Transcript The Tris-Free Children & Babies Act

Kathleen A. Curtis, LPN
Policy Director, Clean New York
[email protected]
“Identification of Flame Retardants
in Polyurethane Foam Collected
from Baby Products”
 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.10
21/es2007462
 Assembly sponsor wanted to
introduce a policy that nobody else
was advancing
 Senate sponsor went on record in
speeches about removing tris from
baby products
 Senate EnCon staffer had one-yearold baby girl

•
•
•
•
•
•
Relates to products for children three years
of age or under
Goes into effect December 1st, 2013
“Tris” = TDCPP: Tris (1.3-Dichloro-2-Propyl)
Phosphate and TCEP: Tris (2-Chloroethyl)
Phosphate
@ 50% of products in study contained some
combination of these two chemicals
Exempts used products
Pre-empts localities
•
•
Penta replacement chemicals used in
polyurethane foam to meet CA TB 117
Of baby products in study:
–
TDCP found in 36%
•
•
–
Like TCEP, very harmful when it burns
Very similar to brominated tris banned in
children’s apparel because it was
mutagenic
TCEP found in 15%
•
•
Harms sperm, potential carcinogen,
neurotoxic
Part of FR brand name V6, not stand-alone
additive
 Citizens
for Fire Safety brought Ray Dawson
(presented as a scientist, works for
Albemarle)
 Ray
admitted that TCEP was harmful, but
insisted that TDCPP was safe
 CFFS
tried but failed to recant ‘harmful’
claim
 Both
houses amended to remove TDCPP and
banned TCEP with broad bipartisan support
 ICL:
banning TCEP will hurt Jews
•
When states banned PBDEs, they did not intend it be
replaced with equally toxic FRs
•
Although 80% of products contained toxic or untested
FRs, 20% did not, so fire safety standards can be met
without them – law supports market shifts
•
Polyester fiberfill (Boppy nursing pillows, Build A Bear
stuffed toys)
•
Dozens of groups in support (LDA, breast cancer, ASBC,
WE ACT, NYSNA, NYSUT, etc.)
•
TB 117 in California only, other states
need not comply
 Evidence
of Carcinogenicity of Trisreleased July 8th, 2011 by Reproductive
and Cancer Hazard Assessment Branch,
OEHHA, CALEPA

Statistically significant increases in tumors

Structurally similar to TDPBB, TCEP, already
listed

Breaks down in our bodies to carcinogens
listed by IARC and Proposition 65
 http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/hazard_iden
t/pdf_zip/TDCPP070811.pdf
 Keep
TDCPP! There is plenty of scientific
evidence of harm
 De minimus level of .1% (10,000 ppm)
 Changing the name of the bill to avoid the
use of the word ‘tris’
 Requiring manufacturer certification (good
policy element, but may generate significant
opposition and kill the bill)
 Washington

State
Washington Toxics Coalition http://watoxics.org/
 Michigan

Michigan Network for Children’s Environmental
Health http://www.mnceh.org/
 New

York
The JustGreen Partnership http://justgreen.org/