 Good morning, and welcome to this public meeting of the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. I since this is our first hearing public hearing since the Hurricanes Harvey and Irma I just want to express that the Commission's thoughts and prayers are with all of those who have been affected by these devastating storms and I also want to Thank our staff who has worked incredibly hard to promote our message of safety Especially with regards to portable generators Carbon monoxide poisoning and all of the hazards that can arise post the the acute part of the storm in the hurricane So they've worked very hard in collaboration with our stakeholders, and I want to make sure I know how they know how much I appreciate everything they've done. I also want to thank the first responders For what they are willing to do to go down and help all of those affected in Texas as well as Florida and Louisiana Today we were supposed to have Matthew Vinci testify on behalf of the International Association of Firefighters He was deployed and called up to help down in Florida So someone else will be here to sit in his place and testify on his behalf, but I do want to thank him For his efforts and what he's doing to help all of those victims of the Hurricanes This morning we have one item on our agenda And it is a hearing to give members of the public a chance to provide oral comment on the petition Requesting the Commission initiate rulemaking under the Federal Hazardous Substance Act to declare several categories of products containing additive Organo halogen flame retardants to be banned as quote banned hazardous substances This is our second public hearing on this matter. The first took place on December the 9th 2015 we were in a different hearing room on that day and if I recall Be sure okay. It's just had knee surgery When a public hearing is not required excuse me while a public hearing is not required for a petition Having stakeholder input on this issue or any other issue is extremely important to this Commission So this second hearing today, and I do want to commend my colleague Commissioner Adler Was at his request and he has put a lot of work into making today happen and getting people here to testify And I do want to commend him for his work and his interest in this issue I'm also want to just say thank you ahead of time to all of the presenters who will be here today Thank you for your time and the effort to be here and to provide this commission with your input in your insight in your Expertise on this issue To begin I'll just give an overview of what today is going to look like So that everyone knows what to expect today has been divided into six panels And I believe there is a schedule that has been handed out this morning Each presenter will have five minutes to deliver their comments our acting secretary Ms. Alberta Mills will keep track of the time and here I want to just pause and say thank you to Ms. Mills Ms. Hammond For in the office of secretary in general for what they've had to do to get today organized of the amount of testimony and the logistics For us to be sitting up here and for all of you to be out there is in thanks to them So thank you very much for all of your efforts. We appreciate it I would Ask that our presenters are Pay attention to the light that's in front of them as you see the light turn yellow That means you have one minute left to present Throughout the course of the day We will be having people participating not only here in person But on by phone Ms. Mills will remind those of you on the phone when you have one minute remaining She will just mention one minute left so that you have a sense of time I will also ask to all of those of you calling in if You are on the phone and you are not speaking Please put your phone on mute because there's always oftentimes there's some feedback that is distracting After all the panelists have presented each commissioner will have five minutes to ask questions I just want to Explain one of the issues that came up during the course of preparation or preparing for today a Few organizations requested that multiple people be able to testify today and while everyone's written testimony I want to emphasize that everyone's written testimony has been submitted and it is a part of the record We asked that members just given the volume of speakers today We asked that members of the same organization either split their five minutes or designate a speaker There were three Organizations that that was an issue with they all decided that one person would be would present But the other person and I will call your attention to that During the course of the day the other person will be available and certainly available to ask Answer any questions that the Commission might have and I just want to say I appreciate everyone's flexibility and understanding Of the complex nature of today In the interest of time and out of respect for our panelists, I want to make every effort to stay on time So that everyone can honor any obligations that they have today I apologize ahead of time if I have to gavel down To anyone during the course of your testimony or any one of my fellow commissioners But I do want to be cognizant and aware of people's time We will keep the record open until September 20th 2017 if you do not get a chance to comment on something today You really want to respond to or you have something additional that you would like to say you are welcome to supplement whatever Testimony you have provided or comment further in writing any supplemental materials or information will be incorporated into the record So we will begin now with our first panel. Thank you for your patience during the housekeeping portion of today's hearing Our first panel includes dr. Linda berm bomb Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology program dr. berm bomb. Thank you for joining us today. I understand that Your schedule was a little bit filled I'm sure it usually is and we appreciate you taking the time and making the effort to be here this morning To share your testimony dr. Burn bomb will have 10 minutes to testify You may proceed. Thank you. Good morning commissioners. I'm Linda berm bomb director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences And also director of the National Toxicology program I am a principal investigator in the National of Institute's intramural research program as well I was formally the president of the Society of Toxicology a member of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences and in 2010 I was elected to the National Academy of Medicine It is an honor to be invited to testify today's hearing by the consumer product Commission chairperson and Marie Burkle I previously testified before the Commission in December of 2015 on the general topic of non-polymeric halogenated flame retardants and I refer the Commission to my previous written testimony by way of background on the adverse effects associated with these chemicals Today at the request of the chairwoman I will refer to and expand upon some important aspects of my previous testimony and address the findings of the CPSC staff report on the topic issued on May 24th 2017 I thank the CPSC staff for their efforts to address the complex public health issues associated with mixtures of halogenated flame retardant chemicals and consumer products However, I'm here today to respectfully disagree with the staff's draft recommendation to deny the petition And I urge the Commission to carefully reconsider the toxicological and public health hazards associated with organo halogen flame retardants OFRs as I stated in my 2015 testimony all members of the proposed class of chemicals that have been adequately studied have significant human health concerns By studying these chemicals We have developed a strong understanding of OFR biological activity mechanism of action and potential to do harm as Individual chemicals are studied and found to be hazardous new closely related compounds are routinely brought to market as replacement Often these new replacements are regrettable and just as harmful as the original or worse Unfortunately scientific research cannot keep pace with the flood of new chemicals in commerce and as mentioned in the CPSC report data Information gaps in toxicology arise These gaps are often filled by comparing the chemical structures of replacements with more well-defined chemicals the process known as reed cross For example, there have been serious environmental concerns associated with environmental exposures to one class of OFRs Called polybrominated diphenyl ether mixtures or PBD ease these concerns have persisted for nearly two decades due to the high resistance of PBD ease to both environmental and Biological degradation ongoing human exposure and evidence of toxicity to these compounds as well as structural similarity of PBD ease to polychlorinated biphenyls PCBs There are over 200 compounds classified as PBD ease and all commercial Formulations involve complex mixtures of different PBD ease since my testimony in 2015 Studies have demonstrated that these environmentally persistent compounds are bio accumulative They're also found at higher concentrations in fetal blood than in the mother's blood Two of the major commercial formulation mixtures have been shown to cause cancer in both rats and mice These mixtures are known to be associated with persistent nor behavioral problems in children and in July 2017 the state of California listed pentobromal diphenyl ether mixtures specifically DE 71 as a known carcinogen Researchers at the University of Cincinnati have shown an association between childhood behavioral changes and prenatal exposures To PBD ease 47 these effects appear to continue into childhood By affecting reading ability and IQ a recent systematic review has concluded that early life exposure to PBD ease is associated with developmental neurotoxicity in humans other Experimental studies and animals and observational studies in humans have shown that PBD ease are endocrine disruptors and are associated with metabolic alterations Concern over persistence and toxicity led to voluntary removal of all PBD e commercial Formulations from production in the US and bands in Canada Europe and Japan The lower molecular weight PBD ease have been listed for elimination under the Stockholm Convention of persistent organic pollutants and DECA BDE is currently proposed for listing as well But PBD ease are not the only OFRs that have been shown to have significant effects as far back as the late 1970s brominated and chlorinated tris were restricted based on cancer concerns Productions of high volumes of hexabromo cyclododecane pose a persistent environmental threat This additive flame retardant is found in the environment wildlife and people in vitro and animal studies have indicated It is an endocrine disruptor is toxic to the liver and causes adverse neurodevelopmental effects It has also been nominated for elimination under the Stockholm Convention The largest volume brominated flame retardant tetra bromobisphenol a has recently been shown to be carcinogenic and rats and mites It's an endocrine disruptor and alters neuro behavior in animal studies Concerns about the developmental effects of FM 550 a new replacement BFR have been raised in several studies I think it's important to also address a related class of halogenated flame retardant chemicals Referred to as per and poly fluorinated alkyl substances or PFAS this class of chemicals includes PFOA and PFO s but also includes hundreds perhaps Thousands of shorter longer and branch chain formed of these OFR chemicals today I'm going to refer to them simply as PFAS PFOA it salts and PFOA related compounds were nominated for listing in the Stockholm Convention in 2015 because of their documented human health effects including cancer Alterations in lipid metabolism endocrine disruption and immune suppression The manufacturing and use of these chemicals began in the late 1940s and continues today Like many industrial chemicals PFAS have been used in a wide variety of consumer products In addition to their uses flame retardants and foaming agents They occur in food containers water resistant clothing furniture carpeting and cookware PFAS are highly resistant to heat and do not easily degrade in oil or water They tend to bioaccumulate in tissues meaning that they are often found in blood and other tissues and Concentrations greater than the surrounding environment PFAS usually occurs complex mixtures and are ubiquitous in the environment Due to their environmental persistence bioaccumulation and potential for long-range environmental transport These chemicals can be found in groundwater surface water soils and air in most regions where they've been Manufactured disposed of or used PFAS have been measured in animal and plant tissues throughout the world including the Arctic PFAS have been identified in nearly all human serosamptals tested in the u.s These exposures are largely due to contaminated household water and consumer products The chemicals are present in breast milk and have been shown to readily cross the placenta into the developing fetus Though PFAS have been commercially available for decades recent additional concern has arisen Due to their pervasive occurrence in some metropolitan drinking water supplies At concentrations above the health advisories issued for pFO and PFAS by EPA in november of 16 Of 70 ppt in fact many states have established individual advisory levels lower than the EPA's advisory Contamination of drinking water sources by these chemicals has been the subject of numerous congressional hearings As of increasing concern to state and local governments and was described by one of my colleagues as one of the most significant emerging health threats of our time All the chemicals that i've described today are either formulated as mixtures contained fluorinated byproducts of synthesis or break down into chlorinated fluorinated and or brominated compounds in biological or environmental systems Thus in environmental exposure studies all OFRs will be found as mixtures in various dynamic states of purity metabolism or degradation It will always be difficult or impossible to determine the makeup of such changing chemical mixtures While i commend the cpsc staff for undertaking the o of r evaluation I believe their review is limited in the data considered as many new studies have been recently published Their conclusions related to data gaps will never be filled with new chemicals coming to market constantly Further i specifically asked the question whether the accumulated data they reviewed Suggested that any members of this class were safe for use in consumer products The draft state report states that toxicological properties of the individual o of rs are not uniform And show variation in their potential health effects and their potential toxicity under f hsa The report goes on to state that available data indicate that one cannot consider o of rs as a class under the f Hsa because one cannot conclude that every o of r would meet the toxicity prong of the f hsa's definition of hazardous substances The fsh seems to contradict this statement in section two Where it states that a hazardous substance is any substance or mixture of substances Which is toxic and may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness during as approximate result of any customary Or reasonably foreseeable handling or use Chairwoman burkle mixture of o of rs including those mentioned during my testimony have been shown to have adverse Bioactivity and present a hazard from overt toxicity Mixtures of o of rs are the offending substance and the identification and assessment of individual components is neither possible Nor feasible all components. We have tested are a public health concern But we will never be able to test all of these chemicals The cpsc conclusion that we can't adequately address complex mixtures such as dust And therefore should not act inhibits our ability to protect public health As these compounds continue to biocumulate in the environment and in children's blood I support action to minimize the ongoing public health hazard posed by o of rs The nature of the toxicological science surrounding the o of r class of chemicals is complex And once again, we appreciate the attention staff has paid to these issues I personally know of no halogenated o of rs of those studies, which has not been shown to cause problems However, I believe the commission may want to seek the advice of a formal advisory board Such as the toxicological advisory board used by cpsc to consult on complex matters from 1979 to 85 And recommended in the fhsa I thank the commission and chairman burk chairwoman burkle Once again for the opportunity to address this important issue I remain at your service to provide any further assistance that you might require during this decision-making process. Thank you Thank you very much. Dr. Merman. I will begin The first round of questions from the dais I just have I'm actually going to list my questions and then I'll let you have the remainder of my time to answer those questions So within the staff briefing package, they identified several issues you've referred to them in your testimony The first was that there are data gaps and that we don't have enough information on individual chemicals to that would allow us To ban a certain chemical Classification of chemicals a class of chemicals So I want to understand that without that information You're the petition and you're supporting the petition request that we would ban this this class of chemicals My second question has to do with the links staff indicates to in their briefing package that there's no direct link to household dust and that There's and also there is no direct link to the products that are being asked to be banned So if you could speak to those two issues What's the justification if we can't draw a link to to those products and lastly Staff mentions this in their briefing package, but it's also after being on the commission for four years Kind of the the information I've received is that the petition Which staff also says uses outdated data Indicates it's not an accurate reflection of the marketplace. So for instance one of the commenters talked about mattresses and the fact that No u.s. Manufacturer is using flame retardants and mattresses. So Again and you referred to this time lapse and the difficulty with the data which I acknowledge that staff yesterday and indicated their 10-year cycles But how in terms of gathering the data and having the ability to go forward with findings, but so I'm Those are my questions, but primarily it's the staff has raised these issues I think they're valid issues and I would appreciate if you could speak to those. Thank you So the issue of data gaps There will always be data gaps when you have new chemicals continuously coming on the market The other issue is that these chemicals while you can test them on a one-off basis Are that is not the way they are found In the environment and that to which people are exposed when studies have looked at what is in human breast milk Or human blood is you find a whole plethora of different OFRs in their bodies and that is the reality of the exposure that is not to one is to a complex mixture And in fact, you will never have you will never be able to feel the data gaps on all the individual compounds I think the point that every chemical that has been tested in this class when it has been looked at has shown adverse effects The issue about no direct link to dust there is now data which indicates the presence of OFRs in house dust And that that dust has been linked to the levels of exposure in people a number of studies have been published within the last Two years that clearly show what's in house dust gets on people's hands and gets into people's bodies And the third that there's a time lapse for them that some of the things in the petition related to use Not up to date. I would agree with that Science is moving very rapidly as the marketplace is moving rapidly and as concerns arise from the scientific literature The marketplace responds So in fact as we look across the spectrum of products that was requested to be banned Many of them flame retardants and I look to the furniture industry as well as mattresses flame retardants are not being used in those products Yes, there are old products out there, but in the new products They're not being used and so That that to me is an issue that as we go forward seems like There's a self correction going on without the banning of those products The other thing I wanted to just talk about briefly is um the dose makes the poison. So just because We there is the presence of an organohalogen flame retardant in urine or in blood That doesn't necessarily make it toxic. It depends on the level I mean if you drink too much water Right, which we we all love water, but if you drink too much of it, it becomes toxic But it's the dose that's so critical not just the presence of it It's not only the dose Commissioner chairman It is also the timing and so that there is growing data both from animal studies Which are conducted some of them are conducted at low doses But in the human general population exposures where we are seeing In now a multitude of different studies affects Being associated with for example in utero or infantile exposure at levels that are present in the environment today Thank you. My time is almost about to expire and again, thank you for your time this morning And I now refer to commissioner eddler Thank you very much madam chairman and thank you and your staff for being so helpful in Developing the logistics of this. I know it was a challenge and I really want to commend you for that Dr. Birnbaum I read through the submissions today and I noted that one of your non NEHS colleagues described you as the nation's preeminent toxicologist an author of over 700 peer reviewed Scientific papers books chapters and reports and you have a string of honors and awards that I can't begin to count In addition and I note and I see your chief toxicologist is with you that you preside over an institute of Many many many eminent scientists and you have a budget seven times bigger than ours. I note in passing So I guess my question is In either your research or that of the NEHS scientist Do you have any reason to believe that any of the OFRs that have yet To be studied will be shown to be in effect safe not to present a significant hazard to the public That's a very hard question to answer Thank you because you know, you're going into the unknown but based upon read across approaches based upon what we know About a wide variety of chemical structures of different OFRs All of them appear to have the potential to have adverse effects In other words the staff has pointed out that there are varying levels of toxicity With respect to OFRs, but I analogize that to Automobiles whether I get hit by a sedan or by a truck I'm going to be just as dead and so the question is have we run across an OFR That seems to have such a low level of inherent toxicity That you could even speculate that it might be shown not to present a serious health hazard to human beings In my knowledge, I know of none that don't have the potential To cause serious effects and again, I would stress that they are never present One at a time. It is a complex mixture to which you are exposed Yeah, and thank you for pointing out the fact that mixtures in the real world are what we have to contend with especially in dust I guess here's another simple question Do we need FR chemicals in the four product groups that are subject to this petition? I think it's very important to to ask the question You know that should always be the first question. Do we need it? The second question would be does it work? And the answer to both questions I would suggest Well, the answer to the first questions is in most cases. I would suggest no, we don't need I know they're not in mattresses anymore But do we need them in some of the baby products? Do we need them in some of the household products? And then the question or are there alternative products and then the other question of Does it work is another one and at the concentrations that these flame retardants are present in consumer products? in fact They do not provide the retardation of the flames In other words, it doesn't slow down the burn Yeah, I note that there is a push I think within NFPA a national fire protection association to actually have Pulse to furniture standard meet the business Flammability standard which saturates furniture with FR chemicals, but for consumer products Again, it's the concentration and it's your contention that that concentration provides minimal marginal safety at best Thank you. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you commissioner Robinson Thank you. Thank you so much dr. Bermond for both your presentation in 2015 and today and for your Very helpful involvement in this in this issue for the agency I I just want to say that from everything that I've read I'm absolutely convinced that the of the OFRs that have been studied that all of them are toxic Migrate out of products and present a risk of adverse health impact And I think from reading staff's package that they completely agree with that as well But the areas of concern that they raise As Chairman Birkel pointed out the data gaps and what they basically say that they're troubled about treating them These is a class because they have limited data showing individual OFR compounds Sorry, the data showed that they have varying toxicity and exposure exposure potential There's varying properties of individual OFR compounds indicate that OFRs represent several Subclasses and even then within the subclasses that there are variances And there are a number of OFR compounds about which we have no data regarding their toxicity And then their second area of concern Is the fact that even though we know the chemicals are in household dust and the dust gets into people That we have no direct link of these four product categories that the petition talks about Contributing to the household dust or the degree to which they to which they contribute it So let me let me just first of all follow up on something that chairman Birkel said with respect to the household dust And I I mean I'm having trouble thinking how the how there's ever going to be data That would support these four products and what what they contribute to the household dust But could you just comment on why you don't believe that should be a concern in terms of us regulating this class of chemicals So we know that these chemicals are The cases that we are most concerned with are not the polymeric forms That's not the issue the issue is things that are just mixed in with the product They're not chemically bonded to the product So over time they get out of the product and into the dust It's very difficult to actually prove that pathway But we know that they're in the product We know that they're in the dust and we have have shown how it gets from the dust into people So I think there have been data we've shown where measurements of some of these chemicals in the products There's a relationship with the amount that's in the dust Over time more gets into the dust and again dust gets into people not only via their hands But also a certain amount by inhalation. Okay, and let me just say that anytime I refer to OFRs today I just state this generally I'm referring to what we're talking about in the petition Which is a non polymeric additive organohalogens Why and I'm going to follow up again on another question that chairman berkel asked about self-correction Why don't you think this self-correction as she refers to it isn't enough? Why should we ban these? OFRs So my Understanding is that even new products some things which are not required to have OFRs aren't showing OFRs when they're actually tested We also import a great number of products which have OFRs in them But I think I think the biggest thing would be is that some new products on the marketplace today when they get tested Actually have OFRs in them So over time and maybe that the marketplace does a great job of responding consumer demand So the the um taxcological advisory board that you talked about from 79 to 80 to 85 I have not had a chance to talk to commissioner adler out there So maybe he knows about it, but I didn't know about that and you didn't refer to our chat Which we had with respect to phthalates, but can you tell us if there are difference or or are you sort of thinking of the same thing? I'm going to turn it over one second to chris wise who's my chief toxicologist My Bethesda office who actually will be deployed as of tomorrow. So we're lucky to have him here today and The the question again is our phthalates included in the no no no It's just with respect to whether there's a difference between a chap as we Convened for phthalates. I mean is it the same kind of body or the toxicological advisory board like they had back in the late 70s I see the board that that we're referring to is a collection. I believe of nine toxicologists. Okay that from the period of I believe 1979 until 85 Was required By the the law to participate in decisions such as this Unfortunately and for reasons that I don't understand That board and that process was sunsetted In in 1985 So the advantage That the commission gained from that advice Stopped at 1985. I'm not sure the rationale for that. What I think we're suggesting is that the board The commission consider reinstating such a board with highly complex problems like this It's it's multifaceted as you as you well know and as the staff report indicates And we believe that it would be an advantage to the commission and and to public health frankly If if a similar board was reestablished. Thank you so much. I'm out of time Thank you commissioner k. Thank you madam chair. Good morning dr. Weiss. Good morning director bernbaum. Thanks again For coming into both of you and dr. Bernbaum. It's good to continue our conversations on this topic Obviously, we've had a number of conversations both here and in north carolina Which I think indicates as indicated to you and your staff how much It has mattered to me In your estimation who is most at risk from these products or from these Flame retardants being in these products. I think my concern is almost always for the Early stage of life. So I think my greatest concern is for the fetus before it's born As well as for the infant and young child Children young children especially are at increased concern because of their behaviors as well as their metabolism is different I mentioned the fetus especially because we know now that the concentration in the fetus is often higher than Concentration in the mother and at any time of rapid development and growth You have a maximal opportunity to disturb that process and things are once disturbed During development. They are not reversible And do you believe in lay terms that children are being poisoned by these chemicals? I would say there is the opportunity for impact on children and we have data from among the general population Which is Heavily supported its biological plausibility by studies in a variety of different animal species Where we see impacts, especially on Neuro behavior and on learning and memory In children that does not go away And is that again as a lay person because i'm not a scientist or a toxicologist in particular Is that different than poisoning? Is that a subset of poisoning? How would you describe as a scientist what poisoning is and how that might be different? First look it up in in webster's commissioner k and see its definition. I am most concerned about the potential For poisoning is a term that carries all kinds of Baggage with it. I would rather talk about the adversity that we see so if children have A couple of IQ points less or if children have ADHD for example I think that raises the concern for their ability of their success in school and and in life is in general And that sounds pretty serious to me. How serious do you think those effects are to you? I would rather see children able to develop to their full potential I agree and in terms of a public health issue. How big a public health issue do you believe this is? I think we are all exposed The studies had been done when we've looked at various classes certainly of the pbds certainly of the For example the PFAS Certainly have some of the chlorinated and as well as the other brominated flame retardants What we find them is pretty much in almost everywhere we look in the environment But also in people so as a person how much does this scare you? I'm just trying to get to your sense of it relative to other hazards that you deal with I think this is something that would be Advantages for the future of our species. That sounds like a big deal and as commissioner adler pointed out you're probably the Most preeminent toxicologist on these issues in the united states of america if not the world And yet here you are for the second time having to come in and talk to us about it And in the interim unfortunately, we've seen less movement that I would have desired What do you think it's going to take In light of what you just said in particular that in essence children are being denied their full potential by these chemicals What do you think it's going to take for policy makers to Agree to finally do something about it well I happen to be a supporter of the class approach Because I think as I said before that there is no way that we can ever test Every chemical you get rid of one and then you find another one is substituted Which turns out in many cases to be just as bad or worse and I think Continuously we have what's called regrettable substitution or some people call it the chemical conveyor belt But whatever term you use These new chemicals can be just as bad as the old ones So I think unless we approach it as a class We're going to find ourselves in the same situation Five years ten years down the road And my sense is that for those who will pay attention Especially all day today that there will be skepticism expressed by some folks up here about that approach Is there anything else that you can add to try to urge individuals? To accept that approach and move forward to protect kids in particular Science is never a hundred percent certain But the evidence builds and I think the evidence has built to the point That they're that all of these chemicals and all future chemicals of this class if they are not Chemically bonded to the substrate are going to escape into the environment and then into people and do you have any doubt about that? None. Great. Thank you Thank you. Commissioner Moorovic. I have no questions. Thank you. Again. Thank you our sincere appreciation Dr. Birnbaum for your presence here today if your willingness to as commissioner K said to come back here again and Share your expertise with us into Mr. Weiss I would just like to offer our Best wishes to you and safe travels and please be safe Thank you both very much We will now transition to our second panel We now welcome our second panel for today's public hearing And I just want to begin by saying thank you to all of you for being here on our second panel Excuse me. We have miss eve gardener earth justice northeast office Miss rachel weintraub consumer federation of america Dr. Jennifer Lauri from the american academy of pediatrics Mr. Ricardo Simmons from the united states catholic conference of bishops Miss maureen swanson from learning disabilities association of america And joining us via the phone for this second panel dark dr. Arlene bloom from the green science policy institute And I just want to say that while dr. Bloom will be presenting I want to also note that miss avry lindemann also from the green policy institute Is also on the line and will be available to answer our questions So with that I would ask our panel to begin their presentations We'll begin with miss gardener and again my sincere appreciation to all of you Thank you very much chairman berkeley that worked third time is the charm I am co-counsel with consumer federation of america representing the petitioners in this matter And I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today Petitioners strongly urge the commission to reject the staff's analysis and grant the petition I will discuss two pervasive errors in the staff's analysis First the staff recommendation misconstrues the legal requirements for a rule under the fhsa Under this statute a product is hazardous based on toxicity if it meets two criteria First if it has the capacity to produce illness or injury through ingestion inhalation or absorption through any bodily surface And second if it may cause substantial injury or substantial illness as a result of customary use That is it just those two criteria Staff however describe a much more complicated analysis that has no basis in the statute As just one example on page 11 Staff state that once a substance is determined to be toxic Then and here i'm quoting a quantitative assessment of exposure and risk is performed to determine whether the chemical may be a hazardous substance Which includes consideration of dose response bioavailability and exposure and quote But that is not at all what the fhsa says Under the statute if a product is toxic based on the capacity to produce injury Then the only remaining question is whether the product may cause substantial illness or substantial injury as a result of customary use There is nothing in the fhsa's may cause harm standard That requires the commission to quantify the number of children who will be harmed before it can regulate Unlike the cpsa the fhsa does not require an unreasonable risk determination It does not require quantification It is also important to remember that there's solid precedent for this commission to regulate by class under the fhsa Many many years ago this commission regulated all toys intended for use by young children That present hazards because of small parts And when that rule was challenged the second circuit court of appeals Upheld the commission's decision and said the legislative history of the fhsa appears clear in favoring general Prescriptive regulations of the broadest most comprehensive type And would favor case by case proceedings only where such general prescriptive regulations prove impossible So that's a quote from the court The second pervasive error is that the staff is wrong in thinking that this problem the problem with ofrs will simply go away without federal action The cpsc staff says repeatedly in their recommendations that recent agency testing found that 22 percent of children's products still contain ofrs Given how toxic these chemicals are and how pointless it is to flame retard Children's toys and furniture. This is a shockingly high number Second history shows that voluntary shifts in the market are not permanent in the absence of federal regulation Yes, chlorinated tris was phased out of children's pajamas in the 1970s, but it reappeared in our couches 10 years ago The third point on the fact that um That that this problem is not going away is that the nfpa and other private standard setting agencies are agencies Are currently working to develop an open flame flammability standard for furniture If that happens in the near future and there's a very good likelihood it will That would lead to increased use of ofrs and furniture and children's products unless the commission takes steps now To stop that from happening by banning these substances In conclusion The staff recommendation should be denied because the record demonstrates that the entire class of ofrs Meets the capacity to cause harm and may cause harm definition of hazardous substance As dr. Bernbaum explained all ofrs for which there are data have been associated with long-term chronic health effects There are inherent characteristics of ofrs that explain why these adverse health effects are occurring No ofrs that have been studied have found to be safe These chemicals by their nature are semi-volatile. They will migrate out of products. They will attach to house dust They will persist in the indoor environment People will absorb these chemicals into their bodies into their blood And for this reason we know virtually everyone in this country has a Volatile mix of these chemicals in their bodies And finally labeling is inadequate because there's no way for consumers to protect themselves or their children From these chemicals. They are looking to this commission to protect them and we urge you to do that. Thank you Thank you very much. Ms. Wine-Trap. I appreciate that the cpsc is holding this hearing and providing the opportunity for comments on the petition That's cfa earth justice kids in danger and others submitted to the cpsc Urging the adoption of mandatory standards to protect consumers from the hazards caused by the use of non polymeric additive form Organo halogen flame retardants in children's products furniture mattresses and the casing surrounding electronics I am rachel wine-trap legislative director in general counsel at cfa a non-profit association of approximately 280 pro-consumer groups that was founded in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through advocacy research and education Today we'll discuss the cpsc's legal authority to adopt standards under the fhsa and will respond respond to Misinterpretations made in the staff briefing package about the cpsc's legal authority and other issues the cpsc under the fhsa Has authority to ban products that pose a hazard when labeling would not adequately protect consumers from the hazard The fhsa establishes that to ban a product the cpsc May by regulation declare to be a hazardous substance any substance or mixture of substances Which is toxic if such substance may cause substantial personal injury or substantial illness During or as approximate result of any customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use A critical aspect of this definition of a hazardous substance Is that a toxic determination is based on the capacity and potential to cause harm based on exposure from customer use Notably the staff briefing package does not focus on the may cause aspect of the fhsa's definition Nor does it reiterate the fhsa's definition of toxicity to include a substance that has the capacity to produce personal injury The failure to include and consider the statutory language in the staff briefing package Misconstrues the fhsa's standard for hazardous substance and leaves out the critical legal analysis that clarifies That the cpsc authority to take action is consistent with the fhsa In addition the staff briefing package numerous times includes that the mere presence Of organohalogens in the blood or urine of individuals does not indicate harm The fact that measurable levels of organohalogens are present and virtually the entire population Indicates exposure To these chemicals that is the key point the argument that the mere presence of organohalogens and humans is not indicative of harm ignores the cumulative impact of multiple chemicals acting on the same endpoints Fails to consider the science of low dose exposures, especially for children and fails to consider the legal standard required by the fhsa requiring Capacity to cause personal illness to meet the definition of toxicity Further the staff briefing package reiterates that it cannot proceed with the petition because it cannot consider organohalogens as a class The staff however does not consider the comments provided by numerous Eminent scientists such as who we heard earlier today who support classifying organohalogens as a class Staff also reiterates that toxicity data is incomplete But fails to consider data that provides an adequate basis for determining the toxicity of organohalogens such comments should be considered The briefing package includes that since various entities such as the european union And some states have passed laws restricting organohalogen use That that has an impact on decreasing exposure and thus would make cpsc rule unnecessary Rather this actually supports granting the petition because it indicates that such rules are effective and decrease potentially harmful exposure Declining use is not a justification for not acting as these chemicals are still used in consumer products That some manufacturers are moving away from using these chemicals Is evidence of broader support for action to ban the use of organohalogens in consumer products The briefing package states that the existence of fire safety standards that do not require the use of organohalogens Indicates also a lack of need for a rule to ban organohalogens Organohalogens however are used in consumer products to comply with fire safety standards Will not required. They are often the most cost effective way to comply with such standards The fact that a standard does not require their use does not mean that organohalogens will not be used In conclusion under the fhsa the cpsc has explicit authority to protect consumers from the health hazards caused by the use of these chemicals The staff briefing package however fails to consider scientific evidence supporting the petition Uses flawed rationales to justify denial of the petition and does not consider all aspects of the fhsa standard For hazardous products and toxicity. We urge the commission to use their authority to grant the petition and protect consumers Thank you very much. Dr. Lowry Thank you for the opportunity to present this morning about the child health impact of organohalogens flame retardants My name is dr. Jennifer Lowry and I am here representing the american academy of pediatrics or the aap I serve as the chair of the aap's council on environmental health And um on their executive committee in addition to my role within the aap I also work at children's mercy in kansas city where i am the chief to the section of toxicology and environmental health And the medical director of the division of clinical pharmacology toxicology and therapeutic innovations I am here today to express aap's continued support for cpsc action to protect children from the harmful health and developmental effects of organohalogens flame retardants Or ofrs The aap is concerned by the cpsc staff's student recommendation to not begin rulemaking following the petition requesting banning Of all ofrs in four product classes under the fhsa The aap is one of the original petitioners and we continue to strongly support cpsc moving forward on this important child health issue As children grow and mature their unique physiologic developmental and behavioral differences make them especially vulnerable to chemical exposures Chemical exposures can disrupt the critical and rapid stages of development that occur in prenatal and early childhood life particularly involving the neurologic and endocrine systems Even low dose exposures to chemicals during these periods can have major lifelong health effects Organohalogens flame retardants are associated with a wide range of serious adverse health effects including reproductive impairment Neurological effects including IQ decrements and learning deficits Endocrine disruption and interference with thyroid hormone action Genotoxicity cancer and immune disorders inexplicably the cpsc staff Recommendation package does not adequately account for these well-documented health risks of this chemical class The effect that chemical additives to consumer products have on learning attention and other health problems in children is real Much of my clinical practice is dedicated to aiding children in overcoming ADHD and other learning disabilities so that they can thrive As testimonies in 2015 and today tell you Organohalogens are not necessary in products and have been shown to be associated with serious harm to children Pediatric research continues to demonstrate significant negative health effects for low dose exposures and cumulative exposures acting on similar health endpoints Children face a longer exposure time horizon and are uniquely susceptible to even small changes to the endocrine system during key developmental stages We are therefore concerned by the rationale and june recommendation to reject the petition that argues the mere presence of organohalogen flame retardants in the blood and urine Is insufficient to demonstrate that an adverse effect or disease may occur Current research does not support this assertion Children that these exposures will not present to an emergency department with an acute exposure causing symptoms that are obvious at one time Instead the low-level chronic toxicity that is indolent and present subtly In fact much of what we know about the toxicity of organohalogens and other chemical additives to products is that it is not obvious until it is too late The assumption that a chemical is safe because we don't see acute effects from this exposure is completely false There is no reason for children to have these harmful levels of organohalogens in their blood and urine And cpsc has the authority to address these hazards in the consumer products. It regulates Lastly while flame Products are now available that are without o of r This is not across all of these products mattresses and drapes are available at a price exceedingly high Resulting in environmental and justice issues to those who are more vulnerable Thus banning these chemicals now will level out the playing field to those that need it most The ap strongly supports this petition and we are dismayed the cpsc staff current recommendation is to take no meaningful action at this on this issue We urge the commission to move to regulate this chemical class to protect children from the unnecessary health risks Thank you again for the opportunity to speak today and we look forward to working with you on this important issue Thank you. Dr. Lowry. Mr. Simmons Thank you for this opportunity to present my testimony and before you today My name is Ricardo Simmons and I present before you on behalf of the united states conference of catholic bishops To comment on the petition to ban ofr retardants from consumer products The conference of catholic bishops is an assembly of the hierarchy of the united states and us virgin islands Who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions on behalf of the catholic faithful in the united states? There are 17 cardinals in 446 active and retired bishops in the us representing over 70 million americans In almost 200 diocese across the country The bishops speak not as technical experts But as people of faith who offer a moral perspective rooted in a rich faith tradition Which calls us to care for god's creation and protect the common good and the life and dignity of human persons Especially the poor and vulnerable from conception until natural death Two years ago pope france has published an encyclical on the environment that proposed an integral ecology whereby everything is connected The fate and health of the environment is deeply intertwined with human social and economic health The pope asked the question which we can ask ourselves now And i quote what kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us? To children who are growing who are now growing up Children inside and outside the womb are uniquely vulnerable to environmental hazards and exposure to toxic pollutants in the environment Their bodies and behaviors leave them more at risk than adults to such health hazards Because children are exposed to environmental hazards at an early age They are susceptible to developing slowly progressing environmentally triggered illnesses such as asthma certain cancers learning disabilities and other conditions that adversely affect childhood development In short exposure to toxic chemicals is significantly more harmful to children born and unborn In an effort to develop the leadership of catholic organizations and networks to help address environmental hazards affecting children's health A coalition of major catholic organizations formed a catholic coalition for children and safe environment case In 2007 case members hosted a major conference on the effects environmental toxins On unborn children protecting human life and caring for creation held at the us conference of catholic bishops This event brought together prominent leaders from catholic for the catholic community government and public health sector To learn more about how unborn children are exposed to environmental harm How this exposure affects them later in life and what can be done to better protect them Building on this collaboration in 2008 life justice and family convocation included a session on toxins environment and child in the womb To learn and disseminate information about environmental threats That may affect children's health the conference monitors information about the effect of environmental threats On children's health and identifies opportunities to strengthen policies that protect children born and unborn from exposure to harmful toxins and chemicals OFR Chemicals present a real health concern Among many things this class of chemicals has been associated with serious human health problems including cancer increased time of pregnancy Decreased IQ in children impaired memory learning deficits hyperactivity hormone disruption and lowered immunity As people of faith we're called to care for god's gift of creation and to protect the most vulnerable among us Caught in a spiral of poverty environmental degradation The poor and powerless are disproportionately impacted by the effects of exposure To environmental problems as their lands and neighborhoods are more likely to be polluted to be near toxic waste dumps Or to suffer from water contamination Pope Francis reminds us that and I quote each year hundreds of millions of ton of waste are generated Much of it non biodegradable Highly toxic and radioactive from homes and businesses from construction and demolition sites from clinical electronic and industrial sources The earth our home is be cut is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth commissioners You have the unique opportunity to address this injustice and a duty to protect our children and our families The conference urges the cpsc to ban these toxic and pervasive chemicals from children's products Furniture mattresses and the casings around electronics Doing so would help to protect the health and welfare of all people Especially the most vulnerable members of our society Including the unborn and young children from harmful exposure to these toxic chemicals. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Simmons miss swanson Thank you commissioners for the opportunity to comment today My name is marine swanson and I direct the healthy children project for the learning disabilities association of america lda Lda is the oldest and largest national volunteer organization advocating for children with learning children and adults with learning disabilities with chapters across the country One in six children in the united states has a reported learning or developmental disability Including autism attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and other learning and developmental disorders Like halogenated flame retardants learning and developmental disabilities persist with lasting impacts on children families and society On average it costs twice as much to educate a child with a learning or developmental disorder as to educate a child without one I also co-direct project tender, which is targeting environmental neuro development risks Tender is an alliance of more than 50 leading scientists health professionals and children's health advocates Who in july 2016 published a scientific consensus statement on toxic chemicals that are interfering with fetal and children's brain development In the published consensus statement the tender experts named PBD ease as chemicals that are putting children in america at increased risk For neuro developmental disorders including adhd learning disabilities intellectual impairments and autism So since the cpsc hearing in december 2015 We now have published scientific consensus that PBD ease have the capacity to harm brain development And that even low-level exposures may result in learning behavioral or intellectual deficits The tender statement also outlines the scientists concerns with halogenated flame retardants that are replacing PBD ease Noting that the replacement flame retardants are similar in structure to PBD ease and emerging evidence shows they are similarly neurotoxic Halogenated flame retardants look like thyroid hormones and can disrupt thyroid function This is true of PBD ease and of the replacement flame retardants Thyroid hormone is essential to healthy brain development Again the science is even clearer now than it was two years ago That halogenated flame retardants can change baby's brains and can result in lifelong intellectual and developmental impairments Halogenated flame retardants cross the placenta to the fetus and are detected in umbilical cord blood and in breast milk These chemicals migrate from furniture, baby and children's products electronics enclosures and mattresses into household dust The usepa estimates that children ages one to five Ingest on average four to five times the amount of dust that adults ingest A 2002 i'm sorry a 2012 study found that toddlers were significantly exposed to PBD ease from uh dust particles on their hands and on objects such as toys and bringing their hands and toys to their mouths There was a strong correlation between the PBD ease levels on their hands And the levels measured in their blood But maybe those levels are so low that they don't matter That is what the staff recommendation claims that these levels are so low that they probably don't matter After all we're talking about parts per billion Here is what I would like the commission to understand Parts per billion sounds deceptively small Consider chemicals that are designed and prescribed to children to alter behavior like Ritalin The prescribed dose of Ritalin for a child with ADHD Is active in the child's body at about the same level as the level of flame retardants found in the child's body so this um behavior altering prescribed chemical Ritalin Is acting on the child at the same level the same dose as the level of flame retardants in the child Are acting on that child's body and those levels are parts per billion We know that the fetus infants and children are regularly exposed to halogenated flame retardants in part because these chemicals migrate from products into House dust and are ingested We know halogenated flame retardants are active in children's bodies at levels that can disrupt thyroid Hormone and function which in turn disrupts brain development and function And we know that the resulting harm to children's minds is permanent As an advocate for children and adults with learning disabilities and as a parent I cannot understand why the commission would allow this class of toxic chemicals to continue to be used in products That are in our homes and schools and childcare centers Based on everything we know we urge the cpsc to issue this rule and protect infants and children from these neurotoxic chemicals Thank you. Thank you very much and now joining us via phone line is dr. Bloom arlene bloom Dr. Bloom. Are you still connected to us? dr. Bloom We'll pause for a moment. See if See if Mr. McGoon can help us out here Arlene if you can hear us, maybe your phone is just on mute Hello Dr. Bloom Dr. Bloom Is miss mills on the phone? I'm sorry. Sorry. Hi. I was on mute. I apologize um My thanks to the chair and the commissioners for allowing my remote testimony and apologies for Not being able to get off mute. Um, I really appreciate the chance to speak with you Um, I'm arlene bloom the executive director of the green science policy institute And a research associate in chemistry at the university of california at berkeley During my presentation today. I will briefly discuss The chemical class approach how it applies to flame retardants and consumer products And why this approach is necessary for protecting the health of our population From these harmful chemicals and consumer products Um, as we know most unfortunately Most of the 80 000 registered chemicals and consumer products And in commerce in the u.s. Today lack adequate toxicological information and as we've heard already several times After a chemical begins to show adverse health effects it can take years For it to be phased out or banned and then the replacement is often a closely Related chemical in a cycle of regrettable substitutions Meanwhile the incidents of health and ecological harm including neurological endocrine and immune disorders reduced fertility and cancer All of which may be associated with chemical exposure Is increasing Rather than attempting to address these tens of thousands of chemicals on the market one at a time The chemical class approach provides an understanding Of why some entire chemical families or classes commonly found in consumer products Are all likely to be harmful Reducing the use of entire classes of chemicals of concern Especially when their function is not essential as in the case of many Will prevent regrettable substitutions and lead to healthier consumer products Among the thousands of synthetic chemicals the class of organohelogens is uniquely problematic As we've heard These chemicals are often toxic And resistant to degradation leading to their persistence and bioaccumulation in our bodies Indeed, there have only been 24 chemicals globally banned As persistent organic pollutants under the Stockholm Convention and all 24 are organohelogens Harmful flame retardants in the past have been found at pound levels In consumer products in a typical home As we've heard this this has been reduced due to the lack of benefit And the the serious harm to our population However, as we've also heard there are efforts to once again bring back their youth. There is a The national fire protection association has Working on an FDA 277 Which would be an open flame standard for furniture We've heard in europe They've just developed a new standard for for children's mattresses that would be most likely to be met by flame retardants, which has an open flame component so The fact that right now we're in a pretty good place and these chemicals are not Being required and therefore not being used to the same extent as they were in the past Doesn't mean that that could not change in the future Um As we've heard beginning. I my work on this began in 1977 When we found that a flame retardant Brominated tris was used in children's pajamas that had ended up in the children was Immutagen and likely to cause cancer Again, it was replaced with chlorinated tris and that one minute remaining To this day that when one flame retardant Um Is phased out it is usually replaced with another um organohalogen So, um, I would just like to say That this series of harmful and unneeded organohalogens in products Um since the 1970s has doubtless been a contributor Significantly to health problems in our population To cancer to infertility to neurological problems in our children By approving the organohalogen petition The cpsc has the opportunity to end this series of regrettable substitutions So we can have healthier consumer products and a healthier population. Thank you Thank you very much. Dr. Bloom and uh, I will just say that Avery Lindemann is also on the line I believe and she is available to answer any commission questions as well as dr. Bloom So, uh, this will begin the round of questions by the commission and I will begin um Ms. Gartner, you mentioned that there was some precedent here at cpsc with regards to toys regulating children's toys So I just wanted to first of all clarify what you were referring to I'm sorry I was referring I was trying to make the the point that um that the commission has has a history of of regulating products by By class not just regulating a particular product and so the commission Took the step of regulating all toys Um that are used by small children and that have small parts and requiring certain precautionary Labeling which is ultimately what the statute is is it's a precautionary statute And that was challenged by the toy industry which said well, you can't just regulate the entire class of Of toys you need to you know pick a particular product and regulate that product if you think it's warranted And the court the court rebuffed that challenge upheld the commission's authority and said very clearly that the the history Of the fhsa Shows that congress intended this commission to regulate broadly and prescriptively across You know across an entire class that that was how congress intended the fhsa to be used So obviously chemicals are different than small parts, but I still think that the they both present hazards And I think that the point is that this is a statute It's a precautionary statute That's intended to be used in a broad prescriptive way to protect humans. Thank you very much I think I would just make a distinction that that was cps. I ain't not as fhsa No, that's But that that was a regulation versus a ban Well, this would be And I apologize because I don't know if I would What I thought might be upperpo because of the two issues that both of you and ms. Weintraub raised here That I would ask our general counsel not this morning but before we vote on this petition next week to provide the commission some legal advice on fhsa and the What the Appropriate response would be and what the bar is for for the commission. Thank you Miss once and I just wanted to in your testimony you referred to first of all you said since 2015 there was yet another study And in your testimony there aren't any Footnotes or references to the study unless I'm not unless I'm not looking at I think I am but I don't see any footnotes or references So that study along with the 2011 and the 2012 study that's in your testimony If you could provide that to the commission, I think that would be extremely helpful and hopefully illustrative of your point Absolutely. I apologize. I had those references to the earlier studies the 2012 in my written comments submitted several years ago, but I um, I just I forgot to add those references and then the the tender consensus statement that was published I provided to the commission, but I will absolutely Put that in the references as well. Thank you those quickly Thank you very much. It would be greatly appreciated and then in my remaining one minute and 30 seconds I just would ask any of you on the panel Our second panel to address some of the staff concerns that I raised with dr. Bernbaum in the first panel This data gap the fact that we don't have enough information on each chemical specific chemical to to allow us to then ban a class of chemicals That's troubling. I think to the scientists these data gaps Also the fact that the petition uses older data rather than newer data and doesn't accurately reflect the marketplace So I'll leave that up to whoever would like to speak to that Well, I'll quickly say um, I think as as dr. Bernbaum said, especially in this rapid Environment, there will always be data gaps read across Is a method that is used within the scientific community to make assumptions based on what is known now to project To project about what will rapidly be occurring in the future There will always be data gaps, but we also have Vast amounts of data as dr. Bernbaum said confirming that of those that have been studied of this class They are they all show adverse health effects. So I think that's very significant for that first point Thank you. My time is expiring and and so I guess I would just ask all of you going forward Wouldn't it make more sense to then? perhaps Not necessarily cps or excuse me cpsc But maybe another agency that's more well suited and has the budget that could accommodate this kind of an inquiry But at least where we have found a connection with toys to a certain degree That that would be the first inquiry rather than going so broadly and banning all of these various chemicals By by the classes and through the products that you've identified. Thank you commissioner adler picking up on the chairman's question We've heard numerous references that we should defer to epa and let epa take action with respect to these chemicals We know epa is investigating them and I throw this open to the panel as well Can anybody explain a reason why we should defer to epa or should not defer to epa? I can I can start with that So I would strongly urge the commission not to just wait for epa to act. So as the commission knows Congress recently amended the toska statute. I think there'll be a witness speaking to this later today, but um Under that statute epa Has selected 10 chemicals to under to be the first batch of chemicals to undergo risk evaluation That batch includes a single flame retardant hbcd, which is within this organohalogen flame retardant class But it's not the most it's primarily used in building insulation. So it wouldn't it's not the primary Or anywhere near the primary flame retardant used in the products that issue here We have no idea if or when epa will Conduct risk evaluations for other organohalogen flame retardants. It's a completely unknown question They had the opportunity to address these organohalogen flame retardants that are using consumer products and they chose not to I think it there's really no reason to to delay This commission this is squarely within this commission's jurisdiction to protect consumers Uh, thank you very much. I'd like to ask dr. Lowry a question You talked about the cumulative effect of OFRs as a hazard and I guess I would ask this Do you have any knowledge about Any OFR that would contribute such a small amount of toxicity that it should be permitted to stay on the market? well as dr. Birnbaum alluded to you You can't actually just look for one of the OFRs in a person's body and Find only one it is a mixture It's going to be from all of the different products that a child is exposed to including the four different kinds of products that we're talking about here Um, and it's so it's that You know, could it be that one that's causing something? Sure But do we know no and in fact we know that from all of the OFRs that are on the market Many of those who have been studied that we have the ability to study Cause harm and then again as dr. Birnbaum said we haven't found one that is okay Uh, and I'd like to ask dr. Bloom a question if she's still there You point out that among the thousands of synthetic chemicals produced by industry the class of organo halogens is quote uniquely problematic Having to do with things like their toxicity fat-loving nature and resistance to degradation Can you provide a bit more detail about what makes these Uniquely problematic as opposed to other hazardous chemicals in other words Why should the cpsc be focusing on organo halogen flame retardants as opposed to other potential hazards in the marketplace? Well, I think in the original petition, um, we have scientific statements from a dozen scientists Some of the points are That these sorts of chemicals are not natural to any mammalian biochemistry So there are no organo halogens in any mammals and our bodies Just don't know how to deal with them. So for example, there's something you could think of as as cellular Bouncers that keep toxics out of ourselves, but they don't know how to deal with organo halogens So they go into our bodies And then many of the detoxifying mechanisms in ourselves They also don't know how to deal with them. So they tend to go into our bodies and stay And across the population Cause harm and and I would refer you to the statements by experts Listing many many other reasons why but that wanted to get started quickly. Thank you very much Miss swanson you state that halogenated flame retardants. I'm sorry to be so quick about this for time It's short change babies brains and can result in lifelong intellectual and developmental impairments OFRs are obviously not the only source of developmental disabilities in children But they seem according to you to play a significant role in causing harm Do you have any sense of how serious ofrs are with respect to the overall issue of learning disabilities? Or am I asking an unasked terrible question? Well, as others have pointed out children all of us and especially children are exposed to such a mixture of chemicals Many of them or some of them toxic But we know the body of evidence keeps accumulating and it all Is Arriving at the same conclusions on the OHRs that I'm sorry the ofrs that That the ofrs are contributing to learning and developmental disorders that are then Lasting, you know that this brain disruption often through disruption of the thyroid and that's That's typically how the halogenated flame retardants Act on a child's brain is through thyroid disruption Some of them are also directly neurotoxic. They do act directly on the brain. And so those That interference as dr. Bernbaum pointed out It is not cannot be reversed So I would refer again to the the tender consensus statement that The scientists and health professionals did a careful Consideration of all the toxicological and epidemiological evidence as well as exposures prenatally into children of of different chemicals and arrived at really a Small number of chemicals that they felt comfortable saying are The prime examples Of toxic chemicals that are contributing to learning and developmental disabilities and pbds were among Those prime example chemicals. So they're they're being called out Way over our time and I No, thank you for the answer and your answer on parts per billion really chilled me. Thank you very much Thank you commissioner ravinson. Thank you. Um, I just can't resist saying first of all that these this Um issue before us is very much within our jurisdiction EPA has been very muscly about trying to take over things within our jurisdiction as is evidenced by I'm trying to take over what we're trying to do to make portable generators Safer and I I am very sad to say that our chair seems to agree that the EPA Should be able to take that over and the direction EPA wants to take us in As pointed out recently by former EPA director Christy whitman is very very anti science And when we look at what just happened in houston with the eight flooded superfund sites and the fact that our EPA Is missing in action. I think that this tiny agency has to do everything we can to protect our public With respect to our air and um anything else we can that's within our limited jurisdiction, but this definitely is Um miss swanson, I would like to follow up on some of the studies that you cited because our staff seems to have been concerned about the links that I I think Frankly much much of it is impossible for there ever to be data on but they want to take these four specific products Link it through some data to the actual dust Link the dust to the blood and the blood to adverse health effects now much of this I think is logical But let me just walk you through because in the you you cited a 2011 study of baby products That found 80 of the items contained ofr's and then you um talked about finding From that that there were higher higher levels of ofr's in the dust Do you know of and then you talked about pb Dees in the 2012 study that showed from the dust into the children's blood I'm just wondering if you've given us all that you know about in terms of the studies that would make Those links from the product to the child's blood and or to adverse health effects Well, I've cited some of the studies that I know of that are the um that are the most relevant But I believe that dr. Stapleton who's testifying later today is um, she's an exposure scientist and a toxicologist Who and a few of the studies that I cited are her work? And so she will be able to much better provide the you know the very Most updated right we have great witnesses coming before us today I would like to turn to ms. Gardner and ms. Weintraub for a minute and just ask If you have any thoughts on whether We should find a way of limiting Your petition in in any way which has been suggested such as Naming more specific classes of ofr's or individual ofr's Whether you've thought about limiting the number of products Um and and I just I any thoughts you have on whether that's something that we should think about Um, I think that the data presented um in the petition and that has been forthcoming Indicates that no there is no evidence to support Narrowing the petition in any way based on the class or the products In terms of certain products not containing frs in terms of mattresses My understanding is that that is actually not true that there are mattresses on the market that contain frs That will be discussed later today, but ultimately I think if that decision to Narrow the petition is to be made it should be made at a stage later after the commission has already Granted the petition within the petition process is looking at the data before it and if there is a Compelling reason Weighty evidence supporting a narrowing in some way then that is the time to narrow it certainly not at this point in time Okay, and again I'll just as to both of you and either of you may answer But I I'm interested in what you would have to say about why we shouldn't Just let the market do self correction and let industry police itself I Can take that on I think that you know the answer and I tried to address this briefly is that it just it will not work And we know that there's for all four of these categories of products There is no actual standard that compels the use of of flame retardants and that was part of why we we chose these four categories Um Nobody is requiring the use of flame retardants in furniture in mattresses and kids products And yet they are still being used in these products. Um, the market is not Is is maybe reducing it, but it's not eliminating It and even some of these pbds that we've known for a decade are truly toxic Everyone agrees that pbds are toxic. They're still being found in tv casings Washington state data shows that deca bde is still being used in children's products These are all products that are being imported into this country But the data is overwhelming that of the toxicity of pbds and they're still being used So the market really isn't is is fallible They're not going to go away unless the door is closed and this commission is the perfect body to close that door Thank you very much. Can I comment? Thank you commission. I apologize, but perhaps commissioner k would let you finish up commissioner k Chair dr larry go ahead, please. Well, I just wanted to mention that Um, I've had conversations with parents who want to choose to buy products Um that don't have flame retardants in it and they are available But they're actually more expensive to not put them in Then to put them in and so that again it brings up an environmental justice issue where those that are going to be more Vulnerable or poverty and minorities who are already exposed in larger quantities to other toxins are not going to be afford Those products without the flame retardants Thank you for that and that actually I think Segway's well as well into mr. Simmons statement And if you want to just elaborate a little bit more on the moral imperative that exists here, please I think that would be helpful Yes, certainly and thanks for the opportunity to share I think it's also important to bring up the the moral perspective And the sense of justice I mean the fact that those who have less opportunity and are disadvantaged suffered the most is certainly something that all Of us as a society must consider and the bishops respectfully as non experts speak Yeah, certainly there there might not be um, you know complete information But as a prudential judgment with the information we have science can really never tell us what to do And it is a prudential judgment and from their perspective from a moral voice. They have shared that view Thank you for that. I certainly share that view as well And the dr. Bloom as mr. Simmons just said that there could potentially be some scientific uncertainty here You heard or if you were hopefully you were on the line or you were listening in and you heard director bernbaum's testimony Where she didn't seem to believe that there really is any doubt about how harmful these chemicals are To our children. Do you have any disagreement with that? No, I completely agree And another point I would like to make is that these chemicals are used in these products At extremely high levels In foam organo halogens are used at 5% levels and in our 2011 study Of juvenile products. We found a children's um changing pad that was 13 percent carcinogenic tris In plastic they're used at levels of about 20 percent And so that means in a typical home there can be pound levels I don't think there are any other toxics where you would actually find pounds in a home So in terms of the hazard posed and the opportunity for reducing hazard and protecting health This petition provides a unique opportunity To really make a big difference in the products and the health of all consumers And dr. Bloom, are you aware of any legitimate science that would call into question both your testimony and dr. bernbaum's testimony about the Real and present danger these chemicals present to children Uh, we have been I've been following the literature since the 1970s when we first found Tris in baby pajamas and wrote a lead article in science pointing out The potential for harm to American children and I have to say in the 1970s three months after our Uh lead article in science the consumer product safety commission took action in three months And banned the use of brominated tris So I think that that's a great model of how this commission In the past took action and and I really hope that that will be possible once again so in light of the demonstrated and real harm to children lower IQs Autism rates other learning and developmental Delays and other health effects and the real Costs those have on societies and families in particular I would imagine dr. Bloom that there has to be a darn good reason for why as policy makers We would turn a blind eye to addressing these chemicals and allowing them to continue What would be the policy rationale? And the benefit to society to allowing these chemicals to continue to come into our homes I I can't think of any I mean it is a little bit of the class concept is a little bit of a new thing But when you have 3,000 kinds of highly fluorinated chemicals Many hundreds of kinds of organophilogen flame retardants We're regulating them one at a time is going to it's just not going to happen I I think it's time that that that sort of the class concept needs to be considered and the commission I think it really provides an opportunity for youth to take action and help protect all of us And does anyone else in the panel want to offer a justification that would Give us a reason to maintain the use of these chemicals in the home and have children be exposed to them Okay, thank you Thank you. Commissioner mohorovic. Thank you, madam chairman. Um, and I appreciate all the testimony. We just heard uh today I want to direct some questions to miss Gartner and uh, miss wine trap if you could I I hope you can Help me reconcile a disconnect that has truly vexed me for the my entire time on the commission And it gets down to demand drivers and in looking at your petition and looking at the categories of products I think it's been uh, well understood. I've looked at the demand drivers. Why would a manufacturer pay millions of dollars To put ofr's in particular products without a demand. I can't see ofr salespeople being so persuasive that to get somebody to spend millions of dollars And the complications in terms of its impact on manufacturing to add these chemicals if there were not a demand and In looking at the product categories and how the voluntary standards and have have evolved over the years The demand no longer exists for juvenile product I recognize fully that you still express real concern for their existence and some of those products But the demand drivers are not there. They're not there in the mattress side Fortunately, the electronics community has moved away from the old u l approach to a ISO approach that would only require The the level of resistance to flame to be around the heat sources Therefore not requiring around the whole casings, etc. And then we're left with furniture And then we're left with that one big category Which still presents an opportunity for a demand driver And I I don't see any disconnect with our staff's recommendation to have us deploy resources Time and money towards the advancement of a large open flame standard for upholstered furniture Their perspective is laid out in their response to the petition. So I don't see any Irrationality behind them also then suggesting that we should move forward with the NFPA standard Is it NFPA 271 277 to thank you very much 277 so I don't see any disconnect there But as Andrew Carnegie said The older I get I pay less attention to what people say and look forward to look at what people do But yet this commission continues to vote in our operating plans to advance NFPA 277 But yet you hear all this concern about the demand drivers for flame retardants Yet at the same time we're going to have a vote in october on an operating plan to continue To deploy our staff to advance A large open flame now not just open flame as we know open flame where it's the first side of ignited The NFPA standard is a large open flame. So it'll it'll be so resistant that when there is a Conflagration in the house that piece of furniture won't contribute to it You can imagine the amount of flame retardants that would be required Can you help me understand Why after hearing what you heard here today and seeing no disconnect in terms of our staff's opinion how the opinions expressed today Also continued to put resources towards NFPA 277 I'm not sure that I fully Can commissioner. I think you know, we would certainly say that the commission should not be devoting resources to Promoting a large open flame standard that that Adoption of that standard will inevitably Drive high level use of toxic flame retardants and furniture and would be a major step backwards So we we would certainly urge the commission not to not to fund that effort But we would also I think it is really critical To close the door on the organohelage and flame retardants so that if that standard does go forward regardless of the commission's involvement That the the however that standard is met It's not met with these flame retardants that we know Are damaging our children's brains in future and in terms of demand drivers Flammability standards whether they require organohelogens or not will end up Being complied with through the use of organohelogens because they are one of the least expensive alternatives So effective probably in terms of their ability to resist flame, excuse me possibly Not necessarily yet another reason another reason to prohibit their use Right, so as the fact that there are standards that do not necessarily require flame retardants Does not at all mean that they will not be in the products and that There lies the driver Ms. Weintraub if you were a commissioner, would you vote in our operating plan to continue to deploy staff towards the completion of NFPA 277 As a commissioner, I would have to um, you're not going to like this answer But I would have to look at it much more carefully with my very wise counsel and To better understand the issue. Okay. Thank you very much Thank you very much That concludes this our second panel this morning and I again would like to thank all of you for being here To dr. Bloom for joining us via telephone and miss linderman. Thank you for being available to us This concludes our second panel and at this point the commission will take a 10-minute break and then we'll resume for panel number three. Thank you all very much Mr. Taylor are you on the phone? Yes, I am on the phone. Uh, can you all hear me we can hear you just fine. Thank you very much Welcome back To the continuation of this public hearing and of the consumer product safety commission Our hearing will now resume and just a reminder This is a public hearing to solicit comments on the petition Requesting that commission rule initiate rulemaking under the federal hazardous substance act to declare several categories of products containing additive Organo halogen flame retardants to the banned hazardous substance We've heard from two panels this morning And now we will begin from to hear from our third panel on this panel We are pleased to have and I should say to all of you if I pronounce your name incorrectly Please feel free to correct me. Our first panelist is dr. Thomas azimitz From science strategies our second panelist is dr. Diana zuckerman Third is mr. Rick goss Fourth is dr. Elena rios Fifth is uh, ansi is it ansi Ancha ancha miller And joining us via phone is mr. Stephen taylor the campaign for healthier solutions So I thank you all for being here for giving us Your time and attention to this matter and we will begin the testimony this morning with mr. Asimutz Thank you very much chair berkler and the commissioners appreciate the opportunity to talk to you My name is tom azimitz by way of background I have a doctorate in toxicology certified toxicology in the united states but american board and also a registered toxicologist in europe I've spent much of my career looking at a wide range of chemicals And their potential hazard toxicity exposure and risk I'd like to comment a little bit about the the petition and the staff report in particular I'm offering my petition. These are my opinions But i'm doing it under the auspices of the american chemistry council where I chair the science advisory council for the flame retardant alliance And that group consists of three toxicologists And three fire science experts And i'm here really to support the cpsc recommendation the staff recommendation to deny the petition They did a tremendous job and uh, not everything in there I have read and understand but i'll talk about the science pieces of it at least And there's two points that I think really were compelling to me and I can give some examples of why I support it One is the need to examine flame retardants as individuals I clearly understand as a toxicologist I'd like to group things together and do read across when possible But there's several examples of where that isn't possible And i'll go into that in a minute and second of all the importance of considering exposure potential and risk again This is something that toxicologists deal with all the time. I'll often get asked the question if we do the following Restrict ban substitute will it materially affect the health that people are protecting? That's the kind of question I get all the time and I'll I'll get some perspective on that and why I think the Petitions should be denied and really supporting many of the conclusions that the staff made With regard to the Idea of grouping you know many of the chemicals. I think we talked a lot about the Different ways of doing this many the molecules have been studied for years and there is compelling evidence That would say that there's reason to be concerned about either the animal toxicology or some of the human data But but the one example I think that there's a couple examples that really break with that and like talk about tcpp Which is one of the molecules we we often hear about Tcpp is not neurotoxic. It's not reproductively toxic It's not a pbt and I'm saying that not just my opinion. There's literature. There's regulatory pronouncements that affect so there's a molecule It's used in significant quantities that doesn't have those properties And so that really runs counter to the idea that you can group all these things together because they happen to have a halogen And that's a widely used and widely studied molecule TBPA is another one Where again many of those properties don't apply and there's data to show that it doesn't mean that they shouldn't be looked at Carefully because I think they should and the exposures to them should be looked at carefully But trying to do it all at once just isn't isn't effective and it isn't sincere to the science second of all with regard to The risk and I think the the staff did an excellent job of supporting this as well Um, it's it's tempting again to look at biomonitoring data and say we have this in our body So we must regulate it The example I think of is many of the foods we eat are certainly even roasted coffee Which contains a number of chemicals which on the prop 65 list is known human carcinogens They're mixtures and I'm not a coffee drinker But people that are exposed to half a dozen to dozen all these every day and they're mixtures and we do it Because the levels are such that we don't think the risk is significant So merely saying that because we are exposed to mixtures we have to regulate either of those Individually or as a class Isn't isn't consistent with how we deal with other hazards in in society So I'd consider that it's very important to look at the individual molecules Take a look at the exposure potential and whether Eliminating from the products you're talking about Would want to affect the exposure level at all in many cases It probably won't and two is the level of exposure such that there should be a concern anyway Uh, I think later today you'll hear some very good Testimony and chemicals that have been found in various products. Dr. Stapleton will do an excellent job of that But in many cases when you take a look at the monitoring data and the dust levels and their potential exposure It would fall below the threshold of for risk regulation and one of the thresholds I look at is prop 65 Which is a very strict regulation when it comes to risk And in many cases the exposures would fall below a threshold of regulation under that Under that statuette. So in closing, I support the analysis of the Staff in recommending denial of petition based on two primarily Two reasons one the lack of the scientific support to group chemicals together from a standpoint of toxicity And to the importance of considering exposure of risk because not all chemicals be the present in dust or even present in Biomonitoring fluids present the same risk and to prioritize You need to be considering potential risk. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Dr. Zuckerman Thank you. I'm president of the national center for health research, which is an independent non-profit research center We don't accept money from the chemical companies or any other companies that Whose products would be influenced by our testimony? I also want to say that I come from the perspective. I have a postdoctoral training in epidemiology from Yale medical school I was a researcher at Harvard and Yale And I am a scientist, but I'm not a toxicologist. I can't even pronounce some of these words But as an epidemiologist, I'm used to looking at research At on humans How do we look at exposures on humans and the impact on human health? And look at the patterns of those studies And and those findings So We've been very impressed with what the consumer product safety commission has done on other endocrine Disrupting chemicals and children's products and we hope that you'll take a similar approach To these flame retardants. I want to start by saying the epa website Currently states that organohalogens are highly persistent bio accumulative and cause adverse effects in human and wildlife In humans and wildlife because of the widespread use of these organohalogens and household items and consumer products Indoor contamination may be a significant source of human exposure Especially for children. This is all direct quotes One significant concern with regard to health effects associated with exposure To organohalogens is endocrine disruption. So that's a direct quote from the epa website today OFRs migrate into the air and dust as you've heard and into a film on surfaces such as walls and fabrics and even tables like this And they can get on our skin And although they can be washed off. They just come back on So the bottom line is that once OFRs are indoors. They stay indoors. They don't disappear And that means that humans will be exposed to them day after day And also just to say, you know, this is dust that we can't see Um, you know, this looks like a very very clean room, but it's filled with dust That comes off these products that are in this room and in every room that we're in every day So our center was not involved in the petition But it has a lot of footnotes on numerous relevant studies that we found very persuasive And we want to say that as I think dr. Bernbaum said since that time There are even more studies that are even more persuasive And so we can see clearly That the ingestion of dust containing OFRs is a problem that there's a hand to mouth transfer from the dust on our hands To direct us hand contact or for children putting their hands in their mouths, which they always do And that the skin exposure from air or from clothing exposed to OFRs Is happening from indoor air and dust and we're breathing it in As you know, many children's products contain OFRs and they're exposed To the children are exposed to these products And columbia research has shown that pregnant women and children are exposed in their homes To detectable levels as well To these flame retardants including The OFRs and they point out that children infants and fetuses are more vulnerable to the health effects The concentrations in the dust are higher the closer you are to the product The presence and the number of products with OFRs Is statistically significantly associated with contamination levels and that means it didn't happen by chance Statistical significance means it's a real finding a scientific solid finding And when one removes the product from the room Those levels go down So in conclusion, OFRs are directly Admitting being emitted from the products that are in our rooms and in our homes And the contaminants are in our dust And in the air and we as humans are exposed to them all the time And there is a variation in these different OFRs But the as dr. Birnbaum mentioned They're more similar than different in terms of all of them so far have been found to harm human health And while in the ideal world we'd look at each one individually that's not possible And so I suggest that instead they be banned as a class And then if individual OFRs are found to be safe I don't think that will happen But if any individual ones are found to be safe Then they shouldn't be banned, but we should assume based on the patterns That the science tells us that as a class they should be banned. Thank you Thank you very much. Mr. Goss Oh, sorry Thank you, madam chair members of the commission. My name is rick goss I'm the senior vice president for environment and sustainability at the information technology industry council or iti I'm here today representing the interests not only of iti, but of the consumer technology association and ipc Collectively our three organizations represent the very definition of the manufacturers of electronic devices that are contemplated under this petition here I'd like to start by thanking the commission and the staff for addressing this very important and complex issue here And I'll add that The electronic sector in the high tech sector certainly has an abiding commitment to sustainability We have a commitment to all of our consumers Looking to constantly make our products more energy efficient more Recyclable to substitute out chemicals of concern to identify preferable substitutes, etc. So we welcome this very Focused inquiry in terms of the impacts on the electronic sector here today In terms of my key points on behalf of the technical electronics sector We do agree with the staff report in terms of the conclusions that that report has reached here We believe that the petition is written is overly broad in terms of its Application to an entire class of compounds here We also believe that it is insufficiently justified in terms of making the case that such a broad Band needs to be imposed on these types of chemicals and compounds here I will Certainly refer to the written testimony that that we submitted here in terms of some of the more Specific technical and scientific reasons why we believe that the staff report landed in the right spot But allow me to to focus on the reason why The electronics and tech sector uses these flame retardants in certain of our products in certain applications I would respectfully disagree with some of the the prior witnesses that flame retardants serve, you know Zero or minimal minimal efficacy in electronics products. In fact, they are essential in electronics products Certainly, there are Ignition sources within electronics We need to be able to meet safety and consumer protection standards and requirements in terms of Making sure that that safety risk is met that we do not have A ignition or flammability issues here And while the use of these flame retardants is not compelled They are certainly on balance One of the better ways that the electronics industry has to meet these safety requirements and these product requirements here We have a limited number of potential avenues to choose from In terms of meeting the the safety requirements that are are set forth and that our consumers demand from us here And I'll say when when we are designing our products oftentimes we we are looking to hit a balance here There are in in certain occasions no perfect outcomes here Certainly, we are aware of the literature on PBDEs and on other types of flame retardants here But they also serve a very important safety Reason here and I think that that has been lost a bit in terms of the discussion so far today That these flame retardants are are designed into the product for a very specific reason And on balance, we believe that the use of flame retardants of these particular OFRs and other flame retardants we use are justified and needed based on the safety and protection that they provide in our products here I would I would note that the specific Formulations that we use and in the specific uses here have clearly been shown to increase fire safety and again Several of the prior witnesses said that these had zero efficacy and I would I would certainly disagree with that In terms of it being overly broad, I would I would note that there's been a lot of discussion today about PBDEs in particular That's a class of chemicals that has been restricted under the european union restriction restriction on hazardous substances law For 11 years at this point. There are no PBDEs uses and electronics anymore That is certainly a Recognized challenge here But a lot of the examples we've heard today have been focused specifically on PBDEs Or have been focused on mechanical parts in toys or have been focused on ADD drugs I would caution the commission against Making specific conclusions based on some of these very broad claims overall Uh, and again try to remind the commission of the reason why we are employing these particular compounds for specific purposes And electronics devices here and that they do serve a very important safety function and consumer protection function I would also ask the commission to further review What the outcome would be if it were to ban all OFRs There would certainly be quite a few unintended consequences Including potential regrettable substitutions if that should be the case. Thank you, and i'm happy to answer any questions Thank you very much. Ms. Rios Yes, uh, I'm glad to be here. Uh, in front of the commission. I'm, uh, representing the uh, I'm actually president and CEO of the National Hispanic Medical Association Uh, we were established in 1994. We represent over 50,000 licensed Hispanic physicians in the country Uh, and work with our partners to improve the health of Hispanics and other underserved Uh, as physicians and healthcare providers, uh, we uh Are party to this petition because we have a unique expertise as to the challenges and health disparities Facing Latino communities, especially across the country. And as you know, Hispanics are now the largest ethnic group in the country Uh, number numbering over 50 million and and within the next 20 30 years. We will be a third of the country Uh, when we look at the most vulnerable segments of our population We are alarmed by the fact that we are allowing fetuses and newborn infants to be exposed to toxic Such as the OFRs when they are in especially at risk sub-population because their brains and organ systems are in critical developmental window Uh, and I think it's especially interesting to note that the uh, Hispanic population is a very young population, a very fertile population Lots of young mothers and young families that are exposed Uh, to these high levels of flame retardant chemicals Of particular concern are studies that have documented the exposure of pregnant women to uh, OFRs Which are a particular concern because there are strong links between prenatal exposure To these chemicals and reduced IQ and greater hyperactivity in children Furthermore, the national health and nutrition examination surveys the hains and hain surveys of 2004 From the cdc found that at least one form of ofr 97 of the study participants This biomonitoring study also showed that mexican americans, which is 65 of all hispanics in this country Uh, and non hispanic blacks had higher levels than the non hispanic white population All pregnant participants in the n hains cdc study had measurable levels of at least one ofr in their bodies Looking at the same uh, n hains data researchers have found that individuals in lower income households less than 20 000 dollars A year income levels had significantly higher ofr's Exposures and flame retardant chemicals are transferred from the mother to the baby during breastfeeding another major Potentially a potentially major root of exposure for infants And of course in our families, uh, breastfeeding has always been a very high You know because they can't afford to to buy the baby formulas So we know we have increased exposures there too Overall the highest levels of harmful flame retardants in the general population are found in young children from communities of color Of low socioeconomic status and and uh communities of color For instance, a north carolina study of 80 toddlers found, uh, ofr's in 100 percent of the blood samples So hispanic families have a lot to worry about and uh from ensuring that their children are receiving a quality education To making sure they are eating a well balanced meal and they should not have to worry about these chemicals that are harmful Uh, given the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing to the harm of these chemicals We urge you to take immediate action To grant the request of this petition and ban these toxic chemicals from consumer products. Thank you Thank you very much, and I apologize. I referred to you as miss rios. It's dr. Rios Thank you, miss miller Thank you, um And first i'd like to thank you for the great pronunciation of my name. I'm impressed you did well So my name is ansha miller and I am with the center for environmental health I am um speaking to you on behalf of center for environmental health and also as an extremely frustrated consumer Uh, the center for environmental health is a nonprofit national organization dedicated to protecting a public from exposure to harmful chemicals And air water food and consumer products We're national with headquarters in oakland california an office in new york And I live and work out of the great and beautiful state of north carolina Um, one of the ways that ceh accomplishes our mission is through extensive testing of consumer products for key chemicals of concern For the last five years ceh has been involved with the testing of consumer products for the presence of flame retardant chemicals And testing for the presence of organo halogen flame retardants has been a large focus of our work Ceh has conducted testing efforts on a wide range of children's products and on furniture both children's and adult size furniture While ceh has been heartened to see a decrease in the number of products that contain flame retardant chemicals We are very concerned by ceh and others recent test findings In 2016 and in 2017 That correspond closely to the cpsc findings and other studies that show Approximately 25 of furniture and children's products still contain unnecessary flame retardant chemicals In 2016 ceh tested 29 new foam containing children's products that were purchased from major retail stores from across the united states Products included changing pads, child-sized furniture, bassinet pads, high chairs and more Of the 29 products tested analytical laboratory testing found that seven of the 29 children's products tested approximately 25 Still contained flame retardant chemicals and more than one half of the products with flame retardants contain organo halogens One of the oddest findings was a foam baby bathtub A product that is designed to be immersed in water That contained added halogenated flame retardant chemicals Flame retarding a water product highlights that flame retardants are being added in products pointlessly We are very concerned that we are still finding flame retardants in children's products because these products were exempted From having to meet any flammability standard in january 2014 And no flame retardants have been needed in any of these products for the past three years ceh's finding of flame retardants in children's products mirrors the cpsc's own finding That 22 of the children's products tested still contain flame retardant chemicals As well as clean and healthy new york's testing of children's products, which also found one quarter of products containing flame retardant chemicals CEH has also conducted four rounds of testing on children's nap mats as used in daycare centers over the past four years Despite the fact that children's nap mats have never had to comply with tb 117 the california flammability standard in effect until january 2014 In our most recent testing of nap mats last year just last year We still found 16 of the nap mats tested contain organo halogen flame retardant chemicals The relatively new california flammability standard technical bulletin 117 2013 Allows furniture manufacturers to comply with the california regulation without using flame retardant chemicals although there is nothing in the regulation that prohibits their use We serve on the advisory council of the california bureau that oversees the furniture flammability regulations That panel reported that while 75 percent of the furniture labels checked indicated that the product did not contain added flame retardant chemicals 22 percent of furniture products were labeled as containing added flame retardant chemicals The remaining three percent failed to label the flame retardant content of the products at all Again while it's heartening to see the shift in the market away from Furniture with added flame retardant chemicals only almost one quarter of furniture still contains these unnecessary chemicals Which is far too many americans being exposed to unnecessary and harmful chemicals There can be no doubt that organo halogen flame retardants continue to be used in a significant proportion of products in these categories That these chemicals migrate out of the products and find their way into people's bodies and are associated with serious health problems The cpsc has a duty to protect consumers and especially children from these hazards Thank you very much and now we will turn to mr. Taylor who is on the phone joining us today Thank you. Um, can you still hear me? Okay, we can hear you just fine. Thank you Wonderful. Um, my name is steven taylor and i am the campaign's manager for coming queen which is a national collaboration of uh 200 and some Organizations of different sizes ranging from grassroots to national All focused on environmental public health and protecting human health and the environment from exposure to unnecessary toxic chemicals We um host the environmental justice health alliance, which is a multi-state network of grassroots environmental justice organizations functioning in communities across the country That are disproportionately impacted by exposure to toxic chemicals from many sources Including from household and children's products Um, we also host the campaign for healthier solutions, uh, which i'm speaking on behalf of today Which is our nonprofit environmental justice effort Working to promote health and well-being in disproportionately impacted communities specifically by working with discount retail stores Commonly known as dollar stores to remove hazardous chemicals from the products they sell So the campaign for healthier solutions is led by and grounded in Communities of color and low-income communities that are disproportionately impacted by exposure to toxic chemicals We use research partnerships advocacy Uh science and other approaches to reduce and eliminate exposure to harmful chemicals from the products sold at dollar stores And so um in my brief time, I want to primarily draw your attention to Um, you know the particularly vulnerable population that relies Um often entirely on dollar stores as sources of household products and food Including the categories of products at issue in the petition Um, as you may or may not know um, there are Hundreds of communities across the country urban and rural in which dollar stores are Literally the only store selling household products and food for many miles So there are large constituencies in communities all over the country Who literally have no other option no other source for household products Um, then dollar stores Um, as you uh have seen in the petition and have heard or will hear from other Commenters today and in written comments, you know There is extensive evidence that children of color and low-income children Are not only exposed to harmful levels of organo halogen flame retardants from consumer products But are actually often more exposed to these chemicals than white children or children of higher incomes Uh, the dollar store customer base Generally, um is much more low income than the overall profile of the united states 42 of dollar store customers earn less than 30 000 dollars a year And at least 40 of their customer base is on public assistance. So The families in the communities that rely on dollar stores Um, you know often have less economic means to seek out safer products And because of their geographic locations and lack of access to other retail options They're um often very reliant or entirely reliant on dollar stores Um as sources of household products So because the major dollar store chains have not required their suppliers to report Uh, to one minute remaining on the presence of organo halogen flame retardants in the products they purchase Or if they have required any such reporting, they are not disclosing any of that information to the public Uh, the customers that rely on dollar stores who again are disproportionately low income people of color Without access to other Um sources those customers have no assurance that the products They're buying for their homes and families are free of these harmful chemicals And you know as you have seen and heard according to publicly available testing data These organo halogen flame retardants are still widely used in products. Um that will continue to expose children um in late 2014 and early 2015 We tested a set of diverse products purchased at the largest dollar store chains in the country For certain toxic chemicals Although we were not primarily Investigating the presence of flame retardants in those products We did through the course of our screening find many products that contained Levels of bromine and chlorine that appear to indicate the presence or the likely presence Of a halogenated flame retardant chemical that included um many strings of decorative mini lights a toy race car Children's costume jewelry pieces A set of spider-man dog tags. So um, I know I'm close to time So I'll just close by saying that in millions of families across the country That are disproportionately low income and communities of color Rely on dollar stores as their only source or their primary source of household products Um, it's very likely that they're continuing to be exposed to organo halogen flame retardants through these product sources And I hope that in considering the petition and the testimony and the evidence before you that you think carefully about um the families and the communities and the constituencies That are already disproportionately exposed to hazardous chemicals for many sources And are not going to have access To other sources of products and safer products Without the commission adopting the ban proposed in this petition which we support. So thank you for the time Thank you, mr. Taylor, and we will begin the commission rounds of questions at this point and I will begin with myself Uh, dr. Ossam, it's this morning. We heard from our first panels And I specifically brought up the concerns that our staff addressed in the briefing package one of them was the data gaps And I think a couple of folks who testified mentioned that this is something you're going to see That this is they're constantly developing new chemicals And so there will be gaps and there may be an up never be an opportunity to have that whole Data set in front of you. Could you speak to that? Is that? Sure This is a this is a challenge because as I listen to the petitioners and think about my own Perspective on us. It's hard to prove the negative and it's hard to prove the positive It's hard to say there will never be an adverse effect from any chemical and under any Circumstances and yet it's all so difficult to say in the absence of knowledge. We have to act that like there will be There will be data gaps. But one thing I can say just from my my personal experience Companies are doing a tremendous job with new molecules much more the better techniques better assessment methods and there were 20 years ago So I think you as you see new chemicals come on and again, that's I think not speaking as an attorney because I'm not but Regulatorily that's an epa type function the kinds of work that every company I've dealt with is dealing with is far in excess of what it Would have been 20 years ago. So the kinds of data gaps that affects some of the molecules especially PVDs I don't think you're going to see that in the future and that's something that Maybe it'd be worth getting a company expert to talk about some of the things they go through with the stewardship They're putting into molecules is is it very impressive and much of it is because they're concerned by people like you and the petitioners Thank you very much. Um, mr. Goss I wanted to ask you with regards to um, how these Flame retardants are designed into the product Could you expand on that a little bit and then also you spoke to the efficacy of these flame retardants? If you could expand on that as well No, certainly when you ask how they're designed into the product So you're looking for a technical or a chemical answer No more of a well, I guess it's technical not chemical. Yes Well as has been noted they are they are additive to the process and we're using them in Enclosures for a number of different devices now again. These are not always OFR so we use other types of flame retardants as well, but in general the use of flame retardants These are additive in nature We are designing them into the enclosures and to power supplies And other portions or components that have an electric charger electric current here And that is done to meet certain Safety or consumer protection requirements As I noted in my my prior testimony just a few minutes ago. Yes, there are other ways to To meet these ignition and flammability requirements This particular approach using flame retardants Provides one of in our view the safest and most efficacious ways of doing so I'd be happy to elaborate on some of the other options that are out there But the safety record for electronics has been extremely high And when it comes to flammability and ignition sources In large part because of the care that the high-tech and electronic sectors have taken to make sure that we can meet those design requirements Thank you. I would be interested in hearing other options But more importantly with regards to the efficacy of the flame flame retardants I'm Going to assume which they say isn't a smart thing to do that there are you've studied this You've looked at this just to determine how effective these flame retardants are and the the role that they play in terms of Prevention of fire and safety. Yes commissioner. That's absolutely correct I mean this is this is an ongoing process as I noted in my In my testimony the high-tech and electronic sectors are constantly looking at how they can improve the performance sustainability Energy draw of our products here And so this is part of an ongoing process where we're constantly looking to see What improvements we can make on any any platform of the product including flame retardants? Thank you, and it would be if it's not proprietary and you feel comfortable sharing with the commission I think that would be very interesting to see the efficacy and the studies you've done with regards to these flame retardants Certainly. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. Thank you for joining us via phone I just wanted to elaborate a little bit on what you were talking about with the dollar stores Because it sounded to me like what I was hearing was they're completely They're not adhering to any safety Regulations And I'm just wondering if you can expand on that a little bit why there is such a high propensity Within this within those stores and why it would be any different from any other store Yes, thank you. I'm just double checking you can still hear me Yes, we can hear you just fine Sure, um Well, I'll so I'll try to speak to your question and obviously let me know if um, if I'm not getting to it um The you know, uh Many large retail companies right including wal-mart and target have over the past several years adopted broad corporate chemical management policies that seek to address The use of hazardous and potentially hazardous chemicals in their supply chains and the products they sell um, the largest dollar store chains Uh, dollar general Dollar tree which now also owns family dollar Um have been very slow To move in the same direction as some of the other large retailers and I'll note that The largest dollar store chains collectively Operate more stores in the united states than wal-mart does so over 20,000 individual stores and so um, while some other major retailers have made Uh, some important attempts to require reporting, um From product manufacturers and suppliers to the company Uh, sometimes disclosed to the public Um to under you know, the greater understanding of the chemicals Used in Uh, the products they sell or even to require suppliers to stop using certain chemicals The dollar store chains have been um, you know slow on the uptake Uh dollar tree just very recently in june Mr. Taylor, I apologize. I've instructed suppliers to phase out a certain group of chemicals Mr. Taylor You know the the key point here is that the dollar store chains Have not been moving as aggressively as some other chains To understand i apologize of the products they sell And their customer base Mr. Taylor proportionately Already likely to be exposed to chemicals from multiple sources and not have access to Mr. Taylor, I apologize. We are way over my time and so i'm going to cut you off Perhaps with one of the other commissioners you could finish up your testimony I should have given you a warning that we were so so short on time. Thank you commissioner edler Thank you very much madam chairman, uh, mr. Goss Based on your testimony Is it a fair assessment that your industry is unlikely to stop using ofr's unless forced to is that is that a fair assessment? I wouldn't necessarily draw that conclusion. Well, what conclusion would you draw then? The the conclusion I would draw is as I've as I've said before our our sector our companies are continuously looking For better alternatives and better substitutions But it takes we need to take into account a range of considerations that include the efficacy Potential negative impacts with the proposed substitutions Its characteristics its properties. Will it will it be? Not only efficient and do the job, but will it stand up over time? Taking that as a given then can you give me a sense of how quickly your industry is likely to stop using ofr's? I can't give you an exact time frame here But I can say that it is among the things that we constantly look at and as I noted there are there are other Other options out there for meeting the same ignition and flammability requirements But we have determined at this point that the best way forward is with flame retard not necessarily ofr's but with flame retardants Yeah, and Speaking specifically with respect to ofr's. There are two ways of adopting it one is to say there's no negative Scientific data and until we hear negative scientific data We're going to use it without having evidence one way the other the other is to say no We've studied this carefully and we've concluded that there's no significant risk Do you have a sense of what the prevailing philosophy is? With within your industry and if it is the latter Can you give me a sense of the type of ofr's that you've concluded in effect present no significant risk? It is in terms of the two options you presented to me on the on a continuum here. It is it is far closer to the latter here One of the you know the hallmarks of the the tech and electronics sector here Is looking to constantly innovate to look at that and meeting the commitment to all of our customers here Not only in terms of product performance, but product safety Certainly as I noted We years ago phased out the use of pbds and other types of of ofr's that have been determined To a certain amount of certainty to have adverse human health and environmental impacts here And can you tell me which ofr's are currently being used within the industry? I would have to check back Mass that you do that and submit that information. I'd be happy to and dr. Osmitt's welcome again I think I asked you at the last hearing to respond to this whole concern about reggae regrettable substitution May ask you again about that because if I recall correctly and I may mischaracterize it if so, I apologize You said well gee, that's a serious problem, but I'm really wondering what is the answer to that Well, I don't remember saying that but but I will say words to that effect. Well, okay I'll update it or reiterate what I said last time It's regrettable if you haven't studied the chemicals well and put a lot of stewardship into that I'm based on my experience So what I see companies do when they talk about ask me to take a look at their procedures or look at individual studies I think companies are I think there won't be regal substitutions I think what you're going to see for new molecules in particular if companies see problems with the molecules Without exception they stop developing the molecules And that's my personal experience. So that is not an issue. I worry about moving forward And I you also in your written testimony said that there are several published risk assessments that demonstrate Quote reasonable certainty of no harm, which is about as close to saying the word safe as the sun just ever would How recent are these risk assessments? And can you tell me which OFRs are mentioned? Sure. Actually, uh, yeah the term actually comes from EPA language That's where I got the reasonable certainty. No harm. There's two in particular that are worth looking at FSA the european food safety Authority, and I think a date is 2013 is the revision on that for TBBPA And their conclusions I happen to have it here a couple of points and I can send you the document if you would please be glad to One of the things they look at is exposure of children exposure of children to TBPA from dust does not raise a health concern That's FSA's opinion and FSA is a pretty conservative organization. I've dealt with a lot of molecules in that group There's also a publication. I can send you to by wickoff And I think she looked at all exposures including dust drinking water Infants older children etc and develop margins of exposures to ways looking at risk For ptBPA as well, and I can send you that. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. You're welcome Thank you commissioner robinson Thank you. Um, dr. Zuckerman. I would like to turn to you for a minute We have other witnesses who have talked about the the core the The causal connection between higher levels of OFRs in blood and urine and children and the resulting effects on the on the child's health Could you give us your thoughts on the staff's position that we cannot grant this petition in part? Because we can't trace the presence of OFRs in house dust Specifically to the four products that are at issue in the petition Uh, I think that was the part that surprised me the most in the report. I couldn't make sense of it. Um, I will say I haven't distinguished between all the studies that they looked at That were that were included in the petition and the studies we have today And perhaps the studies we have today are just so much stronger and better But there's so much evidence as I said the you know, if this is not the product But if this were the product the dust concentration of OFRs here would be higher than here and children um, would be Differentially influenced By being exposed to the ones here than being exposed to ones there So, I mean we know in other words the closer you are to the product the right and the more there are That's the other thing. It's not just close. It's that you know Children's rooms can be filled with these products And so the more products there are and the longer those products have been there And it's not disappearing, you know, you take the product out, but it's still in the dust Okay, mr. Goss, I you I don't want to get sloppy here in terms of talking about how essential flame retardants are in electronics Because generally speaking I don't think you'll find anybody disagreeing with that But we're very specific in this petition that we're not talking about flame retardants inside of electronics that are sealed in But rather in the casings and we had some testimony the last hearing that the only Reason you would need that is if you held a candle up to a television and I was so why do you why do you include Specifically OFRs in the casings of electronics when you have so many of them that are perfectly allowable inside The the use of OFRs Again is is very specifically designed in to meet Safety and consumer protection standards here. I'm not familiar Necessarily with the the example you shared about candles and television Enclosures here. I will note that between the the three associations here that I'm representing here today We make our members make a huge range of electronic components Finish products devices etc here In terms of the use of OFRs and I'd be happy to come back with with specific And specifically I would love to hear why the casings. That's all we're talking about here We're not talking about internally, which doesn't get into the house stuff And I'd like to since I have a little bit of time here. Um, I'd like to turn to Ms. Dr. Rios and to Stephen Taylor You know we've we've you you have presented us with information about mexican americans non-hispanic blacks and lower socioeconomic classes Having of children having higher levels of OFRs in their blood and urine and you mr. Taylor have talked about Products in the dollar store having higher OFRs I'd just be interested in and you can go in any order you want, but I'm interested I mean the implication here is that somehow having OFRs is more expensive So why is it? Um In your opinion, we have these lower socioeconomic classes that are More that the OFRs are higher in the blood and urine of the children You spoke dr. Rios about breastfeeding but aside from that I think that uh, mr. Taylor made the case for You know the the uptake of of meeting the regulations and safety requirements as Part of the issue in our low-income underserved communities where facilities that uh stores or Products that are that are purchased that are sold Are not meeting some of the safety requirements. I think that's part of the problem Mr. Taylor could you could you just comment? I mean if it's more expensive Which is what I heard the implication being from commissioner more heroic to have OFRs Why with the cheaper products are they higher? If you know well, I think you're I mean partly you're asking about the um, you know back up the the supply chain You know and the the decisions made by you know manufacturers, which in some cases are in china and you know by the The sort of plastics manufacturers that sell to them. Um, you know, which is is largely beyond my expertise But you know, I would say that um The even in the discount retail dollar store universe The different chains have different products that they sell and and somewhat different business models So a dollar general for example sells products You know of five 10 15 20 dollars sometimes even higher they sell small microwaves small dvd players Uh, the chain big lots, which is again a a deep discount store They actually sell a lot of low-end furniture. So um, you know, you're largely asking me to speculate But I would speculate that you know, they're sourcing their products in some cases Even though they're lower cost products um from factories or manufacturers that um You know may make similar products, but in some cases for some retailers Using, you know, higher quality somewhat more expensive materials And for discount retailers sometimes using lower cost lower quality materials Mr. Taylor, excuse me. I'm going to manufacturers Are sourcing your tenants the foams the fabrics the plastics From manufacturers. I apologize. Mr. Taylor. I'm going to cut in your time has expired and we've gone on Far beyond the five minutes. It's a commissioner k Thank you, madam chair Mr. Goss earlier today was suggested that one of the reasons why the commission should deny the petition is that These flame retardants are not used in these products anymore or that there's a trend in the direction of them being phased out It sounds like you're presenting testimony here today to the opposite at least when it comes to your industry. Is that correct? We are still using OFRs in in certain discrete uses. That's correct. Is it are they being phased out though? Is there an active campaign to phase them out? Yes, there is OFRs in your industry. Correct and who is leading that? What's sort of the game plan? Uh, who is who is leading that I would say are without naming, you know brands here Uh, we have a number of leading companies in our in our organizations rich writ large here in terms of our membership That are constantly looking to innovate and find More effective ways to meet the same requirements here. I mean we are an industry built on innovation Our products are constantly being updated upgraded And evolving here and this is one of the things that we have a very strong commitment to I'll mention here I've been serving this role for about 13 years the materials content of products is one of the key things I've worked on both here in the us and in europe and this is just part of an evolution From our industry as part of our commitment and you have a ballpark timeline as to when you think that these would be phased out Similar to the the response. I gave to commissioner adler I I don't want to wager a guess right now, but I'm happy to come back If I can get some more clarity from from companies as to what they believe is is a timeline potential You're understanding at least present day is that they continue to exist and continue to be put on the market in your products They continue to be used ofr's continue to be used in discreet uses in our products, correct And when your organization makes a recommendation or makes a decision or you recommend to your members how to handle a certain product Or a chemical or you even decide to come in and to support or not support something like this petition What technical Expertise do you rely on to make that decision not you personally about your organization right no excellent question We have certainly within all of our companies. They have science and technical experts toxicologists epidemiologists Who work on this type of an issue full-time? I also have on my own team at iti a chemist who previously testified at the at the prior hearing on this same topic back in 2015 this is based on the expert judgments of those scientists and technical experts in our companies who are reading the latest Pure reviewed literature and looking at how they can make improvements while still maintaining the same product performance and safety profile And we'll get back to that last little bit you mentioned at the end because I think that's actually a pretty significant clause You added on there Do you do your experts of any reason to disagree with the testimony of dr. Burnbaum earlier about the seriousness of this hazard and the impact on children? I believe they would one of the concerns that that we have with with the petition and some of the prior testimony today Is it is trying to draw very specific conclusions based on broad data that is specific to other types of compounds in the same class And we don't believe that we can make that necessarily Leap from certain studies on other types of compounds to an entire class As the petitioners and as some of the witnesses here are proposing today We would similarly question whether there is sufficient Evidence to demonstrate that while yes, there there certainly are studies that show that there is some level of exposure Whether that exposure actually goes into an actual adverse human health impact here. So I would believe that yes Some of our experts would take some issue with that. So you disagree with dr. Burnbaum's testimony specifically. I I disagree while you asked specifically about dr. Burnbaum's testimony. I would disagree generally With the petitioners conclusions and some of the supporting testimony that says that we can necessarily Make a specific judgment or the commission should make a specific judgment on an entire class of OFRs based on Certain studies on certain members of that class as we've discussed here today There are significant data gaps here and there would be significant unintended consequences should the commission go ahead And carte blanche ban all OFRs But do you disagree with with uh, director burnbaum's testimony that the FRs that OFRs that have been studied to date Are demonstrating an alarming Impact on children. Do you disagree with that? There there are certainly some studies that supporter conclusions I would also point that to commission to EPA studies from 2015. I believe That demonstrated that certain other OFRs had a low risk and I'm happy to share those studies With with the commission is appropriate and but of the ones that dr. Burnbaum talked about are your members using those despite the impact on children My my understanding again from the context of dr. Burnbaum's testimony was that she was uh referring Perhaps not explicit and excuse me not perhaps only but largely to pbd ease As my recollection from her testimony this morning and we are no longer using pbds Those were restricted by the eu ross directive 11 years ago, and we have long since moved past the use of pbds Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you. Thank you commission more over. Thank you, madam chairman I wanted to follow up on the line of questioning. Um, mr. Goss that uh was pursued by commissioner robinson in terms of pointing out very specifically what's identified here in the petition with regards to the casings of the products I was um, I didn't know that there would be so much interest from the rest of my colleagues I was hoping to ask you first. Um, I did my best effort to Paint with a broad brush and looking at the electronics from What I gathered from visiting with by phone with ul experts who helped me better appreciate the evolution of the voluntary standards with regards to the electronics I was hoping to ask you to provide some let me you know to to Let me know where I got that wrong or to talk about how the standard has evolved I think commissioner robinson mentioned Or mentioned that she she remembered the video demonstration of a small open flame being applied to the housing of Of an electronics product. I specifically remember that as well. Can you provide any sort of? Of information for the commission in terms of how the standard has evolved with regards to Where there is a requirement for resistance to flame Yes, I'd be happy happy to provide that especially in follow-up Follow-up submissions here, but if you look at ul and also ic international electric technical commission Standards for product safety. There are certain requirements for again for safety and flammability here that our members need to meet And that includes in the casings are at large here because obviously I'm sure there are probably exceptions here, but practically every product electronic product is going to be carrying A current or a charge that we need to factor in when we're doing our design and protective design Approaches here. So if you're if the question is if you're looking for how have the requirements evolved over the years We're certainly happy to provide additional input on that I am with specific regards to the casing because if I was If I was wrong in my assessment earlier, I apologize to the commission and into the public Are there still Requirements for the casings. Yes. There are still requirements for casings to to be able to withstand a certain flame or or not Be subject to ignition as the current runs through them Again, as I said before there are different ways to meet these requirements But overall and again as I said before there's no perfect outcome on balance Our manufacturers and designers believe that the use of flame retardants including some OFRs Are the most efficacious way to meet those requirements Balancing the use of those compounds with consumer safety. Mm-hmm in the casings. Yes in the casings I'm happy to apologize Thank you very much Thank you all very much that ends this rounds of questions from the commission I would like to thank all of you again for being here for giving us your time and Your expertise sharing it with us. Thank you all very much and to mr. Taylor on the phone Thank you for joining us and Again my appreciation to all of you for being here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you I'd like to ask the Participants for our next panel to please be seated Thank you all very much We are going to resume our hearing this morning And I want to welcome the participants in our fourth panel Thank you for being here all of you. We do appreciate your presence On this next panel. We're pleased to have mr. Daniel Rosenberg from the national resources defense council While mr. Rosenberg is presenting dr. Jennifer sass from natural resource defense council is also available to answer questions Secondly, we have mizlis hitchcock from the safer chemicals healthy family Ms. Catherine rogers from the silent spring institute Ms. Kathy attar physicians for social responsibility Ms. Raquel seagull international association of fire fighters And miz abigail zebote the league of united latin american citizens Thank you all very much for being here and for taking the time to testify before the commission today With that we will Ask dr. Mr. Rosenberg to proceed My parents wish it was dr. Rosenberg Dr. Vla Thank you. I'll take that. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the commission today My name is daniel rozenberg and i'm a senior attorney with the natural resources defense council nrdc I have two principal messages to deliver to you today First this commission should not rely upon the fact that the toxic substances control act or toska Has recently been reauthorized and may be starting to emerge from its 40 year slumber As a reason not to grant the petition the current petition as i outlined in my written testimony The revised toska will move very slowly and evaluate only a few chemicals at a time and over fairly long timelines EPA has already selected the first 10 chemicals on which it will be focusing its resources for the next several years And only one of those 10 chemicals hbcd is a flame retardant The fact that epa is planning to evaluate hbcd should not dissuade the commission from granting the petition for several reasons In the first place the fact that hbcd excuse me was selected by epa as one of its first 10 chemicals for review In the company of such other notorious substances as asbestos and methylene chloride Indicates the serious seriousness of the agency's concerns about the chemical Second any evaluation and potential restriction of hbcd will take years And there's no reason why the public should continue to be exposed via Via consumer products while epa conducts its review Third the epa's review of hbcd as an individual chemical is not a sufficient substitute for what the petitioners seek A restriction on the use of organohalogen flame retardants as a class Fourth there is precedent for the cpsc taking action on a chemical to protect the public Before epa itself takes any action In in our early 1970s the cpsc banned the use of carbon tetrachloride and consumer products now 47 years later epa has selected carbon tetrachloride as one of the first 10 chemicals other first 10 chemicals for evaluation under the revised tasca After the first 10 chemicals that epa is going to evaluate it will select an additional 20 chemicals for review by the end of 2019 a process that itself could take an additional 5 to 10 years for evaluation restriction, etc There's no guarantee that epa will select any other flame retardants or a class of flame retardants for review as part of that process There's nothing in the structure of the new tasca or its current implementation that justifies any hope that epa will address the health threat posed by organohalogen flame retardants In a manner or a time frame that will provide meaningful protection to the public for years to come if ever Meanwhile, the commission has the authority and the opportunity to protect the public right now And that is my second message to the commission Consumers remain woefully unprotected from exposure to toxic chemicals in their daily lives Particularly from consumer products as evidence has grown about the health threats posed by numerous chemicals including flame retardants And the extent of human exposure No federal regulatory agency has come close to adequately addressing this problem Existing limits on the use of toxic chemicals are remarkable both for how few there are But also for how successful they have been in increasing public health protection The most significant restrictions on the use of toxic chemicals including the ban on pcbs and any new uses of asbestos under tasca PCBs was a class of chemicals not individually regulated, but banned as a class The commission's bans on carbon tetrachloride vinyl chloride and self-pressurized household products And restrictions on lead and paint and children's products The ban on lead and gasoline under the clean air act and fda's recent ban on Fluorinated chemicals and food also banned as a class These are the few but very important examples that should be the lodestar for the commission's decision to protect the public from this class of toxic chemicals Now the chemical manufacturers will tell you that their products are safe the same thing they said for years And in some cases are still saying about lead asbestos pcbs and vinyl chloride The chemical manufacturers will tell you that the economy will be disrupted if you ban specific uses of their products The same thing they said for years and in some cases are still saying about pcbs asbestos lead and vinyl chloride And the chemical manufacturers will tell will urge you not to take action either because more study is needed Or because some other regulatory body epa or fda or osha is the right agency to address the problem The same thing they have said for years and in some cases are still saying about asbestos pcbs vinyl chloride and lead We urge the commission not to join the legion of previous regulators who have been cowed and diverted by the chemical manufacturers As the record makes clear Contrary to the staff report the commission has all the information it needs to act to protect the public And dramatically reduce human exposure to a class of toxic chemicals that currently invade our homes and enter our bodies even prior to birth The commission has before an opportunity to take a step that will be as significant and as beneficial As previous historic decisions to protect the public from exposure to asbestos pcbs lead and other toxic chemicals We urge the commission to take that step and I just also want to thank the staff for all the work They did in putting this hearing together Thank you very much. Mr. Rosenberg Ms. Hitchcock Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. My name is Liz Hitchcock, and I'm the government affairs director for safer chemicals healthy families I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of the petition by earth justice Cfa and several of our coalition partners to adopt these rules and protect consumers and children from the health hazards Caused when toxic flame retardant chemicals are used in household products Safer chemicals healthy families is a nationwide campaign to reduce americans exposure to toxic chemicals Our coalition membership reflects the multiple ways americans are exposed to and harmed by toxic chemicals Where parents health professionals advocates for people with learning and developmental Disabilities scientists environmental groups organize labor and businesses from across the nation And we all share concerns about the increase in negative health outcomes associated with our exposure to toxic chemicals In addition to our policy work safer chemicals healthy families is the organizer of a market campaign called mind the store Which calls on the nation's largest retailers to recognize the growing consumer demand for safer products and to restrict dangerous chemicals Through mind the store we've worked with retail giants like target and walmart to adopt and implement safer chemicals policies In my written testimony, I relayed our concerns about the negative health effects of toxic flame retardant chemicals Because others will ably cover that ground. I'd like to focus today on the movement in the marketplace away from these dangerous chemicals And why that movement should encourage the commission to act favorably on this on this petition In 2014 healthcare giant Kaiser Permanente announced an effective ban on chemical flame retardants in the furniture it buys For its hundreds of facilities across the country Putting 30 million dollars in annual furniture purchasing power behind its health and safety commitments Other healthcare providers have followed suit Big office furniture purchasers like facebook and yahoo have also signed a pledge to buy office furniture without toxic flame retardants Leading furniture manufacturers and retailers are already bringing furniture to market without these chemicals Demonstrating that a ban on their use can be accomplished without major disruption in the marketplace I attached to my written testimony a list of the retailers and manufacturers of residential furniture That have announced that they'll no longer use toxic flame retardants For example, ashley furniture the largest manufacturer And retailer furniture in the country worked with its supply chain To eliminate the chemicals from all upholstered furniture at the beginning of 2015 Other major furniture retailers including walmart macy's pier one ikea. I could go on and on But my time is limited Are have either eliminated or committed to eliminate flame retardants These are positive developments that might even tempt us to say that voluntary measures work that the market's doing a bang up job And should just handle the problem That's a temptation that I hope that the cpsc will not fall prey to I also attached to my written testimony a Recent list of manufacturers who report still using flame retardant chemicals Many of those companies reporting That they're using the chemicals in their products are not commonly known. Many are based in china You heard on the last panel from my colleague from the center for environmental health that they found flame retardants still in use In 25 of children's products We've seen that in other studies by non-governmental groups That flame retardants are still in use in products on the market Voluntary actions are terrific and as a group that does market campaigns We definitely celebrate them, but we also recognize that those commitments are not enforceable And verifiable particularly by individual consumers and we need the consumer product safety commission to act To make them enforceable While it's encouraging declining use and voluntary movement in the marketplace should not be a rallying cry for inaction These chemicals are still being used in products that our children come in daily contact with They're in our living rooms. They're in our children's rooms They're in nap mats in children's furniture with kid friendly images like elsa and elmo They expose our families to unnecessary hazard. They expose first responders to additional danger These chemicals are hazardous. They're hazards that the cpsc can and should do something about Educated consumers have changed the marketplace for a number of household products and in the process They're making us safer companies that have responded to the consumer demand For safer products deserve a great deal of credit But while market victories can seem faster than regulation, the process is chemical by chemical business by business Very slow and not yet enforceable if we're if we are to take the urgency of tackling the chemical problem Seriously, we have to take bigger bites out of the problem as as soon as we can And on behalf of consumers represented by safer chemicals healthy families We urge the commission to take a bite out of this problem and approve this petition Thank you very much. Ms rogers Um Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is catherine rogers I'm a scientist at the silent spring institute an independent research organization. We're based outside boston, massachusetts We research environmental chemical exposures and their impacts on women's health I think it's also relevant to say that I serve on the secondary task group for nfpa 277 Scientists at silent spring institute were the first to measure pbds in us homes in 2003 at that time They were found to be 10 times higher than levels in european homes Since then we've continued to measure pbds as well as other brominated and chlorinated flame retardant chemicals in residences as well as more recently in student dorm rooms on college campuses In every study that we've conducted We have found homes or spaces That have levels of halogenated flame retardant chemicals that exceed risk based Guidelines these are guidelines developed by the EPA that actually applied to soil but since there isn't a risk-based guideline for dust We've been Comparing the levels that we find to that and it's actually a screening level that's used for superfund sites In a study of california homes that we did we found brominated tris the mutagenic chemical that dr. Arlene bloom was talking about earlier this morning That was removed from kids pajamas in 1978 in 75 percent of the homes that we tested And I was recently looking at other studies that have looked at dust and households And for those that are measuring these types of flame retardant chemicals our studies are not an anomaly these levels are commonly found in homes in massachusetts in North carolina and california and other places Several of the organohalogen flame retardants that have been most commonly incorporated into consumer products to reduce flammability Are vivid examples of regrettable choices that have seriously harmed us consumers I know we've heard a lot about pbds, but i'm just going to say a little bit more of them about a class as a class Just because we have a lot of a lot of evidence about them So as you know, they were added in large quantities additively To foam furniture Additively meaning that they weren't chemically bound were able to come out of the product leading to exposures They were added despite their structural similarities to pcb's which were removed From many uses in the 1970s and 80s A recent consensus study report from the national academies of sciences concluded that pbds are presumed to affect iq and humans Based on a systematic systematic reviews of human and animal evidence And what human evidence really means is that there were high enough exposures in the general population In children in the us In order to measure reductions in their iq The nas report found that it found a decrease of 3.7 iq points in a child per tenfold increase in serum pbde concentrations Children in the us have some of the highest pbde exposures in the world And that's a tragedy when we have that kind of evidence A recent analysis of the economic cost of exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals Estimated that 11 million iq points were lost with an associated $266 billion in medical costs in the year 2010 So halogenated flame retardants can act as mutagens as in the case of brominated and chlorinated tris While pbde's hbcd and tvbpa and others may act as endocrine disruptors So we've heard that pbde's act to impart their neurological effects partly by inhibiting Thyroxine a important thyroid hormone that's necessary for brain development pbde is also exhibit cell proliferation and estrogen sensitive breast cells And they produce changes in mammary gland development in animal studies TBbpa, which we just heard that uh from doctor awesome, it's um was Came close to receiving a pass per safe in 2013 by EFSA Was more recently studied by the national toxicology program and was found to produce uterine tumors and in a rodent study We have yet to see the human outcomes associated with these estrogen related and mammary related biological activities As scientists were well aware that toxicity data available at the time that these chemicals were introduced as flame retardants and consumer goods Could have been used to anticipate these outcomes We encourage the cpsc to adopt a more effective approach to protecting harms from chemical hazards We're tired of discovering these preventable harms when it's too late. Thank you. Thank you very much miss attar Thank you. My name is kathy attar, and I am the toxics program manager at physicians for social responsibility PSR has a long history of educating organizing and advocating around the issue of toxic chemicals and their link to poor health I have over 10 years of experience on issues related to chemical toxics I'm also a mom of two children farah age a and alex age five PSR strongly supports the petition that a broad coalition of health environmental and public interest groups submitted to the consumer product safety commission in 2015 That seeks to ban organi halogen flame retardants from children's products furniture mattresses and household electronics As a parent you are determined to do whatever you can to ensure your Children are safe when my daughter was young she put everything in her mouth as most babies and toddlers do I mean everything toys TV remotes books anything that fit during this time through my work as an environmental health advocate I started to learn about the health dangers related to certain chemicals and consumer products chemicals like harmful flame retardants As many have already stated These flame retardants are linked to an ever increasing number of health concerns such as cancer neurological deficits developmental problems and impaired fertility Many persist in the environment and can bio accumulate As many have also already stated One of the main routes of exposure to these harmful chemicals is believed to be through ingestion and inhalation of contaminated indoor dust As mr. Taylor earlier referenced children of color and low-income kids bear a higher burden from these chemicals than others A fact that raises serious concerns about environmental injustice Not everyone can go to stores in their communities which may sell less toxic products or can afford to purchase safer items One of my son's favorite toys is our couch. It's a flatbed truck or a cargo ship or a castle Unfortunately, the couch was purchased several years before california issued its new safer furniture flammability standards So it undoubtedly has toxic flame retardants in it I'm pretty obsessive about wet mopping our living room But there's little doubt that my kids have been exposed to some level of dust containing these hazardous chemicals The average lifetime of a couch is 15 to 20 years per owner and couches are often passed on to others Purchased at a second hand or thrift store perhaps by a low-income family where they are used for many more years Flame retardants and furniture are a prime example of the hazardous legacy of inadequate chemical regulations Even when chemicals are involuntary withdrawn under pressure from regulators or the public The substitutes often end up being just as worrisome Because they also contain organo halogens or are similar in chemical structures As health professionals and scientists have already stated earlier Organo halogen flame retardants are endocrine disrupting chemicals Exposure cdcs during critical times of growth and development can result In genetic genetic modifications that are passed down to subsequent generations Endocrine related diseases on the rise Neuro behavioral disorders associated with thyroid disruption have increased over the past decade Decades rates of endocrine related cancers breast ovarian prostate and thyroid have been increasing over the past 50 years These environmental health statistics became very real for me in 2015 In august my mom was diagnosed with late stage ovarian cancer And a few days before halloween. I was told I had early stage Invasive ductal carcinoma a form of breast cancer While I will never know what caused our cancers Exposures to environmental pollutants may have played a leading or supporting role in the onset of our disease I worry about my children and particularly my daughter and what her future health risks might be Given my family history of endocrine related cancers in women We need binding regulatory change that by keeping toxic chemicals out of our products and our lives Can reduce the risk of chronic diseases for all families And individuals no matter your race or socioeconomic status Is not enough that use of halogenated halogenated flame retardants is going down We need the cpsc to take steps that will ensure That organohalogen flame retardant chemicals are removed for imported low-cost products and other items in which they are still used Flame retardants are not needed to prevent fire and improve overall safety in the four product categories outlined in the petition So there is no reason to continue exposing children and other consumers to these hazardous substances Parents want and need the government to step in much more robustly to robustly to protect the health of all families. Thank you Thank you very much miss seagull Good afternoon commissioners and thank you for allowing the international association of firefighters To testify today on the petition requesting rulemaking on products containing organohalogen flame retardants I am rachelle seagull the occupational health specialist at the iff And speaking on behalf of matt vincy the director of education who cannot be here because he's assisting with relief efforts in florida The iff is an international union that represents over 309,000 paid professional fire service employees in the united states and canada And have been actively involved in improving the health and safety of firefighters for more than 90 years This is a critical activity for a workforce in which fatalities and early retirement due to work related injuries and illnesses occur regularly Cpsc's jurisdiction clearly covers consumer injury from fires And we know that the primary cause of injury in home fires is from smoke inhalation There is strong evidence Which has been submitted to the commission showing that flame retardants do not in fact protect consumers from fire related injury But given that cpsc is considering fire risk to consumers It should also take into account the hazards to consumers and firefighters from smoke inhalation during a home fire At a minimum the cpsc should look at very high cancer rates experienced by firefighters as strong evidence Of the toxicity faced by our members whose homes catch fire Firefighters dying from occupational related cancers now account for more than half the line of duty deaths each year This is the largest health related issue facing the firefighter profession. We must reduce this number And removing the class of non polymeric organo halogen flame retardants in products is a positive step forward And protecting first responders from the harmful effects of these toxic flame retardants In the vast majority of us workplaces toxic occupational exposure levels have greatly declined in the past two to three decades Improved workplace conditions can be attributed to many factors including governmental agencies legislation training programs and good business practices including The need to keep highly skilled workers healthy and working Unfortunately firefighters have not benefited from this overall improvement They are still entering uncontrolled hazardous environments regularly There are various studies on the complex mixture of chemicals found in smoke combustion That firefighters commonly encounter and the studies have clearly documented reasons for concern about these Exposures recent studies have also shown that firefighters have higher levels of flame retardant chemicals in their body than the general population Firefighters come into contact with toxic flame retardants in their daily lives Just like the rest of the population But they have a much higher risk of suffering the negative effects of carcinogenic flame retardants as those chemicals burn in a fire They're exposed in the air they breathe during the overhaul fires the absorption through their skin During and after working in a fire and after the incident as they're exposed to the toxic soot on the on their turnout gears and equipment It is the ifs position that this exposure contributes to the reason that our members have a significantly higher incident rate of certain types of cancer The national institute of occupational safety and health has recently conducted a landmark study of cancer among us firefighters That included data from over 30 000 career firefighters employed between 1950 and 2010 The research found that firefighters compared to the general us population had statistically significant increases in both diagnosis And death from certain cancers The ifs supports banning the use of organo halogen flame retardants because when burned They're all all carcinogens that contribute to cancer and have additional negative effects on the health of our members The ifs also supports efforts to remove toxic flame retardants from upholstered furniture and other products and supports Efforts requiring manufacturers to support products manufacturers of such products to utilize alternative technologies in lieu of toxic chemicals Even the increasing body of evidence that indicates the persistence biocumulation and potential health concerns of these fire retardants We believe the health risks associated with the use of these chemicals is greater than the fire risk without using these chemicals This is because some flame retardants can retain can remain unchanged in the environment for a long period of time without breaking down And resulting continuous exposures during and after working at a fire There are two key ways to impact the use of toxic flame retardants In products one is through the standard setting process and the other is through regulating the chemicals themselves These strategies can be most effective in combination Since restricting use of one hazardous flame retardant cannot guarantee that future flame retardants will not be safe for human and For human and environmental health In closing the ifs will continue to fight for the elimination of these toxic chemicals I thank the commission for allowing first responders to have a voice in protecting our job environment while still maintaining The highest level of fire protection for the citizens we protect every day Thank you very much. Mrs. Missapoti Thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Abigail Zapote. I'm here representing the league of united latin american citizens The oldest and largest latino civil rights organization in the united states established in 1929 I sit before you today not just on behalf of lulac But with the tremendous responsibility to more than 50 million latinos Who cannot be here today to take a stand against toxic exposure This time we are dealing with an invisible and insidious assailant that threatens the sanctuary That is our home and hinders our community's ability to defend itself As an organization that advances the economic condition educational attainment political influence housing health and civil rights of hispanic americans We're include increasingly concerned about exposure to toxic chemicals and its impact on the health and quality of life of latinos From the womb to households Workplaces and communities fighting to reduce toxic exposure in our communities is intrinsically tied to our mission The science indicates that the highest human levels of harmful flame retardant chemicals in the general population Have been found in young children from low income communities and communities of color In particular the 2003 national health and nutrition examination survey Conducted by the centers of disease control and prevention found at least one form of organi halogen flame retardants in 97 percent of the study participants This biomonitoring study also showed that Mexican americans and non hispanic blacks had higher levels of flame retardants than the non hispanic white population Teenagers ages 12 to 19 had higher body burdens than adults for all flame retardants retardants measured What we know is that the exposure to organi halogen flame retardant chemicals can lead to serious health problems Such as reduced IQ disruption of hormones cancer and reproductive impairments These exposures threaten the health and educational attainment of our children and in doing so their prospects for future an economic condition Education is key to social mobility yet exposure to flame retardant chemicals is robbing our children of their potential A 2012 study of mexican american children in the state of california found that children who live in areas with limited access to safe outdoor play spaces tend to have higher levels of the toxic flame retardant chemicals in their blood While this information may be new to us What isn't new is the fact that nearly half 45 percent of the nation's latino population Lives in 10 metropolitan areas in the states of california new york new jersey texas illinois florida and arizona When you consider the urban areas where nearly half of our community lives And combine that with findings that show that racial and ethnic minorities and low income people have less access to green spaces Like parks or recreational programs than those who are white or more affluent What that signals to us is that minority and low income children are spending more time indoors And instead of being safe their exposure to flame retardant chemicals is heightened For latino households immigrant and non immigrant alike What good does what good does it do to operate under the assumption that if you work hard and study You will change your circumstances and be able to provide yourself and future generations with more opportunities and improve And an improved quality of life If we continue to allow flame retardant chemicals to invade our home We're diluting latinos and all families into believing that we are safe in our own home And an equal footing as those who afford to live in green spaces and purchase their way out of toxic products This is not an option for latinos Who have a median annual personal income of 21 000 dollars and 41 000 dollars in medium household income Furthermore despite increases in health coverage Latinos continue to have highest the highest uninsured rate of any racial and ethnic group within the united states At 19.9 compared to 11.8 for blocks 9.3 for asians and 7.6 for non hispanic whites When you take into account economic status and health insurance coverage You can begin to imagine how our community is already limited And the in its ability to protect itself from toxic exposure and deal with the health impacts associated with it Our family should not have to know what our gohanology and flame retardants are Or that there are toxic chemicals that do not stay inside the products manufacturers That put them in We shouldn't have to worry about flame retardant chemicals off-gassing from children's products furniture mattresses and the casings around electronics into our homes Entering our bodies and persisting in our systems When you look at our demographics and the range of socio socioeconomic factors Affecting us. I'm hopeful that I've provided you with a deeper understanding of our community and the sense of urgency I feel as I said before you today You have the power to protect our community and the league of united latin american citizens urges you to take swift Action to ban these harmful and pervasive chemicals. Thank you Thank you very much. We will now begin the round of question from the commission. I will begin that time Ms. Siegel I wanted to thank you for coming on Seems like with short notice to fill in for mr. Vinci. He is a A friend of the agency and has been here before to testify I want to please send him our best wishes and that he will be safe and that He's in our thoughts. Absolutely. Thank you. I also wanted to call attention to a couple days ago I think it was tuesday the house passed a bill aimed at improving firefighter health And it will require the cdc if it actually gets passed into law, but it is really a recognition and it's important public health legislation But it will require cdc to develop and maintain a voluntary registry to collect data With regards to the incidence of cancer among firefighters. So There's a recognition that cancer among firefighters is an issue and perhaps this will help in the efforts to decrease that because they As you mentioned they are on the line For all of us and for our safety. So thank you very much. Thanks for being here Ms. Hitchcock. I had a question to ask of you clarification So on page one and in your testimony you talked a little bit about How the market is sort of correcting itself that we're seeing fewer products and certainly all the initiatives that have been taken To have companies manufacturers of furniture We're seeing fewer OFRs in their products Am I portraying that accurately? I would say yes fewer but What I tried to highlight in my testimony is that we are seeing more commitments From retailers and manufacturers who are recognizing and hearing from consumers the the greater consumer demand For safer products commitments are a first step Enforcement and accountability are a next step So the answer to your question is a qualified yes So What what confuses me and maybe just because the date of the study isn't included on page two it talks about A duke study 85 percent of couches tested in a duke university study Contained toxic or untested flame retardants. So maybe you could put that study in some perspective or time frames that When was that done? It says 2012 Okay, so which I mean is the trend that the flame retardants are out of products This is I think and I I say that in the staff's briefing package one of the issues We've talked a lot about it this morning the data gaps that we A lot of these studies are older now. This is already five years old So maybe you could just speak to is the trend certainly with tb 117 california standard No flame retardants in their Products in furniture many of the manufacturers of furniture have already adopted that standard We tried to get the commission to adopt that standard as well But I just want to Be clear on that The trend right now is that the use of flame retardants in furniture is going down and that duke study is older The duke study is older. I wouldn't uh, I I don't have the data to speak to the trend Uh question I I am hearing uh and through our mind the store campaign We do hear commitments from a growing number of major Manufacturers and retailers, which I think is a very positive thing The the reason that I'm here today is to endorse the petition and endorse the the commission taking action Is because as an individual consumer I have no ability to police whether police the Actual action behind the commitment that retailers are making many of them I'm I'm sure are moving forward on those commitments, but I bought a mattress a year ago and I had no ability to to say that the That the that the mattress as I was looking at had flame retardants did not have flame retardant flame retardants I'm sure that the staffer in the showroom wouldn't have appreciated me cutting into the into the mattress and sending it off to a lab Which might have been my only recourse. So we're urging that the commission take action to Level the playing field make it possible for more manufacturers to follow suit But also make it Make it make it enforceable that they all follow suit. Thank you and I would say that Apparently it's lunchtime I would say that My time is up. I'll commission other Thank you, madam chair Ms. Siegel, first of all, let me join in thanking you for all the work that You and your organization do It's wonderful that we have first responders here testifying So we're always trying to balance health risks versus fire risks And I know that you as a group obviously would have to do that and I'm impressed that you're saying to us that You think the greater hazard is the health risk and not the fire risk And so let me ask you if you have a thought If we were to ban organo halogen flame retardants Do you believe that the risk of fire deaths would increase in the united states? No, we do not think that so for us The higher rates of fire deaths are from inhalation. So it's it's inhaling all the Combustion from the fire and it's also the particulates that are remaining on our turnout gear and equipment. So, you know on as I said on here, they're More than half of the line of duty deaths are from cancer So we are not seeing the high rates of you know deaths from just fires It's more from what they're inhaling and what they're taking home with them and what they're constantly being exposed to Well, do you think there would be more fires if we were to ban organo halogen flame retardants? I want to say no, but I do not know enough to answer that Okay. Well, I certainly don't know enough to answer it either I would like to ask the scientists and is dr. Sass here If not, we can ask The other scientists We just heard dr. Osmits testimony about this notion of reasonable certainty of no harm Which I think is a good test and he specifically referenced the tbbpa and one other chemical which I wrote down is tcbp But I bet I got it wrong, but I'm just curious of For those of you who are familiar with these chemicals Can you state that you either agree disagree with this notion that these have been determined to Have this finding of no reasonable of excuse me reasonable certainty of no harm Ms. Robgers, you did express an opinion So I wouldn't want to confuse a lack of data with safety For tcpp. I would say that there is a there's a lack of adequate studies to show that It is in fact safe And for tbbpa as I mentioned earlier There was a recent study from the national toxicology program that showed exposure to rats produced them uterine tumors And keeping in mind the physical and chemical properties of ofrs Is there any reason to believe that we're going to run across an ofr that Carries the same characteristics as the rest of the family or the class that will somehow Produce such a low level of toxicity that we need not worry about it is is I guess the critical question so tcpp Is structurally similar to tcep tcep is listed as a carcinogen in california's prop 65 and tcpp is not So there are certainly our differences even when there are structural similarities tbbpa tetra bromo bisphenol a Is a really large molecule It is endocrine active So yeah, not we're not saying that all or I'm not saying that all of the organo halogen chemicals Um act via the same mechanism as I said some of them act They're mutagenic in more like classical carcinogens whereas others are producing their health effects via endocrine disruption So I would just say no, they're not all they don't all exactly act the same way Um, but there needs to be further study is yeah, and the terrible metaphor I was using is I don't care if I get hit by a sedan or a truck If either one is going to kill me then I worry about it So that even if there are varying levels of toxicity if there is sufficient negative toxicity associated with them inherent toxicity That's what we need to worry about Doctor is it dr. Atar. Okay. Ms. Atar You have to look at a variety of chemical hazards, and I'm wondering as you look at ofr's versus other toxic risks Under our jurisdiction, where would you rank the concern we should have with respect to ofr's versus other toxic risks? I think my organization physicians for social responsibility our belief is that uh, we were looking to prevent harm and We we feel that there is enough evidence Now with these ofr's to take action and and to ban this whole class of chemicals. I mean Dr. Blum earlier stated that since the 1970s we've been Researching looking at these chemicals. So from my perspective And from my organization's perspective There is enough evidence now to take action And I think you all have the ability and right to do that. And so that's that's why i'm here. I really You know really feel like this is is an opportune time for For for action Thank you very much. Thank you commissioner. Robinson. Thank you one of the questions I haven't had time to ask today. I'm mr. Rosenberg. I was glad to hear in your presentation that you addressed at least some of it and that is I I was wondering whether anyone had an example of regulators regulating a class of chemicals and you gave us some and I quickly wrote down the pcb ban on on As a class and f the fda As a class Outlawed fluorinated chemicals in food. Are there other examples where regulators have banned a class of chemicals? I'll have to get back to you on that. Okay, there may be and i'm not sure that I should clarify the pcb ban Am I talking too loud with this microphone or is it okay? Okay, the um The pcb ban was a was enacted by congress. So when tosk was first enacted in 1976 That was the only chemical that was specifically banned. So it didn't come from me. It wasn't a regulator But it was banned as a class treated as a class. Yeah, okay um If you could find any other examples, I would be very interested in hearing that um miss the potty uh Miss lios Testified about the she was talking about the I think she was talking about the anhanes data as well And you also cited a 2012 study of mexican-american children in the state of california not Having access to as many greenspaces. I'm very curious about this with the lower socioeconomic classes and with the latina community That we seem to be finding higher OFR levels in the children's blood neuron and I don't gas don't speculate But do you know of any other studies that have shown us an explanation of why miss lios talked about? Breastfeeding you talked about not having as much access to greenspaces, but do we know why it's higher? Um, I can't cite a specific study. Um, the only thing I can speculate and I do have uh, personal testimony Um, so a lot of latinos in the united states. They do live in mixed families mixed status families. I was uh formerly undocumented for 15 years I know that for my family there was a lot of fear of even stepping out of my home and fear of You know being deported And so for a lot of my childhood I spent it inside my house. I lived in From the time I was six years old to 12 years old I lived in a four bedroom apartment with 12 people living in it So I think that this is something that you know is very prevalent in our communities because it is Our community is still in the state of fear more so now than ever So that is a speculation, but it it is you know, very prevalent in our community. I appreciate that. Thank you Ms. Hitchcock That you talked about the companies that that have decided not to use OFRs. Do you have any idea what they're using as a substitute for flame retardants? I couldn't speak to that now Okay, and have have you in the surveys that you've done of you have you asked people why they were moving OFRs from their products? Is it just because they're good people or it's because of regulations? Or state laws or consumer preferences? I I think that the answer is that again growing consumer demand it's And the the change in the in the california standard is moving Is causing companies to move away from From these chemicals Consumers don't want them. They they don't have to have them so So why use them and so So that's The answer that we've seen. Okay, and and so if you look at the timing, does it look like the california standard was instrumental in bringing this decrease in OFRs It's I think that it is helping the movement away from from these chemicals in the market I have nothing further. Thank you Thank you commissioner k Thank you, madam chair. Uh, miss rogers or dr rogers. Is it dr rogers miss rogers? Uh You've heard testimony from today from toxicologists and others about the varying state Of the science. What is your view in terms of the hazards that these products or these chemicals prevent present? And who to whom do you think is most at risk? Um, so this is kind of similar sounds similar to a question It was asked earlier as far as how concerning are these OFRs compared to other toxic chemicals that were exposed to on a daily basis I think a lot of scientists would say that These would top the list as far as thinking about if you if you were to look at Exposures in the u.s population and you were to look at toxicity and you were to rank them both OFRs are really they're they're merging at the top So they would be a high priority and as far as considering who's vulnerable We've heard a lot about hand-to-mouth activity and there's evidence that children are much highly much more highly exposed than adults There's many studies that pair mother and infants looking at Biomonitoring studies looking at levels and both and see that Infants are up to four times higher than their mothers And then there's also other susceptible or vulnerable populations including people who Of lower socioeconomic status. I think another hypothesis for the reason why Some of these exposures are continuing to persist in these vulnerable populations are Hypothesis called hand-me-down hazard. So even though PBDEs have been phased out of use for Almost a decade more than a decade There's we're still finding them in people's blood and we're still finding them in people's homes. So as furniture Gets passed down through secondhand stores or is given away. It's not like they're They stick around. It's really hard for these chemicals to go away And I think if you were here earlier, you heard the gentleman from cta from the consumer from the The technology group talk about the fact that their scientists or their toxicologists Either have different data or disagree with the data that they've seen. Are you aware of any Peer reviewed published studies legitimate science that would call into question anything that you just said about How scientists would rank these hazards That's a great point I have also met with toxicologists and scientists for flame retardant companies and it's There isn't a lot of transparency with the toxicity data that they're relying on and using So It's not like anyone can just see it. I think that there would be a lot more Um Confidence in What the industry is doing if if people could see even a scientist Could see what they're basing their decisions on and what science they're relying on Would you give us a list of questions of specifically what we should ask for because we're happy to ask for it from them? Yes, I'd be happy to great. Thank you Mr. Rosenberg We've obviously you've been involved in these issues for a long time and As a person you come in here and you hear firefighters and you hear doctors and you hear Specifically pediatricians a type of doctor focusing on children You hear scientific experts a whole range of individuals who presumably don't have any financial gain From what happens with this petition and on the other side You hear some voices in dissent who might have a financial incentive or financial stake involved in it From your perspective, what more Do you think policy makers need to hear? To finally get over the hump and to start taking chemical regulation more seriously when we talk obviously about regrettable substitution I think what I see is regrettable denial and I wonder because there are real effects to this I wonder from your perspective what more can be done to convince policy makers That the harm that our children are experiencing on a daily basis has to end Wow, that's a great open-ended question. Thank you The um, you know, I think well speaking to this petition I think by the end of the day you will you will afford all you need to hear and I would honestly say that the Turnout as you sort of alluded to for this both at this hearing and the previous hearing is absolutely remarkable There are very few instances that I can think of where you've had such a broad diverse Articulate well resourced well documented turnout and I I'm super I mean I'm happy to be here and I'm super impressed by the by all the people Who are speaking have spoken previously and will be speaking later You know, I think the When I think about, you know, TOSCA issues and CPSC issues and other FDA issues The industry frequently has a set of arguments that they make Over and over Some of which I alluded to just kind of in broad brush, but I mean that there are There there are arguments that they make repeatedly that Some of which are very technical and so policy makers Like yourselves have to then delve into a lot of technical stuff, which can be time-consuming and difficult, but Really there's patterns to the arguments that industry is making and I think it's And I think there's a political culture in Washington. I mean most of the regulatory Bodies are in Washington D.C. And I think there's a political culture in Washington D.C. That makes it very hard to overcome the overwhelming presence of industry and lobbyists and scientists for hire that that Certainly in the in the on the toxics front, you know, the industry has those in spades Um, and so I there needs to be a shift. I'm hopeful that this sort of Presentation that's happened on this issue can happen on others, but it's hard because we're over Outmatched and under-resourced relative to the resources of the industry itself, but I I think um I'm not sure what the what the Shift in in sort of a more a greater comfort level in taking that a regulatory step needs to happen Not just at cpsc far from it fda. I said they Took the Responded to a petition and banned use of pfcs But there's a whole set of chemicals that are still being used as food additives that needs to be overcome epa just getting started on tosca It there just needs to be a broader shift among regulators to recognize protecting the public is the primary mission and to Have just greater skepticism and interrogation of the industry arguments as you have all demonstrated during this hearing today Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Commissioner mohorovic. Thank you, madam chairman. Mr. Rosenberg in your testimony. I recognize that You referred to the tosca work epa's work on looking at hexabromo cyclodotocane and that you I'll take yet your word that you that the conclusion is that its primary use Is in building materials so that got me thinking about the other environments where There is a need for Flame resistance that got me thinking about the airline industry automobile industry, etc I I I believe that Car seats because they're not under our jurisdiction are not included in the petition here as well But I understand there's a tremendous amount of flame retardants and car seats to be able to meet the NHTSA regulations FAA if is the concern with OFR's Translate over those other product categories and our similar movements that play to change or restrict the use of OFR's in some of those others where I've talked and we've talked about demand drivers. There's significant demand drivers Of course in those industries as opposed to maybe some of the other Industry segments that are outlined in the petition Here's another open-ended question. Do you know whether OFR's are used generally or? Whatever level of prevalence you can relate Yeah, I think other witnesses particularly some of the on the later panels are going to be more Conversant and sort of the use profile of those chemicals and and And different categories and sectors that they're used in I think Some sectors may have a better case than others for the need for them There might be people who can talk about that later as well. I think the part of what's so To me persuasive about this petition is that we're you know, it is narrowly focused on key product sectors obviously within your jurisdiction that You know really they don't need to be there and so and with the high hazard and high exposure Profiles That's that's and them being you know these indoor products as people have talked about those are just a really prime place to take as Liz said earlier take a bite out of this problem It won't solve the whole problem But it it it would be a significant driver particularly for these home exposures, which are highly significant. Thank you very much That's all I have madam chair. Thank you very much And I again my sincere appreciation to the panel for being here and for sharing your time and your expertise with us Thank you very much And so at this point, um, we are going to take a break for lunch and because I wasn't Uh, real careful about monitoring the time. We're a little bit past what we had planned on So the commissioner offices have agreed that we will just take a 30 minute break We'll resume this hearing and a seat panel number five at 1 30 p.m. Thank you very much