Banning PBDEs Increases the Threat to Public Safety
February 2006
When politicians and environmental activists line up against the scientists, citizens should beware.
That is exactly what is happening in the state legislature right now with the effort to ban flame-retardant materials known as PBDEs and especially the most effective form, known as deca-BDE.
More than a decade of scientific research is in agreement about deca-BDE - it is perhaps the most effective fire-retardant available. Scientific studies also show that deca-BDE is also much safer to the environment than previous fire retardants.
Despite that, environmental activists are trying to ban it. Ironically, their effort to ban deca-BDE may not only increase fire danger in homes and offices across Washington, but will put the state in the position of approving toxic flame retardants to replace it.
There are at least three major flaws in the arguments made by activist groups like the Washington Toxics Coalition.
First, those who would ban deca-BDE argue that they are a danger because the amount found in the environment is "increasing." Ironically, they don't argue that impacts are increasing because there is no data that says health is being impacted by that increase.
Recent studies have also found that the amount of caffeine in Puget Sound is increasing. The obvious source is a particular morning beverage habit among Puget Sound residents. Despite that increase, however, none of these groups are calling for a ban on caffeine.
Actually, it would be surprising if deca-BDE weren't increasing since it is such an effective flame retardant and is being used more often.
Scientists should continue to track deca-BDE. In fact, after a major review of the science on deca-BDE, that is what the European Union concluded. Until science indicates a threat to human health, banning the most effective flame-retardant available would be irresponsible.
The second major flaw is the way advocates of a ban manipulate the science to claim a threat from deca-BDE.
In the absence of studies that show that deca-BDE is a danger advocates of a ban simply substitute impacts from toxic chemicals like PCBs. In a recent study the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) argues that PCBs and deca-BDE have similar impacts because the structures are "similar." This reasoning is, however, entirely unsound.
PCBs contain chlorine whereas deca-BDE uses bromine. Different compounds have very different results on the human body. For instance, sodium chloride (NaCl) is table salt. Substituting bromine would yield sodium bromide (NaBr), which is a sedative. Substituting NaBr for NaCl on your French fries is a mistake you make only once. Substituting one chemical for another and assuming the science will work out the same isn't responsible.
The fact that DOE is forced to make this leap indicates that they couldn't find impacts from deca-BDE that would justify banning it. This isn't for a lack of study. As DOE reports, "considerable scientific research on deca-BDE has been conducted in recent years."
The final flaw is the most significant. Activists rely on a rationalization known as the "precautionary principle" to justify the ban even if the science doesn't say we should. The Washington Toxics Coalition says it "embraces the Precautionary Principle as the basis of our approach to human and environmental health." The principle calls for action on environmental issues even when science is incomplete and puts the burden on those who oppose actions like banning PBDEs.
Interestingly, applying the principle here may actually increase the threat to public safety not only from fire but from toxic chemicals that replace deca-BDE.
DOE notes that of the eleven potential flame-retardant alternatives to deca-BDE, none of them have its history of scientific study. If lawmakers ban deca-BDE they would be left with a Catch-22. They could either allow a potentially toxic substitute with less scientific study (in violation of the precautionary principle) or reduce fire safety standards because no alternative can meet the level of certainty demanded by the activists.
In either case, banning deca-BDE would increase the risk to public health - either from toxic replacement chemicals or from reductions in fire safety.
After a rigorous examination of deca-BDE, the European Union decided that banning it would be counterproductive. Disappointed by that decision, environmental activists hope that the Washington Legislature will set a precedent others have felt is unwise.
Let's hope they listen to the science instead.