April 6, 2015
Facts vs. Fiction
A petition was filed recently requesting that the Consumer Product Safety Commission ban all organohalogen flame retardants from four categories of consumer products. The following Fact Checker entry addresses the media coverage and misinformation surrounding the petition.
Myth: Banning an entire group of flame retardants shouldn’t be a problem, as there are many other flame retardants and fire safety tools that can take their place.
FACT: Flame retardants are not all the same, and they are not interchangeable when it comes to the fire safety of materials and products. The availability of a variety of flame retardants is necessary because the materials that need to be made fire-resistant are very different in their physical nature and chemical composition, and they behave differently during combustion. As a result, chemical manufacturers have developed different flame-retardant chemistries to suit different products to render them fire-resistant and allow them to retain their intended functionality and performance standards. Thus, eliminating an entire class of flame retardants could mean removing flame retardants that are needed or beneficial in certain products. This petition broadly lumps together and proposes restrictions on a broad range of substances with different properties and uses without any consideration of their safety or risk. This is not appropriate.
Myth: Flame retardants, especially organohalogen flame retardants, are bad for our health.
FACT: Flame retardants are not one product and should not be treated as such. In reality, there are a number of different flame retardants with very different health and safety profiles. Flame retardants, like all chemicals, are subject to review by the EPA and other regulatory bodies around the world. In fact, the EPA, as part of its ongoing review of chemicals in commerce, has identified approximately 50 flame retardants that it says are unlikely to pose a risk to human health. As part of its assessment, EPA already coordinates with the CPSC and FDA on its assessments of chemicals and any recommended regulations. Requiring the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission to also review the safety of these flame retardants would be redundant and a waste of taxpayer funds.
There is no reason to make families choose between chemical safety and fire safety when they can and do have both.
Myth: It is unclear whether or not flame retardants make a difference in slowing or stopping fires.
FACT: Flame retardants provide an important layer of fire protection and help save lives. Indeed, fires have dropped significantly over the past 40 years and a major contributor to the decline in fires and fire deaths since the 1970s was the development of a comprehensive set of fire-safety measures that include flame retardants. This video demonstrates how quickly a fire progresses in a television that contains flame retardants compared to one that does not. And this video shows the layer of protection that flame retardants can provide when they are used in furniture. The fact is flame retardants help prevent fires from starting, slow the spread of some initial fires, reduce the intensity of fires, and provide occupants of a home or building or workers in various situations additional life-saving time to escape a fire, as well as time for firefighters to respond to a fire.
Myth: Fire is no longer the threat it once was, so there is no longer a need for flame retardants.
FACT: It is true that fires have dropped significantly over the past 40 years. This is due to the development of fire safety codes, which often require a comprehensive set of fire-safety measures that can include flame retardants. This was driven by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which recognized the danger of fires as a real crisis that needed attention. While there has been a great deal of progress over the decades, there is still much work to be done. Fire still represents a very real danger in the United States, with fire departments responding to a fire every 25 seconds, and fire is a real risk that disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. According to the United States Fire Administration, in 2010, those 65 and over represented 13 percent of the U.S. population but suffered 35 percent of all fire deaths. This is why the conversation should be about building on effective fire safety measures rather than removing existing technologies that have helped save so many lives.
Fact Checking Claims Against Fire Retardants: Halloween Edition
It’s Halloween and the start of a season when many families across the country hang up decorations around their homes. According to Underwriters Laboratories, Halloween is the second most “decorated” holiday after Christmas. With this comes the need to be extra mindful about fire safety.
Because holiday lighting and candles can be potential fire hazards when used incorrectly, families should be extra careful about fires and know the facts about measures that have been proven to help save lives. What follows are a few of the many misconceptions people have about Halloween and fire safety.
Myth: Parents have a million things to worry about during Halloween, but fire is probably one of the least among them.
FACT: Improperly-used decorations contribute to a significant increase in home fires, burn-related injuries and accidents. Decorations are the first thing to ignite in 900 reported home fires each year, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Also, according to the NFPA, 29 home fires caused by candles were reported per day during a five-year period (2007-2011).
Holidays like Halloween mean that children can start fires by playing with candles, lighters, and matches that are used as part of celebrations. It is imperative that comprehensive safety measures are in place during this season.
Myth: While flame retardants are helpful in many ways, they provide little protection during Halloween festivities.
FACT: Flame retardants provide an important layer of protection against fires that can start from things like Halloween candles and misused lighting. Families should first and foremost be careful about how they use decorations and never leave open flames unattended, and also know that flame retardants play a role in keeping families safe.
Myth: Health concerns about flame retardants should override concerns about fire safety.
FACT: Flame retardants, like other chemicals, are subject to review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies. There is no reason why consumers should have to choose between fire safety and chemical safety when they can and do have both.
August 1, 2014
Over the last decade some members of the media have questioned the value of flame retardants and quoted people who have claimed that the chemistries don’t work. This is due in no small part to the fact that some people would prefer a world without chemicals. But chemicals can be used safely to provide important protections, and help save lives and property.
We’ve decided to challenge many of the myths that pop up about flame retardants – again – but this time, not with our words, but with the words of experts…
Myth: Flame retardants don’t work.
FACT: Many leading experts in the area of fire safety would disagree. Take a look at this video…
Myth: Flame retardants are not needed because there are other ways to keep us safe from the devastation of fire.
FACT: While it’s true that we rely on a variety of fire safety tools to keep us safe, there is no denying that flame retardants are an important component of fire safety. Still have questions? Listen to the experts…
Myth: Flame retardants do not provide that much escape time.
FACT: Flame retardants can provide valuable escape time during a fire, potentially saving lives. Take a look at the following videos, which show the difference flame retardants can make…
July 1, 2014
Fact Checking The New York Times
The New York Times recently ran a column about polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs)—a group of chemistries that were voluntarily phased out by many manufacturers as long as a decade ago.
In discussing PDBEs, the column makes overgeneralized claims about flame retardants and does not mention the critical contribution they make to keeping families safe.
Flame retardants in production today are subject to review by the Environmental Protection Agency and the new generation minimizes releases to the environment and bioavailability. Flame retardants have been proven to reduce dangerous fire situations and are a critical component of a comprehensive fire safety toolkit.
What follows are facts about the important contribution flame retardants make to increasing fire safety.
Myth: Flame retardants are hazardous to your health.
FACT: All new flame retardants are subject to review by the Environmental Protection Agency and global regulatory bodies to ensure adequate safety levels. The EPA has the authority to limit or even prohibit a chemical’s use. During a recent review of data, the EPA identified approximately 50 flame retardants that are unlikely to pose a risk to human health.
Myth: Flame retardants are unnecessary.
FACT: Fire represents a very real danger in communities across the country. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there is one home fire in the United States every 85 seconds. The weight of evidence shows that flame retardants provide a critical layer of safety by stopping or slowing the spread of fire.
Scientific experts from around the world recently discussed the importance of flame retardants. Video of their comments can be seen here.
June 17, 2014
June 4, 2014
Fact Checking Kaiser Permanente’s Decision to Buy Furniture without Flame Retardants
Kaiser Permanente recently announced that it would start purchasing furniture that is free of flame retardants. Based on the health organization’s press release, it appears the decision was largely based on misinformation. What follows are some facts that set the record straight on this important issue.
Myth: Flame retardants must be removed from furniture in an effort to eliminate harmful chemicals in the environment.
FACT: Flame retardants are subject to review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory bodies in the U.S. and around the world.
Myth: Fires are not the problem they once were, therefore the decision to purchase furniture without flame retardants is not a concern.
FACT: Fires are still a significant problem that impact vulnerable populations, such as young children and the elderly. According to the National Fire Protection Association, between 2006 and 2010, U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated average of 17 fires per day (6,240 a year) in health care facilities, 23 percent of which were hospitals or hospices. Given these facts, it’s important that health centers use all of the necessary fire tools, including flame retardants, to help protect their staff and patients from the devastation of fire.
Myth: Flame retardants have been linked to negative health effects.
FACT: Flame retardants are a diverse group of chemicals that have saved countless lives by stopping or slowing the spread of fire. Flame retardants, like all chemicals, are subject to review and approval by the EPA and other governmental agencies. The EPA has the authority to limit or even prohibit a chemical’s use if it has questions concerning safety or other uncontrolled risks. During a recent review of data, the EPA identified approximately 50 flame retardants that are unlikely to pose a risk to human health.
Katie Couric to Spread Misinformation from Docudrama
The television show “Katie,” hosted by Katie Couric, aired a segment May 27, 2014 on the docudrama “Toxic Hot Seat.” “Toxic Hot Seat” aired last fall on HBO and featured misinformation about flame retardants. Because the airing of “Katie” may lead to additional questions, the following are facts that can be used to discuss the importance and safe use of flame retardants.
Myth: Flame Retardants are Not Effective.
FACT: Flame Retardants Help Save Lives
Independent studies show that flame retardants provide an important layer of fire protection. In one recent analysis that draws on data from a National Institute of Justice arson study, researcher Dr. Matthew Blais found that flame retardants in upholstered furniture slowed the spread of fire and provided valuable escape time—as much as an additional three to four minutes. In tests of furniture with fire-protected covers and foam, initial flames that came into contact with the furniture died out within a few seconds and the furniture did not burn.
Myth: Flame Retardants Are Not Safe
FACT: Flame Retardants are Subject to Global Regulatory Review for Safety
Flame retardants are subject to review by the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies in the United States and around the world.
Myth: Flame Retardants Make Smoke More Harmful
FACT: Less Fire Means Less Smoke
Smoke by its very nature is extremely toxic, whether flame retardants are present or not. In a real fire situation virtually all smoke-related deaths are caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. Flame retardants help stop or slow the spread of fire, and this means less smoke.
Myth: The Flame Retardant Industry Does Not Want to Discuss the Safety of its Products
FACT: Stories on Flame Retardants are One-Sided: Producers of “Katie” Denied Our Requests to Appear on the Show
The North American Flame Retardant Alliance, which represents the three largest manufacturers of flame retardants (ICL, Chemtura and Albemarle), welcomes a discussion about these important compounds that help keep people safe from the devastation of fire. The producers of “Katie” denied our requests to appear on the show to address the misinformation being leveled against flame retardants. By denying our request, the producers of “Katie” did their viewers a disservice by providing only one side of the debate.
The HBO docudrama “Toxic Hot Seat” has been re-airing recently in some cities around the country. Because the film contains misinformation and inaccuracies about flame retardants, we have assembled the following facts to inform the public about how flame retardants provide a critical layer of fire protection and can help save lives.
Myth: Flame retardants are hazardous to your health.
FACT: All new flame retardants must be rigorously evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure adequate safety levels before they are manufactured for public use.
Myth: Flame retardants don’t stop the spread of fires.
FACT: Studies show that flame retardants provide an important layer of fire protection. In one recent analysis that draws on data from a National Institute of Justice arson study, researcher Dr. Matthew Blais found that the flame retardants used in the study were effective in slowing the spread of fire and providing valuable escape time. Indeed, the flame retardants included in the furniture foam delayed the fire by three to four minutes. In tests of furniture with fire-protected cover and fire-protected foam, the initial flames died out and ultimately the furniture did not burn. These extra minutes allow valuable time for people to escape.
Fire statistics indicate that California’s requirement for open flame testing of furniture since the mid-1970s has improved fire safety in the state. Specifically, between 1982 and 1991—a time when California’s population increased by approximately 25 percent —the number of furniture fires decreased by 50 percent and associated deaths decreased by nearly 83 percent.  In addition, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) statistics indicate that fire fatality rates are much lower in California than in the rest of the United States and that fire fatalities are declining more rapidly in California than in the rest of the country. 
Myth: There is very little research supporting the assertion that flame retardants are responsible for stopping or delaying the spread of fire.
FACT: There are a number of studies that show that flame retardants are vital in increasing fire safety, including online demonstrations that show their efficacy. Still have questions? Watch Dr. Blais talk about some of the burn tests in his analysis.
Myth: The frequency and severity of fire caused by open flames are overstated, so upholstered furniture should not be required to meet flammability tests for open flame sources.
FACTS: The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) reported that between 2005 and 2009, “candles, matches and lighters were involved in 21 percent of fires and 12 percent of the deaths” in U.S. home fires that originated with upholstered furniture. The organization also reports that 28 percent of upholstered furniture fires originated from smoking materials.Furniture manufacturers use flame retardants to meet safety standards established to help save lives. 
In their March 2013 comments regarding proposed changes to California’s furniture flammability standard TB 117, the NFPA states: “Reflecting these statistics, NFPA feels strongly that a fully comprehensive fire safety regulation of upholstered furniture must address the full spectrum of major fire scenarios including the open flame scenarios.” Similar comments can be found in the TB 117 record from Underwriters Laboratories, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and at least twenty other individual fire scientists and fire safety experts. (Read more about NFPA’s position on the open flame test.)
Myth: Flame retardants add to the toxicity of smoke and cause adverse health effects in firefighters.
FACT: Smoke by its very nature is extremely toxic whether flame retardants are present or not. In a real fire situation virtually all smoke related deaths are caused by carbon monoxide poisoning. Time to escape is a most important factor in fire safety, and this is what flame retardants help provide. When flame retardants are used, they help stop or slow the spread of fire, and that results in less toxic smoke. The Southwest Research Institute recently conducted a study comparing flexible polyurethane foams with and without flame retardants in furniture mock-ups to see if the chemicals influenced smoke toxicity. In this particular study, the flame retardants did not make smoke more toxic. In fact, the study found that there was no difference between the flame retarded foam and non-flame retarded foam when it came to the release of chlorinated dioxins and furans. (Learn more about the study here.) Irrespective of the presence or absence of flame retardants, fire, smoke, and associated residual products are hazardous, and it is essential that correct procedures are followed by all firefighters with respect to protective equipment and clothing during the fire and during subsequent clean up.
The concerns of firefighters should be taken very seriously, and NAFRA encourages more research on the effects of fire and smoke on the health and safety of first responders.
Myth: Industry refused to take part in the development of “Toxic Hot Seat.”
FACT: When the North American Flame Retardant Alliance was first contacted by a representative from “Toxic Hot Seat,” we were told that the documentary would take a fair and objective look at the open flame test in California. After a quick search online we found that the film was almost complete and promoted a one-sided view that would essentially lower fire safety standards in California. It quickly became clear that our limited participation would only serve to promote the false assertion that the documentary had some semblance of objectivity. Fire safety is an important issue, and we do not want to be a part of any production that prevents us from providing viewers with science-based information on this issue. So we declined to participate in the film. (Read our letter to the representative of “Toxic Hot Seat.”
Countering Misinformation on Flame Retardants
Myth: There is no scientific evidence supporting the assertion that flame retardants help stop or slow the spread of fire.
FACT: The research is clear that flame retardants can help save lives
The weight of evidence shows that flame retardants provide a critical layer of fire protection. A government study in Great Britain, for example, found the use of flame retardants in furniture and furnishings reduced the number and lethality of fires.
Organizations in the U.S. have concluded that robust fire safety standards are important. These agencies have established important fire safety standards that products should meet in order to be safe. In many cases, flame retardants are critical to meeting these standards.
The book Fire and Polymers VI: New Advances in Flame Retardant Chemistry and Science, presents peer-reviewed summaries of research from 32 national and international studies concluding the application of flame retardants in furniture, home insulation, and electronics helps prevent or slow the spread of fire. The book is the sixth edition on the subject.
Other research summaries, including a compelling burn test comparing furniture with and without flame retardants, are available on the American Chemistry Council website.
Myth: Flame retardants should not be used in products as the chemistries can have adverse health effects.
FACT: There is no need to sacrifice fire safety for chemical safety
New flame retardants are not brought to market until they have undergone a rigorous regulatory approval process. Flame retardants, like all chemicals, are subject to review by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies around the world. Important fire safety codes should not be removed because of misinformation about chemical safety.
Myth: Manufacturers have used scare tactics instead of scientific fact to sell flame retardants.
FACT: Industry is dedicated to enhancing the scientific understanding of flame retardants
The three major manufacturers of flame retardants are committed to applying rigorous scientific processes in the analysis of their products. The American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance (NAFRA)— representing the three manufacturers—engages independent scientific experts, the NAFRA science advisory council, to identify additional scientific research projects to assess the efficacy and safety of flame retardants. Studies supported by NAFRA have recently been accepted for publication in peer reviewed journals on fire science, bioaccumulation modeling, and efficacy. NAFRA funded studies will be presented at the Society of Toxicology Annual Meeting being held in March 2014.