VPIRG wants to ban fire retardant chemical
Toolbox
By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau - Published: February 19, 2009
MONTPELIER — Vermont has a history of banning or limiting sales of compounds believed to be toxic, from mercury to a class of plastic softening chemicals called phthalates.
On Tuesday, the Vermont Public Interest Research Group, which has led some of those efforts, said it wants to add another worrisome chemical to the list, and it has enlisted the help of lawmakers, Vermont firefighters and other organizations.
The chemical — a form of a fire retardant chemical called polybrominatede diphenyl ether — is in consumer products from mattresses to televisions. The chemical builds up in the human body, according to Charity Carbine of VPIRG.
It also poses a threat to firefighters when products made with the chemical burn, said Matt Vinci, the president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Vermont.
"Fire retardants are very important," said Vinci. But "we know there are safer alternatives out there."
Vinci and Carbine have two strong allies in the state Senate — Sen. Virginia Lyons, D-Chittenden, and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin, D-Windham.
"We have a long history of banning products in this state that we feel are adversely impacting the health of our citizens," said Shumlin.
But not everyone agrees that banning the 'deca' form of the chemical would protect public health. Manufacturers have voluntarily stopped making two similar compounds already.
"We would have a different view," said Ray Dawson, Global Director of Product Advocacy for the Baton Rouge, La., based Albemarle Corp., which makes several fire retardants, including the one in question.
Scientists in the European Union have tested the chemical repeatedly and declined to ban it, Dawson said.
"Why do we want to replace a material that has gone through this level of scrutiny and no cause has been found to limit its use?" he asked.
Most of the jurisdictions that have considered banning the fire retardant, including California, have declined to do so, although at least two other states, Maine and Washington, have outlawed it, Dawson said.
"We need to be very careful to jump from one perceived problem and end up with another potential problem which might be worse," he said. "We want to make our decisions on the basis of sound science."
That is what is happening, according to supporters of the bill banning the material. The compound can be linked to cancer and reproductive problems, as well as other risks, they said.
Carbine said there are alternatives that are just as effective and have "minimal cost differences."
Tasha Wallis, director of the Vermont Retail Association, said her group is not necessarily opposed to the bill. But there are some questions that need to be answered and potential problems that need to be solved if the bill becomes law, she said.
For one thing, the implementation date needs to be far enough out that stores can sell their current merchandise, and there should be a clause in the Senate legislation that allows products with just a trace of the material to be sold, Wallis said.
68