<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	 xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>State of Health Blog from KQED News &#187; Flame Retardants</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/tag/flame-retardants/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth</link>
	<description>A window into health in California</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 19:13:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5</generator>
<atom:link rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com"/><atom:link rel="hub" href="http://superfeedr.com/hubbub"/>		<item>
		<title>Toxics Linked to Cancer Prevalent in Couches</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/11/28/toxics-linked-to-cancer-prevalent-in-couches/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=toxics-linked-to-cancer-prevalent-in-couches</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/11/28/toxics-linked-to-cancer-prevalent-in-couches/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Aliferis</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Flame Retardants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/?p=9064</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[        <media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/11/Couch_ChrisMetcalf_Flickr.jpg" medium="image" />
By Christina Jewett, California Watch Eight out of 10 couches contain flame retardant chemicals that are linked to heightened cancer risk, developmental delays in children or are lacking adequate health information, according to a study released today by researchers at UC Berkeley and Duke University. The study also shows an increase in the number of couches &#8230; <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/11/28/toxics-linked-to-cancer-prevalent-in-couches/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
	        <media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/11/Couch_ChrisMetcalf_Flickr.jpg" medium="image" />
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>By Christina Jewett</strong>, <a href="http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/more-couches-contain-chemicals-tied-cancer-risk-18701" target="_blank">California Watch</a></p>
<p>Eight out of 10 couches<strong><em> </em></strong>contain flame retardant chemicals that are linked to heightened cancer risk, developmental delays in children or are lacking adequate health information, according to a study released today by researchers at UC Berkeley and Duke University.</p>
<div id="attachment_9067" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/11/Couch_ChrisMetcalf_Flickr.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-9067" title="(Chris Metcalf/Flickr)" src="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/11/Couch_ChrisMetcalf_Flickr-300x199.jpg" alt="(Chris Metcalf/Flickr)" width="300" height="199" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">(Chris Metcalf/Flickr)</p></div>
<p>The study also shows an increase in the number of couches bought throughout the U.S. that contain flame retardants. That number went up even though California is the only state that has a flame retardant regulation. While 75 percent of couches bought before 2005 contained a flame retardant chemical, the rate rose to 93 percent in couches bought since 2005, the study found.</p>
<p>“I didn’t expect to find such a high percentage of furniture bought outside of California to meet the standard,” said Arlene Blum, an author of the study and founder of the Berkeley-based Green Science Policy Institute. “It’s led to the use of more toxic chemicals.”</p>
<p>The study is coming out as California authorities, at the direction of Gov. Jerry Brown, <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/06/27/california-moving-to-new-rules-on-flame-retardants/" target="_blank">are revising the state’s Technical Bulletin 117</a>, which requires furniture foam to resist combustion when exposed to a flame for 12 seconds.</p>
<p>An updated bulletin is being drafted that will require couch upholstery to resist catching fire when it comes into contact with something, such as a cigarette, that is smoldering, according to Russ Heimerich, a spokesman for the Department of Consumer Affairs, which includes the state’s furniture safety bureau.</p>
<p>The change would mean that many couches would meet the fire-safety standard as they are currently made, without adding chemicals to foam, Heimerich said.<span id="more-9064"></span></p>
<p>Heimerich said a draft regulation is expected to be released in December for public comment. The new rule may take effect next summer.</p>
<p>The study released today sheds light on which chemicals are used most frequently in furniture foam.</p>
<p>Researchers collected 102 samples of foam from couches bought from 1985 to 2010. They found that 85 percent of the samples contained a flame retardant. The chemicals tend to leech from foam and accumulate in household dust. People, particularly toddlers, can ingest them through hand-to-mouth contact.</p>
<p>The most common chemical in the couches was Tris phosphate, found in 42 couch samples. The chemical was <a href="http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/flame-retardant-added-states-list-cancer-causing-chemicals-13065" target="_blank">added in 2011</a> to the state’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. The 1986 ballot initiative<strong> </strong>requires companies to warn consumers who would be exposed to the chemical a year after it&#8217;s added to the list.</p>
<p>The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical makers, <a href="http://www.americanchemistry.com/Media/PressReleasesTranscripts/ACC-news-releases/OEHHAs-Next-Steps-on-Flame-Retardant-Should-Be-Based-on-Science.html" target="_blank">said the listing</a> does not “automatically mean a consumer’s health is threatened.”</p>
<p>The second-most common chemical, discovered in 17 couch samples, was PentaBDE, which was banned in California in 2004 but remains in many couches, which most people keep for about 15 years. That chemical has been linked to <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=flame-retardant-fertility-pregnancy-pbde" target="_blank">problems with fertility</a> in adults and <a href="http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/11/15/pbdes-and-neurodevelopmental-deficits/" target="_blank">lower IQ</a> and impaired motor function in children.</p>
<p>The third-most prevalent chemical was Firemaster 550, a compound made by the firm Chemtura. While there are few studies of that chemical, <a href="http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wms-patisaul-firemaster/" target="_blank">one linked</a> Firemaster 550 exposure to rapid weight gain and early onset of puberty in young rats.</p>
<p>Heather Stapleton, an associate professor of environmental chemistry at Duke University and an author of the Firemaster study and the couch study released today, said concerned consumers are unlikely to learn much about their own couch’s chemicals.</p>
<p>Many couches made outside California have no label saying they comply with Technical Bulletin 117. Yet 64 percent of couches with no label still contain flame retardants, the new study found. Also, few furniture makers can trace their supply chain back to a foam supplier to find out which fire-fighting product was used.</p>
<p>“There’s no way to find out if it does or doesn’t” contain flame retardants, Stapleton said. “You have no way of knowing what’s in there.”</p>
<p>Researchers say washing hands and dusting with a damp rag or mop are good ways to limit dust ingestion and reduce exposure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/11/28/toxics-linked-to-cancer-prevalent-in-couches/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/11/Couch_ChrisMetcalf_Flickr.jpg" medium="image" height="681" width="1024"><media:thumbnail url="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/11/Couch_ChrisMetcalf_Flickr-60x60.jpg" height="60" width="60" /></media:content>
		<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/11/Couch_ChrisMetcalf_Flickr-300x199.jpg" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">(Chris Metcalf/Flickr)</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Moving To New Rules on Flame Retardants</title>
		<link>http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/06/27/california-moving-to-new-rules-on-flame-retardants/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=california-moving-to-new-rules-on-flame-retardants</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/06/27/california-moving-to-new-rules-on-flame-retardants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 04:40:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rachel Dornhelm</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Place Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chemicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Flame Retardants]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/?p=6885</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[California regulators say they&#8217;re committed to eliminating toxic flame retardants from baby products and couches within a year. &#8220;It&#8217;s huge,&#8221; says Arlene Blum, a visiting scholar in chemistry at U.C. Berkeley and executive director of the Green Science Policy Institute &#8220;We in California have had a unique flammability standard since 1975,&#8221; Blum says. &#8220;That [standard] &#8230; <a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/06/27/california-moving-to-new-rules-on-flame-retardants/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div id="attachment_6886" class="wp-caption alignleft" style="width: 310px"><a href="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/06/Picture-11.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-6886" title="A diagram from the state's current regulation on fire-safety of upholstered furniture (State Technical Bulletin 117)" src="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/06/Picture-11-300x286.png" alt="" width="300" height="286" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">A diagram from the state&#039;s current regulation on fire-safety of upholstered furniture (State Technical Bulletin 117)</p></div>
<p>California regulators say they&#8217;re committed to eliminating toxic flame retardants from baby products and couches within a year.</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s huge,&#8221; says <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5njba_nhgc" target="_blank">Arlene Blum</a>, a visiting scholar in chemistry at U.C. Berkeley and executive director of the <a href="http://www.greensciencepolicy.org/" target="_blank">Green Science Policy Institute </a></p>
<p>&#8220;We in California have had a unique flammability standard since 1975,&#8221; Blum says. &#8220;That [standard] has been met with pound levels of chemicals that are like DDT or PCBs in our couches. And they’re chemicals that are continually migrating out of couches into dust and they’re ending up in our pets and our children &#8230; and in us.”</p>
<p>This week Tonya Blood, the head of <a href="http://www.bhfti.ca.gov/" target="_blank">the department that oversees furniture regulations</a>, told a state senate committee the agency is committed to getting rid of the old standard and replacing it with new fire-safety rules that can be met without the use of chemicals.<span id="more-6885"></span></p>
<p>Right now, Blood says, upholstered furniture has to be able to withstand an open flame for a number of seconds, which requires the chemical treatment of foam. The new approach to fire safety would draw on federal standards requiring safer outer fabrics that don&#8217;t need chemical flame retardants to pass a smolder test.</p>
<p>Some advocates say the smolder test is a better measure anyway because more fire fatalities stem from an unattended cigarette than from a falling candle.</p>
<p>Blood says they want to accomplish the rule change in the next 12 months. &#8220;That [is] an aggressive timeline,&#8221; she told me today.</p>
<p>Because California is such a large market, manufacturers cater to its standards. Changing the law could have a big ripple effect. KQED&#8217;s <a href="http://www.kqed.org/radio/about/staff/amy-standen.jsp" target="_blank">Amy Standen</a> did <a href="http://www.npr.org/2012/05/23/153308887/fight-over-flame-retardants-in-furniture-heats-up" target="_blank">a story on this issue last month</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>According to the American Home Furnishings Alliance, more than 80 percent of furniture sold in the U.S. contains foam treated with flame retardant chemicals.</p>
<p>The problem, chemists say, is that the chemicals don&#8217;t just stay inside the sofas — they turn up in household dust and in human blood and breast milk. Some of these chemicals cause cancer in lab animals, and studies suggest connections between some of the chemicals and abnormal brain development in humans.</p>
<p>Over the years, the most worrisome chemicals have been phased out, but they&#8217;re still present in older furniture. Meanwhile, new chemicals come online and scientists scramble to test them. For these reasons, California lawmakers have tried five times to change this law.</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s enormously frustrating,&#8221; says state Sen. Mark Leno, a Democrat.</p>
<p>Leno&#8217;s recent bill had the support of furniture makers, firefighter groups and doctors. All of them wanted the chemicals out of furniture, but the bill died in committee. Every lawmaker who voted against it had received campaign contributions from the chemical industry.</p></blockquote>
<p>After all these years, why are things changing now? Advocates point to <a href="http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html">a recent series in the Chicago Tribune</a> that&#8217;s been <a href="http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_chicago_tribune_torches_th.php">widely hailed</a> for helping bring wide spread attention to the issue. One story pointed out how everything started when <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/flames/ct-met-flames-tobacco-20120508,0,3332088.story" target="_blank">tobacco companies wanted to shift blame</a> for fire deaths away from cigarettes. <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/flames/ct-met-flame-retardants-20120506,0,1627036.story" target="_blank">Another story featured a burn doctor </a>sponsored by a chemical industry group, who repeatedly made up testimony about young patients whose deaths he claimed might have been prevented by flame retardants.</p>
<p>Tonya Blood says California has been moving toward these changes for years. But there does seem to be increased urgency. Blood says her agency will hold public workshops on the topic July 23-25. Details to come, but one will be in Sacramento, she says, and the other in Southern California.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2012/06/27/california-moving-to-new-rules-on-flame-retardants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://blogs.kqed.org/stateofhealth/files/2012/06/Picture-11-300x286.png" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">A diagram from the state's current regulation on fire-safety of upholstered furniture (State Technical Bulletin 117)</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
