SENATE COMMITTEE ON
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No:
Author:
Version:
Urgency:
Consultant:
SB 763
Leno
April 6, 2015
No
Mark Mendoza
Hearing Date:
April 13, 2015
Fiscal:
Yes
Subject: Juvenile products: flame retardant chemicals.
SUMMARY: Requires a juvenile product manufacturer to indicate whether or not a
product contains added flame retardant chemicals, by including a specified statement;
requires a manufacturer to retain documentation, as specified, of whether or not flame
retardant chemicals were added to the product, and provide that documentation to the
Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation
upon request; and authorizes the Bureau to assess fines for violations of the above
provisions, as specified.
Existing law:
1) Establishes the Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation Act (Act), administered
by the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal
Insulation (Bureau) within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). The Bureau
is under the supervision and control of a Chief appointed by the Governor, and the
Chief is under the supervision and control of the Director of DCA.
2) Provides for the licensing and inspection of businesses that manufacture and sell
upholstered furniture, bedding and thermal insulation, and requires all mattresses
and box springs manufactured for sale in this state to be fire retardant, as defined to
meet the federal standards for resistance to open-flame test, and authorizes the
Bureau to adopt regulations to implement those standards. (Business and
Professions Code (BPC) § 19161)
3) Requires other bedding products to comply with regulations adopted by the Bureau
specifying that those products be resistant to open-flame ignition; requires all
seating furniture to be fire retardant and labeled as specified. (BPC § 19161)
4) Requires all flexible polyurethane foam, except as specified, that is offered for retail
sale to be fire retardant, and defines “fire retardant” to mean a product that meets
the regulations adopted by the Bureau. (BPC § 19161.3)
5) Authorizes the Chief, subject to the approval of the Director of DCA, to exempt
items of upholstered furniture which are deemed not to pose a serious fire hazard
from the fire retardant requirements. (BPC § 19161.5)
6) Bureau regulations, beginning January 1, 2015, require all filling materials and
cover fabrics contained in upholstered furniture sold in California to meet certain
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 2 of 12
smolder resistant testing standards, and to be labeled as specified. Specifically, the
Bureau regulations require filling materials and cover fabrics contained in any article
of upholstered furniture and added to reupholstered furniture to be tested and meet
the requirements of Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013. (Article 13, Division 3, Title
4, California Code of Regulations (CCR) § 1374)
7) Bureau regulations exempt eighteen juvenile products from meeting the flammability
requirements of Technical Bulletin (TB) 117-2013. (Article 13, Division 3, Title 4,
CCR § 1374.2)
This bill:
1) Requires a manufacturer of juvenile products to indicate whether or not a product
contains added flame retardant chemicals, by including a specified statement.
2) Outlines the list of juvenile products requiring a flame retardant chemical statement.
3) Requires a manufacturer of juvenile products sold in California to retain
documentation to show whether flame retardant chemicals were added. Provides
that a written affidavit by the supplier of each component of a juvenile product
attesting that flame retardant chemicals were added or not added shall be sufficient
documentation.
4) Requires, within 30 days of a request by the Bureau, a manufacturer of a product
sold in California to provide the Bureau with the documentation establishing the
accuracy of the flame retardant chemical statement on the label.
5) Requires the Bureau to provide the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) with samples of the product or components of the product sold in
California from products marked “contains NO added flame retardant chemicals” for
testing for the presence of added flame retardant chemicals. Requires DTSC to
provide the results of all testing to the Bureau.
6) Authorizes the Bureau to issue citations and assess fines for violations of the above
provisions, as specified.
7) Provides that a manufacturer of juvenile products and component suppliers shall be
jointly and severally liable for violations of these provisions, as specified.
8) Specifies that it shall be the duty of the Bureau to receive complaints from
consumers regarding juvenile products sold in California.
9) Authorizes the Bureau to adopt regulations to carry out the provisions of the bill.
10) Codifies the current fire retardant regulatory exemption applicable to certain juvenile
products.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has been keyed “fiscal” by Legislative Counsel.
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 3 of 12
COMMENTS:
1. Purpose. This bill is sponsored by California Professional Firefighters, Center for
Environmental Health, and Consumer Federation of California. According to the
Author, “SB 763 requires manufacturers of certain products for infants and children
to disclose on a label whether these chemicals have been added. Due to the low
fire risk of many children’s products and health concerns associated with flame
retardant chemicals, manufacturers have the ability to design these items without
added chemicals. However, without SB 763, consumers have no way of knowing
which ones are free of flame retardant chemicals. This bill empowers parents and
other consumers to make educated decisions at the point of purchase and gives
businesses a uniform way to communicate important information about their
products.” The Author further adds, “The Bureau has found that the children’s
products included in SB 763 do not pose a serious fire hazard. In addition, a
growing body of evidence suggests that the flame retardant chemicals found in
these products harm both the environment and human health. They are associated
with a variety of health concerns, including cancer, decreased fertility, hormone
disruption, lower IQ and hyperactivity. The cancer-causing smoke created by the
chemicals also puts firefighters at increased risk.”
2. Technical Bulletin 117. In 1975, California adopted Technical Bulletin 117
(TB 117), which required that each component material (such as polyurethane
foam) used to fill furniture be able to withstand a small open flame, equivalent to a
candle, for at least 12 seconds.
The Bureau was responsible for publishing and enforcing TB 117. This
performance-based standard did not prescribe the use of flame-retardant
chemicals, manufacturing methods, or specific materials to meet the standards.
However, according to the Green Science Policy Institute, furniture manufacturers
typically met TB 117 with additive halogenated organic flame retardants. California
is the only state to have established such a standard, and since California provides
such a large portion of the national market, many manufacturers chose to meet the
requirements of TB 117 in products that they distribute across the United States.
The Bureau requires manufacturers to make upholstered furniture and bedding
products sold in California flame-retardant. The Bureau encouraged the industry to
use innovative solutions and products to achieve flame resistance without
compromising the environment. Manufacturers are required to strictly adhere to
state and federal laws governing the manufacture and sale of upholstered furniture
and bedding products.
Significant concerns were raised in recent years with the TB 117 standard and the
environmental and health impacts of the chemicals that are used by manufacturers
to meet the standard.
3. New Technical Bulletin 117-2013 Regarding the Flammability Standard.
In 2012, Governor Brown directed the Bureau to revise flammability standards for
upholstered furniture sold in the state. The Governor asked the Bureau to review
the state’s four-decade-old flammability standards outlined in TB 117 and
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 4 of 12
recommend changes to reduce the use of toxic flame retardants while continuing to
ensure fire safety. At the time, the Governor stated that “toxic flame retardants are
found in everything from high chairs to couches and a growing body of evidence
suggests that these chemicals harm human health and the environment. We must
find better ways to meet fire safety standards by reducing and eliminating wherever
possible dangerous chemicals.”
In recognition of TB 117’s perceived inadequacy in addressing the flammability
performance of upholstery cover fabric and its interactions with underlying filling
materials, as well as in response to health concerns raised about the use of these
chemicals, the Bureau published TB 117-2013 which establishes a smolder
standard that does not require the use of flame retardant chemicals for a
manufacturer to be in compliance with the standard. Now, rather than performing
an open flame method of testing a product, under TB 117-2013, a smoldering test is
utilized. These test methods consist of four tests used to evaluate the cigarette
ignition resistance of upholstery cover fabrics, barrier (interliner) materials, resilient
filling materials, and decking materials (used for support under loose seat cushions)
used in the manufacture of upholstered furniture.
TB 117-2013, which became effective on January 1, 2014, supersedes the original
TB 117 and the new TB 117-2013 standard applies to upholstered furniture sold in
California. Bedding products such as mattresses, comforters, mattress pads, bed
pillows as well as decorative pillows are not subject to TB 117-2013. These
products, however, carry a label as required by law. According to the Bureau, the
TB 117-2013 standard incorporates smoldering tests for several components of
upholstered furniture. However, none of the components are tested by themselves
as was previously the case under TB 117. TB 117-2013 serves as a “semicomposite” test in which components are combined with standard test materials to
construct a test specimen.
Manufacturers were provided one year to complete the transition to be in
compliance with TB 117-2013 and were required to come into full compliance by
January 1, 2015.
While it is ultimately the responsibility of the furniture manufacturers to ensure
products meet TB 117-2013 as well as labeling requirements, wholesalers,
importers, and retailers are also required to ensure products that they sell in
California meet all applicable requirements. Retailers in California may continue to
sell furniture that meets the old standard until their stock is depleted, but as of
January 1, 2015, California retailers must purchase products that meet the new TB
117-2013 standard. California Business and Professions Code Section 19072
states: “Responsibility for compliance with this chapter rests not only with the
manufacturer but also with the importer, wholesaler, retailer, or any person having
in his or her possession with the intent to sell.”
4. Juvenile Products. This bill seeks to build off of the revised technical bulletin
(TB 117- 2013) by providing greater transparency about the chemical content of
juvenile products. Historically, to evaluate the potential for a serious fire hazard of
juvenile products, the Bureau examined the fuel load content of a large number of
juvenile products and determined that most strollers, infant carriers, and nursing
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 5 of 12
pillows available in the market contain a much lesser amount of resilient filling
materials (e.g. foam, batting) than average adult seating furniture. Moreover, it was
found that most of these items contain little or no polyurethane foams which are
often the most flammable component of upholstered seating furniture. The Bureau
determined that in many instances nearly all inside filling materials contained in
these products are comprised of synthetic batting that met the TB 117 standard
without the need for any fire retardant treatments. These juvenile products,
therefore, were determined by the Bureau to not cause or sustain a large fire if
ignited with a small open flame, comparable to the size of a match or charcoal
lighter flame. In addition, these products were determined less likely to be ignited
(come in contact with an open flame) under the exercise of great care and
supervision of adults. The Bureau concluded in 2010 that three proposed items,
strollers, nursing pillows, and infant carriers will not pose a serious fire hazard to
infants and children if they were exempt from TB 117 flammability requirements.
However, new regulations which became effective on January 1, 2014 added more
juvenile products to the exempt list as they meet the flammability standards set forth
in TB 117-2013. Now, a total of eighteen juvenile products are exempt from having
to undergo testing to determine if they meet the standards: bassinets, booster
seats, car seats, changing pads, floor play mats, highchair pads, highchairs, infant
bouncers, infant carriers, infant seats, infant swings, Infant walkers, nursing pads,
nursing pillows, play yards, playpen side pads, portable hook-on chairs and
strollers. The products now exempt from the TB 117-2013 flammability standard
are no longer required to carry a disclosure label indicating that they are not in
compliance with TB 117-2013.
In addition to the eighteen juvenile products, this bill also seeks to add a disclosure
statement on three other products: a baby carrier worn by an adult, children’s nap
mat, and infant foam crib mattress. The Author wishes to add these additional
juvenile products to the list, since they fall under the umbrella of juvenile products.
Also, under the Bureau’s criteria, these are similar to the existing exempt products
and are not subject to the flammability standards.
5. Lawsuit by Chemical Industry Regarding the Revision of TB 117. In January
2014, Chemtura Corporation (Chemtura) sent a letter to Governor Brown regarding
the new regulation revising TB 117. Chemtura contended the revised standard will
harm consumers by relaxing the open-flame resistance requirement and requiring
that the furniture only survive a cigarette-like smolder. Chemtura also filed a lawsuit
(Chemtura Corporation vs. Denise D. Brown) filed January 16, 2014, in Sacramento
Superior Court, seeking a Writ of Mandate to overturn the revised rules. Chemtura
contended the lawsuit is necessary to seek judicial review of the authority of the
Bureau to eliminate the essential requirements of the fire safety standard.
Ultimately, the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, denied
Chemtura’s petition for writ of mandate, declaratory and injunctive relief. The
company did not appeal the superior court’s decision.
6. Flame-Retardant Chemicals & Public Health Hazards. Manufacturers of
consumer products commonly add flame retardant chemicals to plastics and other
flammable materials to reduce the risk of fire. These chemicals are released into
the environment during manufacture, use, and disposal of products. The following
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 6 of 12
are the types of flame retardants that were used (banned) or are currently used:
a) PCBs. The earliest flame retardants, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were
banned in the United States in 1977 when it was determined that they are toxic.
With the ban, industries shifted to using brominated flame retardants.
b) PBDEs. The most studied of the brominated flame retardants are the
polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), which were first introduced into the
market over thirty years ago. PBDEs are closely related in structure and
behavior to PCBs.
PCBs are known to have neurotoxic and carcinogenic effects and were banned
by Congress in 1977. Because of similarity of the chemical’s molecular
structures, concerns were raised about potential biological hazards of PBDEs.
Studies in laboratory animals and humans have linked PBDEs to thyroid
disruption, memory and learning problems, delayed mental and physical
development, lower IQ, advanced puberty, and reduced fertility.
A 2009 in vivo animal study conducted by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) noted that PBDEs are particularly toxic to the
developing brains of animals. Peer-reviewed studies have shown that even a
single dose administered to mice during development of the brain can cause
permanent changes in behavior, including hyperactivity.
A 1998 study in Sweden found the first evidence of potential for breast milk
contamination from PBDEs. In the Swedish study, archived samples collected
between 1972 and 1997 were analyzed for the presence of PBDEs to get an
overall summed total of PBDEs in milk. The data from Sweden show a drastic
increase in the quantity of PBDEs detected in women’s breast milk from 1972 to
1997, with concentrations doubling every five years.
Sweden’s voluntary phase-out of PBDEs by companies and branches of the
government began as early as 1990, and the Swedish government strongly
encouraged the European Union to ban PBDEs outright.
Since Sweden’s voluntary PBDE controls were established, a number of changes
have been noted. Total PBDE levels in Swedish women’s breast milk fell about
30% between 1997 and 2000. The European Union has banned several types of
PBDEs as of 2008; 10 years after the Swedish discovered that they were
accumulating in breast milk.
Sweden is the only nation with a comprehensive breast milk monitoring program,
so it has been difficult to track PBDE concentration trends elsewhere. However,
in regions where bans and restrictions have not been established, available
studies are showing that PBDE concentrations in breast milk have risen far past
Sweden’s 1997 peak.
The highest recorded PBDE levels in humans have been in the United States. A
2002 study of PBDEs in San Francisco Bay Area women’s breast fat reported an
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 7 of 12
average of 21.5 times higher than Sweden’s 1997 peak. Studies of PBDEs in
maternal blood and milk in Texas and Indiana from 2001 and 2002 reported
levels similar to those found in the San Francisco Bay Area.
In 2003, concerned about the hazards posed by two types of PBDEs, especially
to breast-fed infants, California enacted a ban on these chemicals (AB 302
(Chan) Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003).
c) Chlorinated Tris. Chlorinated Tris (TDCPP) has been in use since the 1960s.
TDCPP was banned from use in children’s pajamas in 1977, when it was found
to be mutagenic, but remains in use as a foam additive in furniture, car seats,
and other products. Its use has increased in the United States following the 2006
ban on the common flame retardant PentaPBDE.
According to studies conducted in rats, TDCPP is associated with increased
tumor rates in kidneys and testes, some of which were cancerous. Evidence
further suggests that there may be an impact on fertility by influencing hormone
levels and semen quality in men. A recently published study found that TDCPP
was a neurotoxin to brain cells. In an assessment conducted by the Consumer
Product and Safety Commission (CPSC), TDCPP was found to pose a threat to
human health. Under Proposition 65, the State of California has listed TDCPP as
a chemical known to cause cancer.
On March 13, 2014, DTSC named TDCPP in children’s foam padded sleep
products as a priority product to be evaluated in the Safer Consumer Products
Program for potential regulatory action.
Other sources indicate that because of molecular similarity, other flame
retardants are similarly linked to cancer and other above-listed adverse health
effects. It has also been noted that many flame retardants may degrade into
compounds that are also toxic. This could arguably make the chemical a danger
even after its useful life as a flame retardant is over.
7. Exposure to Flame Retardant Chemicals. According to the academic journal,
Environmental Health Perspectives, nearly all Americans tested have high levels of
flame retardants in their body. People can be exposed to flame retardants through
several routes, including diet, inhalation of dust from consumer products in the
home, vehicle, or workplace, or environmental contamination near their home or
workplace. Infants and toddlers are particularly exposed to flame retardants found
in breast milk and dust. Because many halogenated flame retardants are fatsoluble, they accumulate in fatty areas such as breast tissue and are mobilized into
breast milk, delivering high levels of flame retardants to breast-feeding infants.
As consumer products age, small particles of material become dust particles in the
air and land on surfaces around the home, including the floor. Young children
crawling and playing on the floor frequently bring their hands to their mouths,
ingesting about twice as much house dust as adults per day in the United States.
Young children in the United States tend to carry higher levels of flame retardants
per unit body weight than do adults.
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 8 of 12
Some occupations expose workers to higher levels of halogenated flame retardants
and their degradation products. Studies of foam recyclers and carpet installers,
who handle padding made from recycled polyurethane foam, often have shown
elevated levels of flame retardants in their tissues. Workers in electronics recycling
plants were also found to have elevated body levels of flame retardants relative to
the general population.
U.S. firefighters also show elevated levels of PBDEs and high levels of brominated
furans, toxic degradation products of brominated flame retardants.
8. Chicago Tribune Articles “Playing with Fire”. In May 2012, the Chicago Tribune
(Tribune) published a series of articles titled “Playing With Fire,” which focused on
the use of flame retardant chemicals in the United States, and considered the
scientific evidence of the safety of flame retardant chemicals and their effectiveness
in reducing damage from fire.
The series noted that furniture first became treated with flame retardants because of
the tobacco industry, according to internal cigarette company documents examined
by the Tribune. A generation ago, tobacco companies were facing growing
pressure to produce fire-safe cigarettes, because so many house fires started with
smoldering cigarettes. The tobacco industry worked with the chemical industry to
advocate for policies that would require furniture to contain flame retardants rather
than require fire-safe cigarettes.
The documents examined by the Tribune show that cigarette lobbyists secretly
organized the National Association of State Fire Marshals and then guided its
agenda so that it pushed for flame retardants in furniture.
The Tribune also found that the chemical industry established an advocacy group
called Citizens for Fire Safety. The Citizens for Fire Safety described itself as “a
coalition of fire professionals, educators, community activists, burn centers, doctors,
fire departments and industry leaders.” The Tribune states, “the group's efforts to
influence fire-safety policies is guided by a mission to ‘promote common business
interests of members involved with the chemical manufacturing industry,’ tax
records show.” According to documents obtained from the California Secretary of
State, the organization was a trade association with only three members: Albemarle
Corporation, ICL Industrial Products, and Chemtura Corporation. The Tribune
article states, “Those three companies are the largest manufacturers of flame
retardants and together control 40% of the world market for these chemicals,
according to The Freedonia Group, a Cleveland-based research firm.”
The Tribune reporters write: “These powerful industries distorted science in ways
that overstated the benefits of the chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog
group that stoked the public’s fear of fire and helped organize and steer an
association of top fire officials that spent more than a decade campaigning for their
[the tobacco and chemical industries] cause.”
According to the Tribune articles, Citizens for Fire Safety paid a prominent Seattle
physician, Dr. David Heimbach, the former president of the American Burn
Association, to testify before California state lawmakers in a hearing of this
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 9 of 12
Committee against SB 147 (Leno, 2011). SB 147 would have required the Bureau
to modify TB 117 regarding product standards for fire retardant furniture to provide
an alternative method of compliance that can be met without the use of chemical
fire retardants and that would not compromise fire safety.
Dr. Heimbach testified that he treated a 7-week-old girl who was burned in a fire
started by a candle that ignited a pillow that did not have flame retardant chemicals.
The Tribune’s investigation found that Dr. Heimbach made-up his testimony before
the Committee. Their investigation found that there was no 7-week-old burn victim
and no candle fire or patient that he treated as a result of fire where flame
retardants could have prevented injury. After the Chicago Tribune investigation,
Heimbach told the Tribune his testimony in California was "an anecdotal story rather
than anything which I would say was absolutely true under oath, because I wasn't
under oath."
In March, 2014, the State of Washington’s Department of Health Medical Quality
Assurance Commission issued disciplinary charges against Dr. Heimbach. The
Statement of Charges states, that from 2009 through 2012, Heimbach testified at
legislative hearings in Washington, California and Alaska. The medical licensing
authorities allege that Heimbach fabricated testimony and failed to disclose his ties
to the chemical industry and falsely presented himself as an unbiased burn expert
when he was in fact collecting $240,000 from flame retardant manufacturers. The
charges state that “Most of [Heimbach’s] testimony, which he presented as
documented facts, was fabricated. [His] misrepresentations to legislators, to burn
experts and to other doctors is conduct which harms the reputation of the profession
. . . [T]his conduct demonstrates an unfitness to bear the responsibilities, or enjoy
the privileges, of the profession.” He faces numerous charges, including
unprofessional conduct and violating patient privacy.
After the Tribune’s expose of the coalition, the group eventually shuttered and
elected to conduct all advocacy and communications efforts through the American
Chemistry Council's (ACC) North American Flame Retardant Alliance.
This series of articles raises serious questions as to whether false information and
testimony provided to California’s Legislature influenced the failure of prior
legislation.
9. Prior Legislation. SB 1019 (Leno, Chapter 862, Statutes of 2014) required an
upholstered furniture manufacturer to indicate on the product label whether or not a
product contains added flame retardant chemicals, by including a specified
statement; required manufacturer to retain documentation, as specified, of whether
or not flame retardant chemicals were added to the product, and provide that
documentation to the Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings
and Thermal Insulation upon request; and authorized the Bureau to assess fines for
violations of the above provisions, as specified.
AB 127 (Skinner, Chapter 579, Statutes of 2013) required the State Fire Marshal, in
consultation with the Bureau, to review the flammability standards for building
insulation materials, including whether the flammability standards for some
insulation materials can only be met with the addition of chemical flame retardants
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 10 of 12
and requires, if deemed appropriate by the State Fire Marshal based on this review,
the State Fire Marshal to, by July 1, 2015, propose, for consideration by the Building
Standards Commission, updated insulation flammability standards.
SB 147 (Leno, 2011) would have required the Bureau, on or before March 1, 2013,
to modify TB 117 regarding product standards for fire retardant furniture to include a
smolder flammability test to provide an alternative method of compliance that can
be met without the use of chemical fire retardants and does not compromise fire
safety; required the Bureau, in developing the smolder flammability test, to consider
the draft smolder standard proposed by the federal Consumer Product Safety
Commission, to take into consideration the cost to manufacturers and consumers,
and amend existing label specifications to identify any products meeting that
adopted standard. The bill further authorized the Bureau Chief to additionally
exempt polyurethane foam from the fire retardant requirements, as specified.
Note: the provisions of this bill have been largely implemented through the revision
of TB 117 in TB 117-2013. (Status: SB 147 failed passage in Senate BP&ED
Committee.)
SB 1291 (Leno, 2010) would have required the DTSC to include, as a chemical
under consideration, any chemical that is used, or is proposed to be used, as a
flame retardant, in accordance with the review process (Green Chemistry Process)
under the current chemical of concern regulations. (Status: SB 1291 was placed
on the inactive file on the Senate Floor and died on file.)
SB 772 (Leno, 2009) would have exempted “juvenile products,” as defined, from the
fire retardant requirements pursuant to federal law and the regulations of the
Bureau, except that the Bureau could have, by regulation modified this exemption if
the Bureau determined that any juvenile products posed a serious fire hazard. The
provisions of SB 772 have been largely implemented through regulation by the
Bureau effective December 29, 2010. (Status: SB 772 was held under submission
in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.)
AB 706 (Leno, 2008), commencing July 1, 2010, would have required bedding
products to comply with certain requirements, including that they not contain a
chemical or component not in compliance with alternatives assessment
requirements as specified, and required the DTSC to develop and adopt
methodology for the coordination and conduct of an alternative assessment to
review the classes of chemicals used to meet the fire retardant standards set by the
Bureau and to meet other requirements as specified. (Status: AB 706 failed
passage on the Senate Floor.)
AB 302 (Chan, Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003) banned the use of penta and octa
PBDEs after January 1, 2008.
10. Arguments in Support. The California Professional Firefighters Association
(Sponsor) states, “SB 763 provides consumers a pathway to exercise a choice in
purchasing safer juvenile products, which, in turn, creates a direct and positive
impact on the reduction of toxic exposures to firefighters.”
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 11 of 12
The Consumer Federation of California (Sponsor) writes, “SB 763 will ensure that
the public is able to make informed choices, as consumers currently have no way of
knowing ether a child’s product contains fire retardant chemicals.”
The Center for Environmental Health (Sponsor) underscores that “juvenile products
are routinely handed down to family and friends as well as donated to thrift stores,
so the ability of these second-hand users to identify products that do or do not
contain family retardant chemicals is essential. It will also provide businesses a
standard format to communicate the information to families.”
A number of supporters, including California League of Conservation Voters,
Earthjustice, and San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility
underscore that “flame retardant chemicals migrate out of products into the air and
into household dust. Young children, who often crawl on the floor and put their
hands in their mouths, have some of the highest levels of flame retardants in their
blood. These chemicals are associated with a variety of health concerns, including
cancer, decreased fertility, hormone disruption, lower IQ, and hyperactivity. Families
have a right to know if the products they purchase for young children contain flame
retardant chemicals.”
11. Arguments in Opposition. A joint letter of opposition by the American Chemistry
Council, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, California Citizens
Against Lawsuit Abuse, Juvenile Products Manufactures Association, and National
Federation of Independent Business argues that “these new requirements lack
scientific justification, conflict with existing California consumer product and
chemical safety laws and regulations, and as proposed, would mislead consumers
about the safety of products that contain flame retardant chemicals.”
12. Policy Issue: Should an additional label be added on to the specified juvenile
products to clearly display a flame-retardant chemical statement? Through the
implementation of SB 1019, upholstered furniture manufacturers are required to
have a flame retardant chemical statement follow the flammability standard
verbiage on the flammability label. However, unlike upholstered furniture, juvenile
products do not have a flammability label. Thus, with the lack of flammability label
for juvenile products, the placement and visibility of the flame retardant chemical
statement is unclear. Since the Bureau is not in favor of adding this statement to
the current law label, the Author may wish to create a separate label that displays
the flame retardant chemical statement.
NOTE: Double-referral to Senate Committee on Environmental Quality.
SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:
Support:
California League of Conservation Voters
California Professional Firefighters (Sponsor)
Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy
CALPIRG
Center for Environmental Health (Sponsor)
SB 763 (Leno)
Page 12 of 12
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Federation of California (Sponsor)
Dignity Health
Earthjustice
Environment California
Environmental Working Group
Friends of the Earth
Health Care Without Harm
International Association of Fire Fighters
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Pesticide Action Network North America
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility (SF Bay Area PSR)
The Alliance for Toxic Free Fire Safety (ATFFS)
The Breast Cancer Fund
Trauma Foundation
Opposition:
American Chemistry Council
California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
Juvenile Products Manufactures Association
National Federation of Independent Business
-- END --