Frightening Furnishings

A Change to California Legislation

According to Hawthorne and Roe (2013), lawmakers in California have announced a change to the fire safety requirements of home furnishings in response to a series of articles

Image from The New York Times (Kristof, 2013)

published in the Chicago Tribune. For nearly 40 years, manufacturers of home furnishings needed to ensure their products could withstand an open flame for 12 seconds, but the legislative changes have relaxed the requirement so that furnishings only need to resist ignition from a smoldering cigarette (Hawthorne & Roe, 2013). This change is significant because it gives manufacturers the ability to meet fire safety standards without incorporating flame retardants into their products.

Chemical Companies and California Legislation

Nicholas Kristof (2013) published an article recently in The New York Times discussing issues surrounding the use of flame retardant chemicals in household furniture. In summarizing a soon-to-air documentary entitled "Toxic Hot Seat," he chronicles a corporate conspiracy beginning in the 1970's when chemical manufacturing companies knowingly exaggerated the efficacy of their flame retardants at the same time that legislators were seeking solutions to address the flammability of home furnishings. In 1975, lobbying efforts led to the development of California's technical bulletin 117 (TB-117) which defined fire safety standards for furniture sold within California (Hawthorne & Roe, 2013). In order to comply with the new standards, manufacturers began to incorporate halogen-based retardants into their furnishings, but the products were not confined to California. National companies disseminated their products across the United States. Now, after years of accumulating evidence has suggested negative health impacts, California lawmakers have decided that the use of flame retardants should be left to the discretion of the manufacturers.

Evidence of an Impact to Community Health

Hexabromocyclododecane: A halogenated flame retardant

According to Brown and Cordner (2011), there are more than 175 known flame retardants, but those containing halogen elements are most widely used because of their low costs and high efficacy; however, mounting research suggests that these compounds pose a threat to community health. According to Dodson et al. (2012), many flame retardants still used in household products are classified as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDC), and they can alter hormonal signaling pathways involved in nervous tissue development, reproduction, and other metabolic processes. Public health impacts are difficult to assess because many of the compounds exhibit unique effects. For example, researchers studying brominated flame retardants measured the effects of exposing 5 different compounds to the immune cells of mice, but the induced changes to cellular metabolism varied depending on the compound. (Koikea, Yanagisawaa, Takigamib, & Takanoc, 2012). In terms of the general health impact, research links exposure to flame retardants with neurological deficits, reproductive deficiencies, and cancer (Hawthorne & Roe, 2013). Those applied to polyurethane components of furniture are released with dust particles that can be inhaled by anyone in the vicinity.

Corporate Responses to Research Findings: Shocking Allegations

One might suppose that the ample evidence suggestive of negative health impacts would inspire chemical manufacturers to withdraw these flame retardants from the market or seek safer alternatives. Mr. Kristof, however, suggests a far more callous response. As propositions for legislative action followed the research, an organization emerged calling themselves the Citizens for Fire Safety Institute (Kristof, 2013). They purported themselves to be composed of concerned families, firefighters, doctors, and others, but Mr. Kristof explains the only members of the group were three high-level executives belonging to companies manufacturing flame retardants (Kristof, 2013). He claims that the group began airing commercials in efforts to sway public opinion toward continued use of flame retardants in home furnishings, and in light of the allegations, Citizens for Fire Safety Institute have reduced their website (www.cffsi.org) to nothing more than a statement referring visitors to other advocacy groups.  Discovering the real founders of the Citizens for Fire Safety Institute is the subject of the documentary mentioned earlier, and it is scheduled to air on HBO this Monday, November 25 (Kristof, 2013). 

Evaluating the Situation

According to Healthy People 2020 (2011), reducing exposure to hazardous materials is a fundamental component of environmental healthcare, and the current philosophy supports initiating measures that reduce exposure even before researchers have fully characterized the health risks. The situation in California was ironic in that policy changes intended to reduce environmental hazards in 1975 resulted in the incorporation of flame retardants posing what is potentially an even greater risk to community health. It is important to hold chemical companies accountable should the allegations against them be proven accurate, but it is equally important to consider alternative contributors. The reality is that findings from research have been demonstrating the hazards of flame retardants for many years, yet efforts to address the problem have been sporadic and weak. It might be tempting to focus all of the attention on the role of chemical manufacturers when evaluating this situation, but the answer to an uncomfortable question must also be included. How is it that the lobbying efforts of only three people were able blind politicians and the public to the dangers of flame retardant use in home furnishings? Undoubtedly, the answer will have broader implications that warrant consideration of business ethics, the legal process, and cultural perspectives.