubiquitous in Arctic ecosystems with increasing levels in some areas
providing cause for concern for example concentrations of PBDEs found in the
blood of yupik people the yukon-kuskokwim Delta region of
Alaska are the highest known human PvE concentrations in the circumpolar Arctic
concern is growing about new largely unmonitored persistent chemicals that
pose additional environmental threats in the Arctic include including the newer
flame retardants that are unregulated at the national and global level several of
these have been detected in Arctic Marine Mammal an minute remaining are
arriving through long-range transport recent studies demonstrate atmospheric
persistent and long-range transport of a variety of these replacements flame
retardants into the Arctic Salim ovah measured concentrations of 45
chlorinated and brominated flame retardants and Arctic air samples and
molar in 2012 found two chlorinated chemicals TCP and TCP P that predominate
in the North Pacific and Arctic air samples these are highly persistent in
the Arctic due to low temperatures and darkness our own community-based
research has demonstrated the presence of PBDEs and household dust Sentinel
fish traditional food samples of marine mammals and in the blood serum of the
Ubik people of st.
Lawrence Island a remote island in the northern Bering Sea
despite of this remote location PBDEs are ubiquitous and dust collected from
st. Lawrence Island households and human serum concentrations are similar to
those found in elevated levels of the u.s. general population concentration of
several of these PBDEs and dust are associated with serum concentrations
suggesting household dust is a source of these compounds even in remote
populations finally as co-chair of the International Pops elimination Network
I'm very concerned that the lack of controls in the u.s. allows the dumping
of products with unsafe levels of flame retardants into US markets including
products that contain so-called recycled plastics contaminated by flame
retardants from electronic waste we urge that Consumer Product Safety Commission
to use their authority to protect public health particularly that of vulnerable
population populations and ban flame retardants and
children's products furniture mattresses and household electronics and I'd be
happy to provide copies of some studies that I Penn has done showing high levels
of flame retardant chemicals including the brominated flame retardants and
short chain chlorinated paraffins in children's toys and other children's
products thank you thank you very much miss Miller we will now begin our round
of question from the commission from the Dyess and I will begin that two line of
questioning miss Huff filling in your testimony you
talked about one in six kids in the u.s.
Now face the lifelong challenge of
developmental disabilities can you cite the source of that data of that
information sure I can send that to you okay good I would appreciate it thank
you MS lender in your testimony you talked
about XRF technology that could detect flame retardants I'm unaware of that can
you speak to them yes I am not an expert but XRF is a technology that can measure
the bromine and chlorine elements in a compound it's non-invasive it's
non-destructive and those tools have been widely used to screen for the
presence of chlorine and bromine and products and the detection of a high
concentration of bromine and chlorine in any component of a furniture product
would allow investigators or companies themselves to hone in on exactly what
chemicals might be in there and the finding of very low content of bromine
or chlorine in a product would indicate that compliance with a ban on classes of
Organa chlorine argon or bromine fire retardants in those four categories of
products pointing out that you know with non-invasive non-destructive measures
and the restriction across the category XRF would be a great cheap rapid
screening technology to enforce any restrictions on those compounds thank
you very much mr.
Simon in your testimony you mentioned that if we take
this broad approach and grant this petition and ban classes of chemicals I
should say ban this class of chemicals that we will be banning chemicals that
have already been approved and determined to be safe could
you just expand on a little bit thank you
yes just as some examples but we know and there have been regulatory reviews
of some of the chemicals that would be included in this petition that have gone
through reviews not only in the US but Canada
European Union and have had those determinations that they do not present
a risk to human health of the environment so a good example of that
would be TV BPA was one chemical that I think came up earlier today that has had
regulatory determinations by both Canada and the EU and that would be just one
example there that would have a direct impact you could provide additional if
you have other examples of that I would really appreciate that thank you
Commissioner Adler I thank you very much madam chairman mr.
Simon is it fair to
say based on your testimony in the testimony of your industry colleagues
that we're not likely to see a phase-out of ofr s in consumer products unless the
Commission takes regulatory action I think the what I would say to the
commissioners would be as I think you will continue to see the use of flame
retardants in applications that need to meet certain fire character fire safety
parameters and characteristic ludo iPhone that wedding on that would
include a farce okay and picking up on the Chairman's
point you did cite these studies with by other agencies and I assume you're
referring to EPA and I note in your testimony your written testimony on page
two you say APA is identified over 50:50 flame retardants that it says they're
unlikely to pose a risk to human health have you actually are to your knowledge
any of your colleagues actually seen that list I think that's an excellent
question I think this came up at our last hearing as well which I'm wondering
what the answer is we have we have not seen that list and
we I think we even encouraged the CPSC to work with EPA to look at that list I
think the challenge we all have is some of those are proprietary products and so
they are not commonly available to particularly to a trade association that
might represent different different company interests and I just that's your
question or earlier mr.
Commissioner I just want to emphasize I think I would
clarify comment about the use of afar's if there
are ofr is that present a risk and there's clearly some that have been
regulated those will be regulated so I just didn't want to leave that that open
thank you I appreciate the clarification by the way with respect to that list of
50 I think the reason that it's not accessible has less to do with the fact
that its proprietary than the fact that my understanding is APA is withdrawn it
and no longer stands behind that list of 50 and I'm wondering the last time you
checked and what the answer was given when you contacted them I don't have
that information I know we've asked EPA to make that publicly available to the
extent that they can even if it's not disclosing names I think the Commission
would probably have better access to that I would also just say though it's
not just limited to that review that was done under the Obama administration I
know there was recently just a new pmn underneath the new Lautenberg Chemical
Safety Act that does require an affirmative safety determination that is
an organ oh oh F R and it's been approved for certain uses and so that's
one other more maybe more current example and I think that is public a bit
yeah and just picking up on the Chairman's request I would really
appreciate it I think we all would if you would submit whatever list you have
that consists of ofr s in particular in consumer products that you believe have
been demonstrated present no reasonable risk of safety this Huff lien at one
point in your testimony you said o FRS are not providing added flame protection
that's wonder if you could elaborate on that point sure well I think a lot of
the products that they're in you know we don't have babies that are smoking
cigarettes laying on their mats or on nursing pillows that really not needed
in these types of products and it's just causing more exposure to these
potentially toxic chemicals where they're really not needed yeah and and
dr.
Birnbaum this morning was saying in effect that the ofr is in the
concentrations that they're showing up in consumer products are really not
providing significant fire protection do you have any thoughts or comments about
that as well yes I I would agree with dr. Birnbaum that
they're not providing extra fire protection and instead are just exposing
all of us to toxic chemicals Ms Reid in your research have you discovered any
studies that will far as you've just heard the reference by mr. Simon that
would lead you to conclude that there are any safe Oh FRS or that there are oh
f RS yet to be discovered that share these same physical chemical biological
characteristics as existing ofr s such that we should not take a class approach
to regulating them I have not and people who testified today including dr.
Birnbaum pretty much have the same you know belief and that their hat there has
not yet been one organic halogen flame that could be that wasn't linked to no
harm and dr.
Stapleton may I direct that same
question to you especially with respect to your recent research has any of your
recent research led you to conclude that any known ofr presents little to no risk
to humans especially to children so I am NOT evaluating the toxicity of these
independent chemicals I'm evaluating their presence and products and how it
relates to exposure and whether that may be associated with health risk and so we
focused on a six to eight chemicals and not an expansive list that covers all
house name flame retardant so your issue is exposure as well as toxicity thank
you very much Commissioner Robinson Stapledon don't go away I'm following up
on this we you know in your testimony your that was submitted in writing you
listed a bunch of studies that you were involved in several studies that you
were involved in and then in your testimony you were testifying really
quickly and I was writing as fast as I could
but I want to make sure that I my understanding is that you've done
biometric studies that show that increased ofr s in kids blood is
associated with baby furniture with increased ofr s did I get that right yes
we've shown that infants have much higher exposure to the T dCPP
intrest it's considered a carcinogen which is associated with a number of
baby products owned in the home okay and can you tell me which one of the
publication's listed is yeah that's in the Hoffman il 2015 publication site
perfect okay and then the next thing that you said that I wrote down was that
there was a strong association and this was seemed to be with people not just
kids with furniture with higher ofr s finding more in the dust and in the
blood of people and which which study supports that that is the Hamel il 2017
publication cited in my written testimony great thank you so much and
dr.
Lund ah you said in your you have footnote 16 17 18 19 20 that's included
in your attach to and in your written testimony and this point seems to be
that most of the ofr is in the dust in the home are the result of Oh affairs
and household products did I understand that correctly yes that is our the
references we pulled to show the link between the the household products and
exposure of household residents although reference 16 is to make reference to the
fact that more twice as many PS PBDEs were added to household furniture than
to vehicles great and mr.
Simon I know general you said
that you support the package and that you think that this band would be overly
broad but I want to see if I can zoom in on that a little bit because the package
is I understand it certainly found that ofr s are toxic that they migrate from
products and products with higher ofr s are associated with rooms with hot with
more dust and that AFR's in blood and if there are higher or fires in blood that
is associated with adverse health impact do you agree with all of that don't
worry I'll get to your objection but do you agree with that so far no and I
think I just wanted to clarify I think it's very clear in the staff report that
there is a recognition there not all of those substances are toxic and there's
even a chart that sort of indicated and I apologize because I phrased that
poorly all of the oil fires about which we have
data showed that they are our toxic correct no and I don't agree with that
okay which and you're which ones are not toxic that have been studied yes I think
there's a number that and that's one of our concerns about the broad approach is
that you're regulating literally you know depending on 25 to 85 different
chemicals so you're and you you're saying that there are studies of non non
polymeric additive organo halogens that show that some of them are safe and not
toxic is that what you're telling us yes the only witness who said that today so
if you can give those dyes that would be great um and but you agree that if
there's elevated ofr s in furniture its associated with higher ofr s in dust in
the room or would you disagree with that as well I'm sorry commissioner could you
clarify that question if it's higher if they're high if furniture in the room
has higher ofr s its associated with higher ofr s and the dusts in the room
do you agree with that I would say it depends on the ofr and that's one of our
concerns is that your lumping everything together and just because wines that
we've done studies of you you disagree with that as well
I would say you'd have to clarify what the source of the ofr is where it
shouldn't it might not just be furniture it could be other sources and that's an
important determination and that was the basis about my question is that if you
have furniture with high o FRS do you agree or disagree that it's associated
with higher o FRS and the dust in the room again I would say it depends on the
O FRS and also the application that it's used and if there are higher or fires in
the room in a room and people live in that room would you agree that with kids
it's associated with higher o FRS in the blood in the urine I just want to be
clear I'm not trying to avoid your question I'm trying to actually clarify
different no FAR's are used in different matrices they've been a migrate or cut
or be emitted at different levels or maybe not at all and that's why I'm just
imagine to say so broadly that yes then and I tried to make it clear at the
beginning of the day that when I say ofr is I'm referring to exactly what we're
dealing with in this petition non polymeric additive organo halogens and
of those you do agree it's a risk you disagree it's and
it caught it if it's in furniture at elevated rates that it's associated with
the dust being elevated in the room and you disagree that it's associated with
elevated blood and urine is that fair to say
just to clarify disagree that all ofr is present a risk and that all ofr
associated know of any of those that that we have are dealing with if you
could tell us what studies would support what your view is since it's so
different than any person who's testified today thank you
Thank You commissioner kay thank you madam chair I'm mr.
Simon I think you
did mention at least one of them though and correct me please if I'm wrong TBB
PA did you mention that as one that had been exonerated and what's your
understanding of this of the studies associated with that particular chemical
that you know overall when you look at the total exposure for that chemical
does not present a risk to human health or the environment and we've done some
supporting science that looks at meta-analysis of the data that's out
there just to use that as an example levels of TB BPA that are out there are
7 million times below those that would likely cause health effects so they
think that's just a very concrete example and that's what led governments
like Canada an EU to make that determination I think it's important to
note though that ongoing study is always appropriate and you always want to make
sure that I know there is ongoing research associated with TV BPA
sponsored by the industry and also by governments and so it is something that
we should look at but there's clearly been a regulatory determination there
and you referred earlier to the staff chart I believe and I'm looking at page
99 of the staff briefing and under that on the chart where it says TB BPA it
checks off toxicity associated with acute toxicity chronic toxicity
reproductive development toxicity neurotoxicity
genetic toxicity and chronic cough Yuman toxicity and labels that as a chronic
toxic chemical and so how does that square with your view that it has been
found not to be toxic as with any chemical it's a function of
both hazard and exposure and so it's important to look at that exposure
component I think that's what's been missing today
I think for what it's worth what I was referring to was in the staff chart as
related to is it toxic underneath the F HSA and clearly when
you look at the exposure levels that does not present a risk and that was
that was what I was alluding to so apologize for any confusion there so
what's unique about tbv PA that even if it's toxic it there's no exposure to it
well I think it's a combination of it there's varying levels of toxicity and
so that's one and I think even dr.
Stapleton referenced that so that's
that's number one so just because something has the potential to be toxic
it could very different ranges it could be more toxic less toxic and the second
is the exposure piece and so we think it's clear that TV BPA is not at levels
of exposure and that's why I was reluctant in response to Commissioner
Robinson's question to automatically say that all of the far has generated large
levels of exposure so the study that you're referring to or the metadata
meta-analysis associated with the studies if I understand you correctly
don't take issue as much with the toxicity but more with the lack of
exposure is that what you're saying absolutely and in your mind those
studies exonerate this chemical and remove it from consideration
I think classic toxicology would say that if you're not exposed as something
at a level that's likely to cause adverse effects that yes and dr.
Stapleton do you the characterization about the exposure associated with that
chemical I think there's a thank you for asking me because there's a key point
that's missing here is that TV BPA more than ninety percent of its use it is a
high production volume chemical is used in a reactive form which means it's
chemically bound to the products it's attached to and less likely to leach out
leading to exposure which is why that exposure risk is so little 40 B BPA if
that were to change and be used more in an additive form exposure would
certainly go up it depends on how it's used in the product and that relates to
the risk is that consistent mr.
Simon understanding absolutely I think that's
consistent I think that quote was very important it depends on the use of the
product it sounds like if it's in an additive it's not being used in an
additive form so your company shouldn't have a problem
that being banned and products in that form it is used in an additive form and
I think I just on principle we're reluctant to see here you've made
determinations by governments that this does not present a risk and yet you're
still gonna ban it and that's I think a fundamental policy and decision from the
Commission but that's one of the issues we have with the petition overall and
those determinations by governments are going to provide to us and and we I
think we provided those after the last January hearing because I think that
those are critical and we'll definitely share those and make sure those are
available to everyone and one of the comments that dr.
Ausmus made was that
there's a sea change in the thinking of companies now and if they find a
molecule that is harmful they won't they'll stop production is that
something that you're familiar with I think overall as a society we're much
more aware of chemical issues and chemical management issues I alluded to
our responsible care program that has a product safety code imposes certain
obligations and our members from developing a product to end a life so I
think there's much more awareness I would also say again we have come a long
way in some of our chemical regulation it's gonna be very hard to introduce a
new chemical that has some of the issues that we've all talked about here today I
think that's a good thing and I know that's something that that you've in
particular been an advocate for for a long time and that helps avoid this
issue of subsidy writeable substitution and making sure we're thoughtful as we
look at product design I regret my time has expired thank you thank you very
much commissioner more heroic no questions thank you at that's this time
then we will end this fifth panel and again our sincere appreciation to all of
you for being here for your willingness to testify and we will take a few
minutes to switch into our sixth panel and again my sincere thanks thank you welcome back to this public meeting
we're going to continue our final panel for today and the six people who are
joining us this afternoon are on the phone so we have no one sitting in front
of us but let me say to all of you and thank you for being here if we could
just I'll call your name if you could just confirm with me that you are on the
line that would be very helpful miss burrow Meier good afternoon hi
thank you dr.
Singler yes I'm here thank you and can I confirm that you are going
to have a PowerPoint to show us that we have it but I that you're planning on
showing it yes that's correct thank you very much dr. diamond yes I'm
here thank you miss Curtis I'm here dr. Hirschmann
thank you and and miss dr. Zeller yep I'm here
very very good thank you all very much and at this point we will ask miss Burt
miss burro Mayer to begin her testimony thank you thank you very much
my name is Nancy biedermeyer I'm the senior policy strategist for the breast
cancer prevention partners formerly known as the breast cancer fund I want
to thank the Commission for the opportunity to testify on the staff
briefing package on the petition regarding products containing organic
halogen flame retardants breast cancer prevention partners is a national
nonprofit organization committed to preventing breast cancer by reducing
exposure to chemicals and radiation linked to the disease originated flame
retardants are chemicals of significant concern to our organization as we have
probably previously outlined in our testimony and submissions on this
petition ofr have been associated with serious health problems such as cancer
neurological impacts reproductive impairments and construction and more
PBT PBT ease exposures have been found to affect the timing of puberty and
adolescent girls and to promote proliferation of human breast cancer
cells in vitro both areas of concern to breast cancer risk as you have heard
previously studies show that these chemicals migrate out of products into
our homes and ultimately into our bodies in reviewing the staff briefing package
we have identified several shortcomings that have
contributed to a poorly considered recommendation to deny the underlying
petition in writing the briefing package the staff adopted many of the arguments
the chemical industry has used for decades to stymie and frustrate any
meaningful regulation of the hundreds of toxic chemicals the public is exposed to
daily here are our responses to just a few of those concerns toxicity data is
incomplete limited or lacking arguing insufficient data is a staple of the
industry playbook either not enough evidence exists or the studies that do
show harm are for some reason irrelevant or suspect yet industry refuses to do
the toxicity testing fights tooth and nail against a minimum data set in Tosca
reform and then claims the government can act to regulate a chemical due to
lack of data the petitioners have provided the Commission more than
sufficient toxicity data to act to protect the public health which of
course is your primary mission use of these chemicals is declining staff
states that only 22% both tested products contain no afar's and that the
market is moving away from their use if one fifth of any other product category
were deemed alter ated the situation would correctly be declared a crisis in
addition without federal regulation companies are free to return to the use
of these toxic chemicals and most importantly consumers and particularly
cancer survivors with deep concern about exposing themselves and their families
to flame retardants have no way to know which products fall into that 22% the
Commission must act to ban these chemicals and 100% of the consumer
products covered by the petition and not leave the public health up to the
vagaries of the market lack of documented incidents staff concern
contends that there is insufficient data in the CPSC databases of consumer
incidents to act on the petition this contention highlights the bias of the
agency toward acute harm at the expense of their requirement to consider chronic
or long-term harm by its very nature breast cancer has a long latency periods
you period usually measured in decades well it's not possible to link a
specific case of breast cancer to a specific exposure due both to this long
latency period between exposure and onset of the disease and
sheer number of chemicals we are exposed to every day there is ample
toxicological evidence of harm to allow and in fact to require the Commission to
act chemical industry has long argued that if you can't show direct causation
you can't regulate the chemical we need only look at the example of tobacco use
to see the results of that strategy millions dead while the tobacco industry
continues to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit the Commission
should not adopt the same unreasonably high and ultimately dangerous standard
here lack of data on societal cost of illness the staff reefing contends that
they do not have sufficient data to do a cost-benefit analysis for granting the
petition one minute loading it will always be easier to document the
hard cost to industry of banning chemicals from certain products than it
is to establish the economic benefit of disease prevention yet we can certainly
track many of the medical and lost productivity costs for disease like
breast cancer but how does one quantify the societal cost of the pain and
suffering of the millions of women and men and their families facing a breast
cancer diagnosis we submit that those combined costs far outweigh whatever
economic impact there may be on manufacturers being asked to simply stop
using these chemicals in summary denying the position would be a failure by the
Commission to adequately protect public health we urge the Commission to reject
the staff briefing package and approved the petition as it was submitted thank
you again for this opportunity to testify thank you very much dr.
Singler
thank you for the opportunity to testify today my name is Venus engli and I am
director of research translation at the program on reproductive health of the
environment at University of California San Francisco my research focuses on
chemicals in the indoor environment and impacts on vulnerable populations such
as pregnant women and children next slide
why do priests mission is to create a healthier environment for human
reproduction and development through advancing scientific inquiry clinical
care and health policies that prevent exposures to harmful chemicals in our
environment next slide the federal hazardous substances Act to find the
– substance as you see here and today I'll be focusing on the second part the
fact that exposure to hazardous substance occurs as a result of
customary use next slide so starting in the middle of the slide we know that
flame retardants in indoor air and dust leads to human exposures as we've heard
from many other testifiers today and we want to understand kind of one step back
from that how the products in question in this petition electronics children's
products furniture and mattresses contribute to flame retardants in indoor
air and dust and the subsequent human exposures next slide slide 5 so
scientists use a framework known as the Bradford Hill factors to evaluate the
evidence linking the potential cause and effect so I'll briefly review some of
the evidence relating to the key factors today and refer the Commission
commissioners to my full written testimony for a more detailed
description so the factors are do we see a gradient of effect and what's the
strength of the effect is it statistically significant
is there a logical timing of the event does the cause precede the effect is
there consistency between studies and do we have experimental evidence that's in
coherence with the real-world observations next slide in this graph
we're looking at the H BCD level and dust on the left hand side and distance
from television set on the bottom H BCD levels are highest and dust directly by
the TV and levels drop dramatically as you move away from the TV and other
studies had similar findings with furniture and mattresses this gradient
of effect strongly suggests that these products are the sources of the
flame-retardant emissions to dust next slide slide 7 in this study researchers
collected dust samples from mattresses and floors inside homes and they found a
statistically significant strong correlation between levels of brominated
flame retardants and mattress dust and Florida the strength of this effect
suggests that the mattress is a major contributor to the flame-retardant
loading in dust and other studies made similar findings
for furniture electronics and children's products next slide in these graphs
we're looking at PB de levels and dust on the left hand side in relation to
whether or not products are present so in blue you can see that when you remove
a product containing flame retardants the TV the PB de levels fell
dramatically by almost 80% on the other hand you can see in orange that when you
put a new product containing flame retardants into the room the mattress PB
de levels increased dramatically by about 2,000 percent so this very clear
relationship between the timing of the presumed cause-and-effect strongly
suggest that these products are major contributors to flame retardant loading
and dust and similar results have been found with other kinds of products and
other studies next slide slide 9 studies on these products on flame retardant
emissions were conducted in the US Canada the EU and New Zealand in
different kinds of indoor environments homes child care centers offices and
with different kinds of products these studies all made similar findings about
flame retardant one minute remaining into indoor dust and air and the
consistency of results across the different studies increases our
confidence in the findings next slide and then finally we see this coherence
between the results of the laboratory studies and real world observations in
this study the scientists found that the stool and experimental chamber emitted
flame retardants directly into the chamber and they found similar results
with other kinds of products so this is consistent with the real-world studies
that find these products contribute to flame retardant emissions next slide in
conclusion considering the factors scientists used to evaluate widgets
linkages between cause and effect there is a strong body of evidence showing
that these products contribute to flame retardant levels indoors in subsequent
human exposures this evidence also speaks to the fact that removing these
flame-retardant products from indoor environment has the potential to
significantly lower human exposures to these chemicals thank you very much for
the opportunity – fine thank you very much dr.
Diamond
Thank You chair Buerkle and commissioners for the opportunity to
speak in support of the petition I'm a professor of environmental chemistry at
the University of Toronto in Canada I've been studying and publishing on
organo halogen flame retardants or ofr since the early 2000s
some of the testimony today has cited my labs work I will speak on three points
first of all why should the Commission act to control ofr s as a class all ofr
semi-volatile organic compounds or s VOCs s EO CS that are additive to a
polymer inevitably and predictably migrate from their origin of that
polymer to the surrounding environment that includes people migration of
audited ofr is is an inherent property of the ofr subclass they were speaking
of migration from four product categories to the surrounding
environment indoors where these products are located additive ofr is migrated to
preferentially accumulate in people and other fatty types of materials indoors
migration can be through air or by direct transfer from the product
specifically those fatty or organic rich constituents and doors are our skin our
clothing and dust once again migration of additive ofr s from products and
accumulation on skin clothing and dust is inevitable and predictable finally
ofr s and other chemicals emitted indoors are persistent due to limited
chemical degradation pathways this leads me to point number two the connection
between levels of low FRS and products and dust when a petition was tabled in
2015 to our best knowledge it was dust there was a primary source of human
exposure to ofr as a class but research including our own has advanced our
understanding of exposure routes beyond that of dust dust is likely a surrogate
or proxy for indoor roots of ofr exposure rather we now understand it ofr
s are transferred directly from products to hands followed by hand to mouth
tact also our hands pick up contaminated desks again transferred by hand to mouth
contact we also understand that ofr is released from products into air in
evitable and predictably accumulate on all
bearskin and on our clothes oh FRS on skin and clothes contribute to exposure
to summarize we now understand that o FRS follow multiple routes of exposure
indoors and the dust is a reasonable surrogate for exposure and the four
product classes I want to focus on o FRS and electronic casings all electronic
products that we sampled which is nearly 300 products contain additive oh f RS in
their casings we found a statistically significant relationship between levels
of o FRS in products and Oh F RS and dusts that's a basi Adele 2016 our
recent data by yang Adele 2017 show a relationship between ofr swipe from the
surfaces of handheld electronic devices and their owners hands these devices
include cell phones tablets home phones and laptops I've been watching the
proceedings today on YouTube I see many people are holding a cell phone I see
the kids that ever younger ages are handling electronic devices like cell
phones that contain ofr s the transfer of Oh F bars from handheld electronic
devices to young kids even toddlers and to all of us handling these devices is
inevitable I appreciate the need to have fire safety testimony today has included
comments at O FRS increased the safety of electronic products I welcome
peer-reviewed scientific evidence to show this as I am not aware of such
evidence I conclude by supporting the petition we know that ofr is migrated
from products there's strong evidence of widespread human exposure to O FRS as
complicated in one minute remaining visual chemicals and there are strong
evidence of their ability to cause multiple adverse effects thank you thank
you very much miss Curtis I'm Cathy Curtis executive director of clean and
healthy New York we thank the Commission for the
opportunity to testify though more than a year and a half has passed since we
last have defied before this body on this subject we remain convinced that it
is important for the Consumer Product Safety Commission to approve the ban of
organo halogen flame retardants and consumer products clean and healthy New
York has focused on flame-retardant chemicals for over a decade and my work
significantly / dates that I led work to pass the New York state law banning
Penta and octa and creating a task force on flame retardant safety to explore
alternatives to deca c hny led the work to pass a first in nation ban on TC EP
and subsequent expansion of the law to include TDC PP in new york state
– carcinogens i coordinated the National Alliance for toxic free fire safety and
from 2006 to 2014 and during that period I helped Shepherd federal deca BD
phase-out advance significant market shifts and helped coordinate several
state level bans I served on the EPA designed for the environment
alternatives assessment partnerships for both deca and HB c HB CD and was one of
two advocates with the New York State Professional Firefighters Association
appointed to New York's Task Force on flame retardant safety from 2005 to 2013
when I spoke in January 2016 I stated that 12 states took action on flame
retardant chemicals as of today 14 states have adopted a total of 33
policies 15 states have 22 pending policies in 2017 with a total of 23
states either having enacted laws or having pending legislation or both and
yet despite state-level ofr prohibitions and market shifts the use of toxic
chemicals in home goods and children's products continues which is why federal
action on the part of CPSC is required in December 2015 the safe sofas and more
campaign released the report flame retardants and furniture fallen in
floors leaders laggards and the drive for change we found that of the tops
furniture mattress and carpet padding manufacturers there was a range of use
of flame retardant chemicals only five of the 14 mattress companies reported
being free of flame-retardant chemicals here's what the executive summary said
about mattresses 5 of 14 mattress makers reported not using flame retardant
chemicals 5 reported not being actively flame retardant free 4 did not source
flame retardant free foam and 1 did not offer clarity that their barrier was
flame-retardant free one uses flame retardants in some products and not in
others 3 did not provide information since the publication of that document
none of the mattress manufacturers have disputed these findings since January
first companies reporting to Washington State under their children's safe
products act have reported a hundred and ten instances of flame retardant use in
infant and children's products this includes four reports of deca BD usage
one of which was at levels above 10,000 parts per million two instances of hexa
bromo cyclododecatriene or bisphenol A – one instance of TDC PP and one instance
of P CEP further unpublished third-party laboratory testing by the getting ready
for baby campaign which c hny coordinates and the Center for
Environmental Health in 2016 and 2017 have found halogenated flame retardants
in polyurethane foam used in infant products the flame retardants include
Tris – – Bhutto oxy SL phosphate and Tris one
chloro – propyl phosphate in conclusion state actions to ban certain flame
retardants while important are not enough to avoid exposure to protect
public health state task force reports clearly show there are alternatives to
halogens that are affordable available and effective additive flame retardants
are still being one minute remaining are thank you additive flame retardants are
still being reported and upholstered furniture mattresses infant and toddler
products and electronics the four categories covered under the petition
request markets may be shifting but I've not fully made the transition to safer
methods of fire protection for these reasons and those stated by other
supporters today clean and healthy New York strongly supports a decision by the
Consumer Product Safety Commission to protect to the health of consumers by
prohibiting the sale expect contain organelle hallie and
retardant chemicals thank you thank you very much mrs.
Curtis dr. herb Smith
good afternoon thanks very much for the opportunity to testify today I'm an
epidemiologist and associate professor in the Department of Environmental
Health Sciences at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public
Health I'm affiliated with the Columbia Center for children's environmental
health the Columbia Center for environmental health in northern
Manhattan and the cancer epidemiology program at the Herbert Irving
Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Columbia University Medical Center since
2002 I've been studying the impact of prenatal exposure to polybrominated
diphenyl ethers P P de flame retardants and their effects on children's thyroid
hormone levels and neuro development in my research we selected umbilical cord
blood and have worked with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to
measure P be de components or congeners that are associated with the penta
brominated diphenyl ether or Penta PDE mixture I have found that in all of the
neonates in my research studies in both Baltimore and in New York City the
children had detectable levels of at least one of the Penta PDE congeners in
their cord blood we found evidence suggesting that prenatal exposure to
Penta PDE congeners impact perinatal thyroid hormone levels we also found
that children who were exposed prenatally to higher concentrations of
Penta BDE congeners relative to children in the study with lower exposures scored
significantly lower on cognitive tests including IQ tests at ages four and
seven and these children with higher exposures also reported having more
attention problems based on my research and the research of other investigators
in the field there's an ample evidence indicating that prenatal exposure to
Penta btes is associated with lower scores on
indicators of both cognition like IQ and also increased number of behavior
problems that are measured throughout childhood since PBDEs have been phased
out of use and new computer new consumer products new compounds have been used
instead some of these compounds are also organo halogen flame retardants meaning
that they are in the same chemical family as PPD
and other flame retardants that have been phased out or banned previously
like brominated Tris we've recently studied homes in New York City where
women and their young children three to five years old live among all the women
and the children we study every one was exposed to detectable levels of PBDEs as
well as brominated flame retardant chemicals that are used as PVD
replacements abbreviated as TVB and t BP h well t BB&T BP h were detected on the
hands of all the women and the children we studied children had higher
concentrations on their hands as compared to their mothers after
accounting for differences in hand size we also found that the amount of TB b
and t p ph in house dust was associated with the amount of TB b TB b + TB ph on
the hands of the mothers and children living in these homes toxicological data
has demonstrated that these PB de replacements are biologically active
studies from other researchers in the field have shown that these compounds
can interact with nuclear receptors known as p / gamma which are involved in
adipose emesis and relevant to obesity other studies have demonstrated that
exposure during pregnancy has altered maternal thyroid hormones and induced
liver toxicity based on my own research and the research of others in the field
I conclude that in households in the US where pregnant women and children live
there are detectable levels of both PBDEs and their halogenated replacements
children infants and fetuses are more vulnerable to the health effects
resulting from exposure to a wide variety of environmental chemicals
including halogenated flame retardants therefore is my professional opinion
that there is reason to be concerned that the entire class of workouts organo
halogen flame retardants may cause injury or illness to humans particularly
to fetuses and young children therefore I support regulations designed to
prevent human exposure to these chemicals from consumer products thanks
very much for your attention and your time thank you very much dr.
Zeller
yes good afternoon and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to
you today I'm a professor in the biology department at the University of
Massachusetts Amherst my research over the past 25 years has been focused on
understanding how thyroid hormone controls brain development and whether
and have environmental chemicals like halogenated flame retardants can
interfere with this action its first important to recognize that
thyroid hormone is essential for brain development in the fetus in newborns and
in children this fact is so well recognized that every baby born in this
country is tested for normal functioning of the thyroid gland at birth in some
regions of the country as many as 1 and 1,200 newborns have low thyroid hormone
and it's considered a medical emergency to ensure that they are identified and
treated quickly to limit the cognitive deficits caused by low thyroid hormone
during development it's also become clear that thyroid hormone levels and
pregnant women are important for development of the fetus and this
appears to be especially true in the first trimester when the fetal thyroid
gland has not yet developed but when thyroid hormone is still
required for brain development my research on halogenated flame-retardants
such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers tetra bromo bisphenol A and some
perfluorinated chemicals has demonstrated that these chemicals can
interfere with thyroid hormone in the developing brain but in ways that we
don't fully understand currently the only tool we have to measure whether
these flame-retardants affect the human thyroid system is to measure blood
levels of thyroid hormone the work in my laboratory in the laboratory of others
around the world has shown that some of these chemicals can interfere with
thyroid hormone in brain in a manner that's not consistent with changes in
blood levels of thyroid hormone we've recently expanded this work to humans by
testing whether halogenated chemicals can enter
fear with thyroid hormone actions in the placenta we focused on the placenta for
the obvious reason that it's a tissue that's available but it's also a known
target of thyroid hormone action and it's likely that similar effects are
occurring in the fetal brain in collaboration with our Canadian
colleagues dr.
Larissa taxer in Quebec our findings are fully consistent with
the conclusion that environmental chemicals most likely halogenated flame
retardants can interfere with thyroid hormone action in humans without
affecting hormone levels in the blood or in cord blood this observation should be
deeply concerning to everybody listening to this testimony because it means that
common chemicals found in the home and workplace can affect the health of our
children like a stealth bomber flying below the radar of the ways we test for
tests chemicals for safety or study the impacts of these chemicals on human
health so in closing it's clear to me that
these halogenated flame retardants can and do affect human development in part
by interfering with thyroid hormone during development this conclusion is
based on years of high-resolution research that can't be duplicated for
every single halogenated flame retardant these chemicals are robbing our children
and grandchildren of critical intellectual potential
and while these effects may not be visible on the faces of our children
they're no less important to them individually or to our society thank you
for your attention thank you very much dr.
Zeller and thank you to all of our
panelists for participating by phone the commissioners will now ask their
5-minute round of questions and I will begin the questions and I will address
this to anyone on the panel who would like to answer this I'm going back to
the recommendation from staff and the issues that they raised number one that
we do not have the data that would allow us to ban a class of chemicals on
specific chemicals and so we Dadda there is a data gap and we've
heard this it's been kind of a recurring theme throughout the day and if anyone
would like to comment on that I would certainly appreciate hearing your
thoughts so this is Tom Zeller if I could jump in very quickly with just a
very brief response to that and that is I think that we should make
recommendations and regulations based on what we know not on what we don't know
so the fact that there is a data gap and there will always be data gaps should
not restrict us from action thank you thank you areum Dimond I'd like to add
to that by saying that we understand the thermodynamics of how ofr is behaved and
we know it's inevitable that they will migrate from products and result in
exposure thank you dr.
Damon I guess my follow-up
question to be to that would be whether we can show that that exposure would
rise to a toxic level that would then cause the harm and that seems to be part
of the discussion today dr. Zeller I just wanted to go back to what you said
and that is I apologize I just lost my train of thought on your comment if you
could just refresh my memory about what you just said in response to my question
sure my my main point was that we should base our regulations and our kind of
decisions on what we know and not on what we don't know because there will
always be things that we don't know one of the main points that I wanted to make
in my testimony is that we are now finding that chemicals like these
halogenated flame retardants that have a chemical structure similar to that of
thyroid hormone can actually affect the developing brain as well as other
tissues without affecting blood levels so that means when the government does a
study and they don't see an effect on blood levels of thyroid hormone they say
that it's safe and I don't think that that's a legitimate argument
anymore thank you very much and I'll just follow that up with when you're a
data-driven agency understanding the import and the possible exposure and
toxicity of each chemical is important and I think that is that is our struggle
here we have to rely on data we can't assume because one chemical is part of a
class of chemicals that then they're all that they are all dangerous or create a
hazard to the consumer doctor excuse me commissioner Adler thank you very much
madam chairman and following up on that dr.
Singler you've just heard the
Chairman expressing this concern about need for data gap fillers in your
written testimony you mentioned scientific guidelines that have been
used to fill in gaps in data such as structure activity relationships and
quantitative structure-activity relationships could you expand on that
and to your knowledge of others health and safety agencies used techniques like
this to fill in data gaps the kind of methods you just mentioned Read Across
and tools for assessing structure-activity relationships are
well established in the regulatory sphere so these are used by EPA's new
chemicals program for example to make decisions on the hazards of chemicals
based on a on their class or category they belong to even without data on the
specific chemical and for organo halogen flame retardants and in particular the
California office of environmental health hazard assessment did look at
them as a class and had concerns about the the toxicity of the class and named
the class as a concern for the bio monitoring program so these methods are
well established in regulatory science and have been used to look at chemicals
yeah and following up on that you said that the molecular characteristics of
this class of flame retardants result in toxicity due to humans with pregnant
women and children being especially vulnerable and so I guess the basic
question is whether the is it your belief that the molecular
characteristics are sufficiently common to all of' RS that they can be dealt
with as a class yes I would say that's that's about it that is correct and in
the fact that the carbon halogen bonds or the bond between carbon and a bromine
or a chlorine is what is the consistent feature of this class that imparts the
exposure properties as we've heard that they will inevitably migrate out of
products that at that semi-volatile organic chemical behavior so it gives
them those exposure properties as well as the toxicity properties that
propensity to enter cells and accumulate in fatty tissue and cause toxicity dr.
diamond you said a number of studies that demonstrate that exposure to HF RS
can occur from ingestion of dust hand to mouth transferred a dermal intake
directly from air clothing and inhalation some of these exposure routes
seem more likely than others due to differential volatility of these
chemicals does this suggest that some of these chemicals are likely to present
minimal or no health risks well let's just use apart the components there of
your question so one is the migration and the exposure route and the other is
toxicity my comments were were focused on exposure and yes depending on the
exact system properties on the chemicals will differ in the tendency to partition
onto skin versus a stay in air and and to which we would be exposed more
through inhalation the because of the persistence and the and the sort of the
internal biological persistence of these compounds the route of exposure does not
appear to or at least I am not aware that the route of exposure info
winces toxicity no.not toxicity I guess what I'm saying is taking the
combination of toxicity and the route of exposure does that lead you to conclude
that any of the ofr s that we're concerned with are not going to present
a problem in other words can we still treat them as a class yes my conclusion
was that we should and can treat them as a class because of these are basic
thermodynamic properties thank you very much miss Curtis you cite the statutes
of a number of states regarding O FRS you seem pessimistic that state action
will adequately address the problem of hazardous Oh F ours is that you're
concerned that it not enough states will pass laws outlawing no FRS or that the
states that ban certain O FRS will leave so many others on the market that
consumers will not be adequately protected policy I there are concerns
that children in Mississippi and Indiana and Wyoming are not necessarily
benefiting from these laws and that they're not well enforced either they're
not really being adequately enforced but that in a way that they could be by the
federal government so I think it would be best for manufacturers as well if
there were a uniform approach that covered the entire nation thank you
Thank You Commissioner Robinson thank you dr.
Singhal I'm going to direct
these questions at you but then dr. Hirschmann I'd like your comments as
well if you'd like to add anything the Commissioner Adler was just asking
about the the first concern that that staff seemed to have about data because
there were two very distinct areas and one was that the information that we
have about the Olo fires that are within this class variant axis 'ti and exposure
that is those that we know something about and a lot of them we don't know
anything about and dr. Singhal you've told in response to Commissioner Adler's
questions you've talked about well-established and well accepted ways
in which other agencies and scientists get get past data gaps where it's
appropriate and you've told us about the the
four ways in which they do that with SARS and Q SARS and Read Across but let
me ask you first of all a very basic question why is it important to have
those methods to get past data gaps I think it's important because as dr.
Zeller mentioned there's there will always be some data gap or or a level of
uncertainty we never have perfect data or all the data that we need to make the
decision and it's important to be able to move forward in the face of
uncertainty to to make decisions and put protections in place that that are
needed so I think those those tools are important and have been validated for
that purpose by scientists and other agencies so I think it's also important
to consider the standard we're thinking about in the decision to be made so in
in this case we're thinking about the potential to cause harm or you know if
if these chemicals may cause the substantial injury or illness and I
think in thinking about the level of evidence evidence needed to meet that
standard that these tools do provide that level of evidence that this class
of chemicals may cause harm okay and and if you use these well-established
scientifically accepted methods of getting around data gaps that so many
others have used why do you think if we applied those here it would be
appropriate to put these OU FRS into a class I think the and when you think
about creating a chemical class or category you look at common structural
or structural or molecular features as well as common exposure pathways and the
ofr s do you have those in common as a class thank you and dr.
Herb swoon do
you have anything to add to that I first I agree with
everything that doctor Singla said and and what others have said earlier today
is just under it is really unrealistic to expect that we are going to be able
we as a scientific community are going to be able to evaluate every single
chemical that's put into commerce it's just not it's just not possible and the
case in point I can speak to my own research started looking at PBDEs and
then have moved into PB de replacements but we're just or we're behind where
what's already in circulation and so this way of being so reactionary is not
serving us it's not serving us well and so using the methods that dr.
Singler
described dr. Birnbaum described earlier you know we can understand how similar
different compounds are to one another and draw across the entire class and use
weight of evidence which is what we use in epidemiology toxicology to sort of
make a determination about the toxicity of any particular compound because this
truly is not not realistic to expect that we're going to be able to test
every single compound it's an unrealistic expectation thank you and
that second area of concern that staff had was that the presence of ofr
chemicals in household dust does not establish a link to the four product
categories that petitioners have identified dr.
Singla do you have
anything that you could add that would address that concern yes some of the the
data that I presented in my swat slide speaks to that very issue that we have
studies linking those particular products furniture mattresses children's
products electronics to the levels of flame retardants in the indoor
environment in dust or air so those studies do show a very specific
connection to example at a television or a mattress or a laptop computer being in
a room and the levels of flame retardant and error does thank you so much and
thank you to all of you Thank You Commissioner cake thank you
madam chair does anybody on the panel have any data whatsoever or can cite any
study or any government finding that would exonerate any of any organ elgyn nothing we're hearing just silence and
how about dr. diamond in Canada dr.
Diamond one of the prior panelists
mentioned that Canada may have exonerated in organo halogen are you
aware of that yes I am so it's TV BPA and under the Canadian chemical
management plan under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act the
conclusion was that it the TV BPA could not be classified as toxic but I want to
add that and I'll quote from the report although there is currently limited
exposure in Canada 2tb BPA and its concentrations currently in the
environment are not indicative of harm to organisms in Canada there may be
concerns if new activities were to occur so I returned to what Heather Stapleton
said earlier TV BPA is used 90% as a reactive flame-retardant rather than an
additive the fact that the the adjudication was based on exposure not
on hazard is likely due to the fact that it's used as a reactive and not added to
flame-retardant there is some use of t b– bpa as an additive flame-retardant
and should that increase then under the canadian chemical management plan of the
adjudicators would return to that decision and reevaluate IC and this is
for you or anybody else was there anything about the chemical structure of
t b– BPA that would lead you to believe that if it were using additive form that
it would not present a hazard nobody wants to opine on that well let me ask
it in a different way does anyone believe that it would not present a
hazard based on its chemical formulation if used in an additive manner this is
Dina Singh lied I want to comment on the opposite of that actually the
chemical structure would lead me to have a lot of concerns about its toxicity
because it's it's the chemical structure is bisphenol A or BPA with four bro
means on it mm-hmm I would like to echo this Mariam Dimond
I would like to echo that comment and there is ample evidence now of the
exposure certainly an adverse effects caused by this phenol a got it so as a
layperson if I'm understanding you correctly dr.
Time and you're saying
that it's purely because of the way that it's been used is in a reactive manner
that has probably led to the conclusion by Canada at this juncture that's
correct based on exposure not on hazard got it
thank you and dr. Zola I really very much appreciate the way you defined what
our charge should be that we should act based on what we know not based on what
we don't know and I don't think that there's any inconsistency between that
and the idea that we are a data-driven agency because I think as you look at
the data that has been presented from the petition through the first public
hearing the first public comment all the way through till now I think the data is
actually overwhelming and I think the data is overwhelming on every single
point and so one can always say there's not enough information but in any Trier
of fact I don't think that I'm not aware of any time where there's a 100% proof
standard there's always going to be doubt whether it's criminal cases or
civil cases or a regulatory decision and I think in this case as I mentioned
there's an overwhelming amount of evidence on every single point and I
don't agree with the characterization that the federal hazardous substances
Act does not give us the ability to move forward as a class I think that it
clearly does give us the ability that's up for us to decide how we want to do it
and it also gives us the flexibility if we wanted to create an exemption process
at some point if it turned out that we ended up in snaring one chemical one
organo halogen that down the line could be proven to be safe there's no reason
why we couldn't build in some process to allow that upon the right proof to be
exempted certainly we have done that in the past we did not require proof of
every single plastic to have phthalates in it before
we banned phthalates or the Congress ban phthalates it was done across the board
and exemptions were created and so I I'm hopeful that my colleagues have heard
similar to what I've heard today have felt the same level of concern and that
after this will move forward in a way that's protective of children in
particular and if one's gonna make a mistake if one I'll close on this if at
the end of the day we look back on this decision and say we made a mistake I'd
far rather us make the mistake that ends up being too protective of children than
one that pulls short of that so thank you very much miss Gardner thank you
very much miss Weintraub and the rest of your coalition for bringing this
petition to our attention and I hope you do it justice Commissioner aerobic no
questions thank you very much let me begin by saying thank you to this last
number six panel today thank you for sharing and lending your expertise to
this agency we greatly appreciate your time and your effort in preparing not
only for your written testimony but for being here via phone for this
afternoon's hearing thank you all very much for the record I also want to note
that in addition to today's presentations we have received written
comments from the International Sleep Products Association American Home
Furnishings Alliance and kids in danger in addition to their old testimony
today's we also received additional written testimony from the National
Resources Defense Council the Green Science Policy Institute and the
American Chemistry Council I also want to acknowledge once again our staff who
has been here with us all day and who helped facilitate this meeting the
office of the secretary including Acting Secretary Alberta Mills MS rocky Hammond
our general counsel Mary Boyle and the offices executive director Shelley Koval
and sitting in for our executive director Tate mr.
Dwayne ray Jon Magoo
ghen once again thank you very much for managing all of these audio-visual
efforts today we do appreciate that I want to just make one last comment
about today's hearing I want to take the few minutes to thank the staff for the
briefing package although our staffs work was complemented throughout the day
I think a lot of it you know was called into question and the reasoning behind
it and what I want to say that may not be aware of some folks who don't follow
CPSC very closely is that the Commission directive is actually limit what staff
can do when we receive a petition and it limits the amount of time staff can
spend on a petition before it is granted or active acted upon by the Commission
and so to think that the staffs briefing package was their work in totality is
not an accurate depiction of the staffs work they are limited in to what they
can do when they bring that briefing package up in response to a petition and
I also just want to emphasize that the staff makes an independent judgment and
recommendation and I congratulate them for providing a very useful package for
which the commissioners will base their decision upon and in addition to the
limited time factor for responding to a petition and making a recommendation to
the Commission staff also has to take into account other issues some of those
being resources and other priorities that the Commission has established so
they balance all of those factors into their briefing package to the Commission
and I just want to say thank you to all the staff who prepared that briefing
package and made it a very useful document for us and I guess one last
thing I'm guessing that if our toxicologist could and time and money
was unlimited they'd love to take a whack at these but it's just the reality
of the situation we find ourselves in once again thank you to all of you and
to thank you for my colleagues for what I think is a very beneficial and good
hearing today thank you