Fire Safety Science News, No 33: page 21 On Sunday May 6, 2012, the Chicago Tribune, a major U.S. newspaper, began a series of front page articles investigating the flame retardant chemical industry entitled Playing with Fire with the headline: “A deceptive campaign by industry brought toxic flame retardants into our homes and bodies. And the chemicals don’t even work as promised” (1). The series continued with “Tobacco’s Clout,” “Distorting Science,” “Toxic Roulette,” and thirteen additional articles to date. The New York Times asked: Are you safe on that sofa? (2), which was one of the most frequently emailed articles on Sunday, May 20, 2012 while a Tribune editorial stated “You have been sold a false sense of security about the risk of your furniture burning, and you've been exposed to dangerous chemicals you didn't know about. If you’re not angry, you ought to be.” Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, the Majority Whip in the U.S. Senate, was very angry. Senate hearings were held in July, during which the flame retardant industry faced scathing criticism from senators outraged by the industry's “misuse of science, misleading testimony and creation of a phony consumer group that stoked the public's fear of furniture fires.” In California, home to the flammability standard which has led to the use of flame retardants in furniture and baby products, the Governor issued a directive to change the standard to reduce the use of flame retardant chemicals while ensuring fire safety. Controversies about chemicals used for fire safety are not new to the fire science community. Halons, asbestos, PCBs, and Tris flame retardants in children’s pajamas are all compounds with a known fire safety benefit that are no longer used due to their adverse impacts. Similarly, for flammability standards that lead to the use of added flame retardant chemicals, a question to consider is: Does the standard provide a net fire safety benefit that outweighs the potential health and ecological harm? The primary flammability standard discussed in the Tribune series is the contentious 1975 California Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117) (3) which requires the filling materials inside furniture to withstand exposure to a small open flame for 12 seconds when tested without fabric covering. The most effective and economical way to meet this standard is by adding flame retardant chemicals to polyurethane foam at levels of three to five percent of the weight of the foam. California is the only state in the U.S. with a furniture flammability standard, but most furniture and baby product manufacturers follow TB117 across the United States and Canada to avoid maintaining a double inventory and for defense against liability claims. Since 1975 a series of flame retardant additives have been used to meet TB117, banned, and replaced with other flame retardants, in each case lacking adequate toxicity and ecotoxicity information. For example, pentaBDE, was used as the primary flame retardant in furniture and baby product foam until its phase-out in 2005. PentaBDE is structurally similar to the known human toxicants PBBs, PCBs, dioxins, and furans (Figure 1). These compounds all have related mechanisms of toxicity in animal studies and will bioaccumulate and persist in both humans and animals(4). There are over 2,000 peer- reviewed scientific research articles documenting the toxicity, human and animal exposure of PBDEs and other furniture flame retardants. Some flame retardant additives primarily used to meet TB117, have been globally banned due to their toxicity. Nonetheless, they are found in air, water, FEATURED ARTICLE Toxic Chemicals and Toxic Money: The Science and Politics of Flammability Standards by Vyto Babrauskas 1 ,David Rich 2 , Veena Singla 2 , and Arlene Blum 2 Figure 1: Related structures. Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are similar in structure and biological properties to the known human toxicants PBBs, PCBs, dioxins, and furans.