Toxicity Analysis of Baby Mattresses
Stealth Poisoning in Our Children’s Cribs
by: Barry A. Cik, PE, CP, DEE, QEP, REM, CHMM*
Chief Engineer, G.E.M. Testing & Engineering Labs
PART II: HOW IS THIS ALLOWED?
E. Lack of Regulation
Many specific consumer products are fairly well regulated with respect to their ingredients. These include food, drugs, and other specific items such as lead in paint. There are also various types of regulations for many other consumer products such as pesticides, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, medical devices, and motor vehicles. However, the use of chemicals in most other consumer products is largely unregulated. These include many of the chemicals typically found in baby mattresses.
“Most people assume the government polices commercial chemicals in the same way the FDA polices drugs, but it’s not true... there’s no sheriff in town.”
(Toxic Chemicals Widespread in Consumer Products, Andy Igrejas, Director of the Environmental Health Campaign, Tony Iallonardo, National Environmental Trust, July 14, 2004, http://environet.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=28735)
The only law that applies to chemicals in most consumer products is the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 1976). When TSCA was enacted by Congress, all chemicals then in use (approximately 63,000) were largely exempted from further health and safety testing and thus “grandfathered.” Additionally, there are so many exclusions and exemptions in TSCA that most new chemicals created since are essentially unregulated.
“... the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) exempts virtually all of the chemicals examined in the report from government oversight and does not provide the Environmental Protection Agency enough power to assess the safety of chemicals in consumer products.”
(Toxic Chemicals Widespread in Consumer Products, Andy Igrejas, Tony Iallonardo,
National Environmental Trust, July 14, 2004, http://environet.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=28735)
The EPA is severely limited in regulating the use of toxic chemicals under TSCA regarding consumer products. In fact, only 6 chemicals of the approximate 63,000 that were “grandfathered” in 1976 under TSCA have had their uses restricted.
“... EPA has regulated only six chemical substances under this section since TSCA’s inception: asbestos; chloroflourocarbon; dioxins; hexavalent chromium; certain metal-working fluids; and polychlorinated biphenyls [PCB’s].”
(Environmental Law Handbook, Thirteenth Edition, Government Institutes Inc., 1995)
Not only is it legal to use virtually any chemical in the manufacturing of most consumer products, many chemicals used in baby mattresses have either been “grandfathered”
or, in any event, are largely unregulated.
Other U.S. health, safety, and environmental laws focus primarily on the disposal of manufacturing wastes, protection of natural resources, and occupational protection of workers.
They do not focus on the use of chemicals in consumer products themselves.
For example, if a manufacturer uses 100 pounds of a chemical to manufacture a product and, at the end, is left with 5 pounds of waste, the disposal of those 5 pounds is fairly well regulated. However, the other 95 pounds that went into the product is largely unregulated.
As such, arsenic, for example, may not be dumped into our rivers and lakes, but is legally permitted to be part of the polyvinyl chloride (PVC) surface that a baby sleeps on.
Furthermore, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the only other government authority with any jurisdiction, has had only limited involvement regarding the use of chemicals in consumer products.
“… while the Consumer Product Safety Commission effectively handles issues concerning immediate injury - like lawn darts - it has an ad hoc process to deal
with the longer-term health threats like those posed by chemicals.”
(National Environmental Trust, Toxic Chemicals Widespread in Consumer Products,
Tony Iallonardo, July 2004)
In conclusion, there is not a single law that specifically provides for the protection of babies and children regarding exposures from toxic chemicals in baby mattresses.
F. Lack of Testing
The average consumer naturally assumes that what is sold on the market, certainly regarding baby products, is fully safe and non-toxic. However, the average consumer is unaware of the potentially harmful chemicals often included in such products.
“Most Americans would assume that basic toxicity testing is available and that all chemicals in commerce today are safe. A recent EPA study has found that this is not a prudent assumption.”
(Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study, U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances, April 1998, www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/hazchem.htm)
Due to lack of regulation regarding the use of toxic chemicals in consumer products, there has been only limited health and safety testing, leaving the public largely unaware of the potential dangers posed by these chemicals. Of the 85,000 registered commercial chemicals used in the U.S., most are lacking in meaningful health and safety testing.
Of the 3,000 chemicals that the US imports or produces at more than 1 million lbs/yr, a new EPA analysis finds that 43% of these high production volume chemicals have
no testing data on basic toxicity and only seven percent have a full set of basic test data. This lack of test data compromises the public’s right to know about the chemicals that are found in their environment, their homes, their workplace, and the products that they buy… EPA also looked at a set of 491 chemicals used by children and families in consumer products. Only 25% of these chemicals have full screening data. EPA cannot begin to judge the hazards and risks of such consumer chemicals without basic information, and in fact substantially more detailed and exhaustive testing is needed to assess these high exposure chemicals.”
(Chemical Hazard Data Availability Study, U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances, April 1998, www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/haschem.htm)
“No one is systematically tracking the use of any of these chemicals in consumer products, or the resulting human exposures to these chemicals in spite of the chemicals’ known or potential human health hazards... Currently, chemicals can be incorporated in consumer products and sold on store shelves, even in products used by children,
with no up-front cancer testing.”
(EPA Cancer Policy Revisions Highlight Risks to Children, Environmental Working Group, Children’s Health Policy Review, March 3, 2003)
“Today, children are exposed to thousands of substances in the environment, most of which have never been tested for toxicity to children... The implications of this massive experiment in exposure are unknown. Environmental toxicants are suspected to be correlated with many disorders that, until recently, have been assumed to be genetic
in origin... attention deficit / hyperactivity disorder, and autism are among the disorders that may be linked to environmental toxicants.”
(Center for Children’s Health and the Environment at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York. www.childenvironment.org/factsheets/environmental_pediatrics.htm)
For most chemicals, manufacturers are not required to do any health and safety testing (due primarily to the “grandfathering” provision of TSCA in 1976). Even when problematic data is available or becomes known, manufacturers are not required to share that data with the public.
“... records of significant adverse reactions to health and the environment alleged to have been caused by a chemical substance... do not have to be reported to EPA [or anyone else for that matter], unless the agency specifically requests them... ”
(Environmental Law Handbook, Thirteenth Edition, Government Institutes Inc., 1995)
As a result, one of the only ways to get a sense of the toxicity involved in most chemicals is to look at the warnings that manufacturers give their own employees through Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).
Manufacturers are not obligated to share MSDS information with consumers of their products. Furthermore, manufacturers even argue that this information should not be shared with the public because it is intended only for worker safety and emergency planning.
While this argument has some validity, if an MSDS indicates a toxicity issue for a healthy adult worker, then it should also be taken seriously regarding the general public, and certainly for babies and children.
Most MSDS sheets for polyvinyl chloride, pentaBDE, antimony, and other chemicals found
in baby mattresses indicate shockingly toxic characteristics and properties.
G. Justifications
It is undeniable that many of the chemicals currently found in baby mattresses are toxic. So then how are the use of such chemicals justified? The primary reason is the lack of specific provable harm. There haven’t been any studies as to the long-term effects of these chemicals on our children. However, the dramatic rise in childhood disorders should be reason enough to be concerned, certainly warranting further investigation.
One of the most common justifications for the widespread use of toxic chemicals in consumer products is based on the “Low Dose Theory.” The argument is that a poison is only a poison if the dose is large enough to make it harmful. Hence, “the dose makes the poison.”
Strictly speaking, this statement is true. However, it is grossly misused.
Firstly, while a low dose exposure may not necessarily be harmful over the short term, continuous low dose exposures may be quite harmful over the long term. For example, a baby sleeping on a mattress made from toxic chemicals for 10-14 hours a day, non-stop for several years, is likely in a compromised position even with a “low” dose.
Secondly, a low dose of chemical X plus a low dose of chemical Y, can sometimes create a high dose of chemical Z. These synergistic properties are usually untested and ignored.
For example, a typical baby mattress often contains several dozen different chemical ingredients which can have harmful synergistic properties.
Finally, how low is low? Since there hasn't been any significant testing, how does anyone really know what’s low and what's high? A low dose to one person may not be a low dose to another, especially when dealing with children.
“Some substances, researchers realized, might have toxic effects on children at any level of exposure.”
(The Coming Age of Environmental Pediatrics, Philip J. Landrigan MD, M.Sc, Pediatrician, Chair, Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Director, Center for Children’s Health and the Environment, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, www.childenvironment.org/factsheets/environmental_pediatrics.htm)
The second most common justification for the widespread use of toxic chemicals in consumer products is based on the “No Exposure Theory.” The argument is that while toxic substances may be present, they are relatively “isolated,” with no real exposure or danger.
Let's take a closer look at some of the exposures that children are receiving from mattress
and bedding products.
“The CDC report provides definitive evidence that phthalates in soft PVC plastic are getting into virtually all of our bodies.”
(Brody, Charlotte. “New CDC Report Finds Phthalates and Other Chemicals Commonly Used
in Hospitals at Highest Levels in Children.” Health Care Without Harm. February 5, 2005.
www.noharm.org/details.cfm?type=document&id=707)
“... some crib mattress covers emit mixtures of chemicals capable of causing acute toxicity to the respiratory tract... a child sleeping in a crib is only a few centimeters from the source of these emissions... Children breathing these emissions for 8 to 12 hours every night might absorb and accumulate considerable amounts of some of the emitted chemicals... several of the chemicals emitted by mattress cover A (i.e., toluene, xylenes, trichloroethylene, isopropylbenzene, ethylbenzene, and phenol) are toxic... children sleep with their noses very near to these mattress covers and most likely receive a relatively high dose of these emissions on a repeated basis... ”
(Respiratory Toxicity in Mice Exposed to Mattress Covers, Rosalind C. Anderson, Julius H. Anderson, Archives of Environmental Health, May 1999, www.andersonlaboratories.com)
Back to Table of Contents
|
Use the information provided on this site as an educational resource for determining your options and making your own informed choices. It is not intended as medical advice or to diagnose, prescribe, or treat any specific illness.