Learning
from history should keep us from repeating our mistakes. Yet when it comes to
environmental politics, the opposite seems to be true. History and improved
scientific understanding fail to inform, while alarmism and irrational fears drive
policy.
The
current debate related to flame retardant chemicals is a prime example.
Environmental activist groups have petitioned the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) to ban an entire class of flame retardant chemicals called
organohalogens, with a decision expected this year. Yet, the scientific justification
for such bans has long been invalidated.
The
debate about flame retardants began back in the early 1970s, with the emergence
of the environmental movement and newfound fears that synthetic chemicals posed
significant cancer risks. Even the now world-renowned scientist Bruce Ames—who
later proved these fears unfounded—once expressed concerns that trace synthetic
chemicals were a significant cause of cancer.
“I
didn’t want to put my kids in these pajamas [which were treated with chemical
flame retardants], so we bought their pajamas in Europe when we were there,” he
recalls in a 2014 interview. In 1977, Ames
and Arlene Blum published an article in Science
that advocated banning of tris(2,3-dibromopropyl)phosphate,
commonly known as “tris,” for use in pajamas. At the time, tris was applied to
sleepwear in order to meet federal flammability standards set by CPSC.
That
same year, CPSC banned the use of tris in sleepwear, even as it admitted in the
Federal Register that it had: “no
conclusive data that establish TRIS has caused cancer in humans.” CPSC banned
the chemical solely because it caused tumors in rodents exposed to very high
levels. At the time, scientists believed that was enough to demonstrate cancer
risk in humans. After all, CPSC noted, “all
known human carcinogens have been shown to be carcinogenic in laboratory
animals.”
However,
Ames did not continue to advocate bans. Instead, he and his colleague Lois
Swirsky Gold decided to critically evaluate the prevailing wisdom about rodent
tests. Ironically, within a decade, Ames’s research thoroughly debunked claims
that such trace chemicals pose a significant cancer risk, which invalidated his
own fears about tris.
Ames
and Gold found that it wasn’t the chemicals themselves that caused cancer in
rodents, but the high doses. “High
doses can cause chronic wounding of tissues, cell death, and consequent chronic
cell division of neighboring cells, which is a risk factor for cancer,” Ames
and Gold explained in a 1997 research article.
In
fact, Ames and Gold found that these tests caused tumors in rodents even when
the chemical tested were naturally occurring chemicals found in many healthy
foods, such as apples, carrots, and other fruits and veggies. They concluded: “There is no
convincing evidence that synthetic chemical pollutants are important as a cause
of human cancer.”
Yet
the facts don’t seem to matter much in this debate. Even today, faulty rodent
tests are being used as the basis for banning flame retardant chemicals.
Consider
the evolution of policy regarding three Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs)
flame retardants: penta-BDE (used for foam furniture) and octa-BDE (used in
plastics for business equipment), and deca-BDE (used in electronics such as
television sets). These chemicals are not dangerous when used in consumer
products. Activists are targeting them for the same faulty reason they targeted
tris—they are rodent carcinogens. But again, so are chemicals that are
naturally found in carrots, apples, and plums.
Green
activists have been able to generate enough scary headlines to press manufacturers
to voluntarily phase out these chemicals. The Chemtura Corporation (then called
Great Lakes Chemical Corporation) was among the first, deciding in 2004 to
phase out penta-BDE and octa-BDE.
The
EPA took this opportunity to essentially ban these chemicals without any scientific
justification. As the only U.S. manufacturer of these two chemicals, Chemtura
eliminated the only legal domestic uses. The agency then quickly issued a rule
that bars any new significant uses without first gaining EPA approval under the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
EPA
admits it had no health risk justification for its action. “EPA has not
concluded that PBDEs pose an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment,”
the agency explained on its website. “However, due to growing concerns, EPA
believes that the phase out and the regulatory action taken in this
announcement are useful steps to minimize and ultimately help prevent further
exposure to these chemicals.” As a result, these chemicals are now effectively
banned.
In
2009, the EPA pressured two U.S. producers (Chemtura and Albemarle) and one
importer (Israel’s ICL Industrial Products) of deca-BDE to “voluntarily” phase
it out as well, ending production and importation by 2013.
Now activists - including Arlene Blum, who unlike her 1977 co-author Bruce Ames continues to believe that if it's carcinogenic in rats it should be banned in humans - want to ban potential replacement products for the PBDEs, petitioning CPSC to ban all organohalogen flame retardants without any real scientific justification.
And there you have
it: Old and faulty science coupled with activist generated fear is driving this
debate. Banning flame retardants simply because they may kill rats in labs is
absurd given the fact that fires actually kill people in their homes. If we
continue to eliminate flame retardants, we can expect that fires will burn
hotter and move faster, and more people will die as a result.
Angela Logomasini is a Senior Fellow at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute and the author of Fanning the Flames: How Banning
Flame Retardant Chemicals Puts Consumers at Risk.
