This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Health & Fitness

Health Risks of Flame-Retardant Chemicals Require Policy Changes in CT, Nation, Report Says

The 2014 session of the Connecticut General Assembly is expected to include consideration of legislation designed to protect the public from potential health risks of flame retardant chemicals that are present in many consumer products. 

Such a proposal, currently being developed, comes following a report from North Haven-based Environment and Human Health Inc. (EHHI), an organization of physicians and public health professionals, that calls on state and federal governments to institute new policies to protect the public from flame-retardant exposures that the researchers say “pose health risks to fetuses, infants, children and the human population as a whole.”

The comprehensive 107-page report, “Flame Retardants: The Case for Policy Change,” closely examines the health risks that flame-retardants pose to the general population and recommends sweeping policy changes to protect the public.

Find out what's happening in North Havenwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

“It has become clear that flame-retardants are proving to be a health risk to both the human population and the environment,” said Nancy Alderman, president of Environment and Human health, Inc. “It is time for flame-retardants to be removed from all low fire-risk situations and products. As well, a certification program should be established where manufacturers certify the absence of flame-retardants, just as organic food programs certify the absence of pesticides.”

The report examines the history of flame-retardants and demonstrates the enormous scope of the problem, noting that flame-retardants “are now ubiquitous in our environment.”  The history of flame-retardant use in the United States is a story of substituting one dangerous flame-retardant for another, the report outlines. The country lived through decades when asbestos was used as a fire-retardant. Then when asbestos was proven too dangerous to be used, the country moved over to PCBs, and five decades later, when PCBs were deemed too dangerous for use, the country moved on to chlorinated and brominated flame-retardants.

Find out what's happening in North Havenwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The report points out that “the labeling of flame-retardant chemicals in consumer products is NOT required by Congress, EPA, FDA or the Consumer Product Safety Commission.  It is therefore impossible for consumers to avoid flame-retardants in their purchases.”  Sources of exposure cited in the report include carpets, mattresses, children’s and baby products, furniture, and electronics. 

Recent toxicological studies demonstrate that flame-retardants pose the greatest risk to the normal growth and development of fetuses, infants and children. “Manufacturers should start labeling their products so that consumers can understand when flame-retardants have been added,” said Dr. Andrea Asnes, associate professor of pediatrics at the Yale School of Medicine.

Environment and Human Health, Inc. (EHHI) is a non-profit organization composed of physicians, public health professionals and policy experts, dedicated to protecting human health from environmental harms.

There's more to the story, at http://ctbythenumbers.info/2014/01/08/report-flame-retardant-chemicals-urges-sweeping-policy-changes...

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?