BILL ANALYSIS
SB 772
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 27, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
FOR VOTE ONLY
SB 772 (Leno) - As Amended: August 20, 2009
Policy Committee: Environmental
Safety Vote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill exempts strollers, infant carriers, bassinets, and
nursing pillows from fire retardant requirements and
regulations. Specifically, this bill:
1)Exempts strollers, infant carriers, bassinets, and nursing
pillows from fire retardant requirements and regulations
unless the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation
(BHFTI) determines that a serious fire hazard exists, or if a
product is regulated by federal law.
2)Requires strollers, infant carriers, bassinets, and nursing
pillows exempt from fire retardant requirements and
regulations per this bill to be prominently labeled on the
product's exterior packaging and on the product itself to
indicate the product has not been tested under California's
flammability standard and may not resist open flame.
FISCAL EFFECT
Minor ongoing costs to the Bureau of Home Furnishings, likely
less than $100,000 annually, (Bureau of Home Furnishings and
Thermal Insulation Fund), to develop regulations, if necessary,
and to collect data and assess potential fire hazard of various
infant and children's products.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, California's home
furnishing flammability resistance requirements have led
manufacturers to apply tons of flame retardant chemicals to
SB 772
Page 2
furniture and bedding sold in the state, including strollers,
infant carriers, bassinets, and nursing pillows. The author
claims these chemicals are toxic and generally harmful to
human health, especially to infant and toddler health, and
accumulate in our homes, our bodies and the environment. The
author contends this bill, without banning the use of any
chemical, will provide manufacturers of common infant and
children's products the opportunity to opt out of applying
these harmful chemicals to those products, thereby lessening
children's exposure to them.
2)Background .
a) California Flammability Standards for Home Furnishings .
In California, mattresses, mattress sets, bedding products
and upholstered furniture manufactured or sold in the state
is required to meet flammability standards as specified by
the Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation
(BHFTI), an office of the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Many large manufacturers and distributors of furniture or
furniture components meet these stringent flammability
standards by adding flame retardant chemicals to their
products.
b) Concerns About Common Flame Retardants . California's
flammability standards have led to the extensive use of
brominated and chlorinated organic chemical compounds (BFRs
and CFRs). Many BFRs and CFRs persist in the environment
and are associated with adverse health effects including
cancer, reproductive and developmental toxicity,
neurological dysfunction and endocrine disruption. For
example, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) are flame
retardants once commonly applied to furniture components
sold in California. PBDEs are closely related to
neurotoxin and carcinogenic chemical compounds banned by
Congress in 1976. In 2003, California banned the use of
two specific types of PBDEs over concerns about their
potential effects on human health.
It is unclear whether flame retardants currently used in
California pose the same risks to human health as do banned
flame retardants. However, both the flame retardants
currently used and those previously banned share many
chemical and molecular characteristics. Because of these
similarities, many consumer groups and health advocates are
SB 772
Page 3
concerned, nonetheless, that flame retardants still in use
in California may threaten human health in ways similar to
their outlaw chemical cousins.
3)Fire Risks Versus Potential Toxicity-A False Dilemma?
Clearly, fire endangers human health. Designing furniture and
components that are less likely to catch fire is therefore
desirable.
It is unclear, however, that strollers, infant carriers,
bassinets, and nursing pillows are likely to catch fire in the
first place. In correspondence with the author's office, the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)-the federal
agency charged with protecting consumers and families from
products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical
hazard or that can injure children-indicates that it has not
identified an unreasonable fire risk to children from use of
the types of products identified by this bill.
Nor is it clear that adding flame retardants to strollers,
infant carriers, bassinets, and nursing pillows has protected
California's infants and children from immolation. According
to a 2006 study by the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA), the rate of reduction of fire deaths in California
over the last 20 years-during which time halogenated fire
retardants were used heavily in furniture-declined
significantly. The NFPA report notes, however, that the rate
of reduction of fire deaths in California during that 20-year
period is statistically similar reduction of fire deaths in
other states that did not have furniture flammability
standards. (The NFPA advocates for codes and standards,
research, and education for fire and related safety issues)
Separating state-by-state rates of fire deaths from use of
chemical flame retardants, however, is not so straightforward.
As policy committee analyses acknowledge, many large
manufacturers have responded to California's fire resistance
standards by adding flame retardants to their entire furniture
lines. These large manufacturers sell their products in
various states of the U.S. It may be the case that infant and
children's furnishing sold outside of California over the last
20 years has been subject to the same chemical treatment as
furniture sold within California, thereby complicating a
state-by-state comparison of the effects of flame retardants
on fire deaths.
SB 772
Page 4
4)Supporters , including some children's products manufacturers
and numerous consumer groups and environmental organizations,
argue this bill will help prevent unwarranted use of
potentially toxic chemicals in our children's furniture,
thereby protecting our children, ourselves, and our
environment. The bill achieves these goals not by banning the
use of flame retardants, but by eliminating the regulatory
impetus behind manufactures use of these chemicals.
5)Opponents , including business and manufacturing associations,
claim that there is no peer-reviewed empirical data supporting
fears about health risks associated with flame retardants.
These opponents argue that this bill prioritizes theoretical
health risks above well known risks fire-related injury and
death that flame retarded products seek to prevent.
6)Related Legislation .
a) AB 706 (Leno, 2008) would have required bedding products
to comply with certain requirements, including not
containing a chemical that doesn't comply with alternatives
assessment requirements, as developed by the Department of
Toxic Substances Control. The bill passed the Assembly
46-31 but bill failed on the Senate floor.
b) AB 302 (Chan, Chapter 205, Statutes of 2003) banned the
manufacture, processing, or distribution of a commercial
product, or a flame-retarded part of a product, containing
more than 0.1% pentaBDE or octaBDE as of January 1, 2008.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081