Hidden dangers in baby products?

(CBS News) 

DURHAM, N.C. - We put babies in car seats to protect them from danger. But could there be a danger hidden in those seats and in other baby products as well? A study to be published in "Environmental Science and Technology" looked at the flame-retardant chemicals used in dozens of baby products.

CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews reports the study focused on the foam padding that comes in baby products like car seats and diaper changing pads.

The researchers, led by Heather Stapleton of Duke University, expected to find flame retardant chemicals, but not this:

"I became concerned when we were finding chemicals that were shown to be suspected carcinogens or known carcinogens," Stapleton says.

Click here to read the full study (PDF)

The study does not identify brand names, but CBS News has learned chlorinated tris was found in three Evenflo car seats and one Snuggli baby carrier.

What's causing some of the concern is that flame retardant chemicals are known to migrate from foam into the air. That means that a baby being changed on a foam pad will be exposed twice, first through the skin, and then, by simply breathing.

"To me, Dr. Stapleton's paper is a wake-up call," says Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and a leading expert on toxins.

"I am concerned about, not only cancer, but reproductive or neurological effects as well," Birnbaum says. "The developing brain."

The makers of Evernflo and Snuggi tell CBS News in a statement: "protecting children is Evenflo's number one priority" - and uses chemicals "to meet..mandatory federal and state flammability requirements."

The chemical manufacturers tell us flame retardants "provide important fire safety benefits"..that chlorinated tris is "safe for use in consumer products" and says the new study does not show harm to infants because it "does not address exposure or risk."

Birnbaum agrees there is no proof of harm - but says, that's not the question. "I think the question should be, why do we need these chemicals in baby products at all?"

By coincidence, Duke's Stapleton had her second child last week - and at home has replaced as many foam based baby products as possible. In the balancing act between fire safety and chemical exposure - she sees chemicals as the greater risk.

More information on the danger of flame retardants

Green Science Policy Institute

Saferchemicals.org

Read Evenflo's full statement to CBS News

Protecting children is Evenflo's number one priority. Evenflo uses the same types of fire retardant materials to meet strict mandatory federal and state flammability requirements as do automobile and other baby and juvenile products manufacturers.

Read the statement by North American Flame Retardant Alliance of the American Chemistry Council

WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 17, 2011) - The following can be attributed to Kathryn St. John on behalf of the North American Flame Retardant Alliance of the American Chemistry Council regarding the study, "The Identification of Flame Retardants in Polyurethane Foam Collected from Baby Products," by Dr. Heather M. Stapleton, et al.

"Flame retardants are well-studied and provide important fire safety benefits in homes, cars and public areas. The flame retardants currently in use are allowed by the relevant regulatory authorities. Our member companies are on the forefront of innovating new flame retardants, which undergo extensive testing by manufacturers and the safety data are scrutinized by government agencies in the U.S. and abroad.

"This study attempts to examine the existence of certain flame retardants in a small sampling of children's products; it does not address exposure or risk. We are pleased that it does appear to confirm that the industry's 2004 voluntary phase-out of PentaBDE is working. We note that the "tris" chemical* referenced in the report is not the chemical restricted in children's clothing.

We will continue to work with government agencies and the scientific community to meet our dual objectives - using the safest possible chemistry to protect families by preventing fires from starting and limiting the spread of fires once ignited."

# #

*We would also like to clear up a common misperception about the flame retardant banned for use in children's clothing. A certain flame retardant, TRIS (2,3,-dibromopropyl) phosphate - commonly called "TRIS" - was restricted from children's clothing 30 years ago. This is not the same chemical (TDCPP) cited in this study [TDCPP, tris (1, 3-dichloroisopropyl) phosphate] which has been deemed acceptable for use in consumer products by a recent European Union risk assessment. TDCPP was the most commonly used flame retardant in the tested products and this is not problematic as it is approved for these uses.

[watrhed]

I recall about 12 years ago a similar sounding story: baby toys, made from plastic, laced with an additive, and the leading headline wondering if this could be dangerous to teething babys and toddler who chew and lick on them. The story took off (went viral in the days before YouTube) and suddenly manufacturers are reeling as retailers who sold their products without incident for years are pulling them from the shelves.

Fast forward to 2011: here's another story about plastics (foams) with breathless headlines about the threat to babies from additives, and a manufacturer scrambling to 'splain itself. If it it hasn't happened already, WalMart, or some other retailer, will announce some moratorium on these products.

Think this is all a coincidence? Don't kid yourself. This is a clever and deliberate public relations ploy by people with an agenda. In 1998, is was GreenPeace, part of their perpetual war against PVC and the "dreaded" plasticizer "phthalate." Who is it in 2011? Some anti-indjustry or environmental activists, or the periennial Natural Resources Defense Council? Couldn't say yet, but the fingerprints of some groups are all over this.

Think I'm too conspriracty minded? Why do you think infants were chosen as the victim both in 1998 and 2011. If your worried about polymer additives, why not choose a sweaty truck driver sitting on his vinyl seat cushion all day? What about a middle-aged beer belly sporting man reclining on his polymer-additive-infested easy chair?

No, they chose babies for a reason: babies elicit and emotional response that help advance a political agenda. The clever folks executing this ploy don't care about your babies. They care less about facts and nothing about science.

To be sure, they have their handmaidens: obscure university researcher looking to boost their profile and shot at tenure; media types like this CBS writer who, to the extent that they do or don't agree with the agenda, can't pass up a juicy headline in which they can put "baby" and "danger."

So whatever happened back in 1998? Well, a blue-ribbon panel, headed by former Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop, was created to look into the allegations. They found...nothing. No, actually, Dr. Koop found something: that flexible PVC, when used in bag that collect blood for hospitals and blood banks, actually help preserve and protect the blood. Poor old GreenPeace: When they heard the news, they mumbled something about Dr. Koop being paid off by "industry", a statement that didn't pass the giggle test.

But let's be clear: Greenpeace and others are still at war with phthalates, and agenda-driven anti-industry hacks are still tilting at their windmills, too. They won't be confused by facts. And, they are certainly not above manipulating public opinion with "baby in danger" stories to advance their agenda. Once you are on to their tactics, you can see how transparently manipulative they are. Don't get fooled, again.

[spatton108]

Congratulations to CBS for this news story. As as new grandmother, I am deeply concerned about all the man-made chemicals my granddaughter might be exposed to....and your story makes clear that so many of these chemicals have not been adequately tested for safety, and that we have so little information about what products might be safer. Flame retardants in nursing pillows? Why would a new mother ever suspect that a nursing pillow might contain flame retardants that might be harmful to the health of her infant? How often do nursing pillows burst into flame? Please keep these stories coming.

[newmother1516]

I found this story infuriating. I am an expectant mother setting up a nursery in preparation for my first child, and all this story did was raise an alarming series of concerns but offer no solutions. I'm being told that the products I must buy - mattresses, car seats, etc. - contain chemicals that could give my child cancer, infertility, and neurological disorders, but yet I'm given no information on how to replace or avoid these products or avoid these chemicals. Are they in every type of foam? Only certain brands? Are there ingredients/materials that I can find on labels and know to avoid? No specific products are mentioned. No tips are given to parents on how to avoid such chemicals. The story ends with the scientist who led the study saying she is removing all foam from her own home. Images of nursing table pads and a crib mattress flash on the screen Great! So what is she using instead? What mattress IS safe?

This is the worst kind of news. Half a story intent on raising fear and anxiety with no solutions. I'm outraged, not only at the companies using these chemicals and the agencies that make them mandatory, but also at CBS news for running such a half baked story.

[jlevin2011]

Dear new Mom,
Check out the Green Science Policy Institute's website that has some tips on how to reduce your exposure: http://******/mIliNh
If you can avoid products with the TB 117 level, that can help reduce the likelihood that your product will contain flame retardants. Polyurethane foam is the type of filling most likely to contain these flame retardants while polyester is much less likely to contain these chemicals.

If this infuriates you as much as it infuriates me, use the sample letter in the Green Science Policy Institute's packet to send to manufacturers of baby products asking them to contact the regulatory authority that houses this outdated flammabilty standard to modify it so it can be met withouth the use of flame retardants. An alternative standard, based on the use of cover materials with inherent flame resistance, would protect consumers from both fire hazard and toxic chemicals.

[xSugarMagnolias]

Maybe that's why this generation is retarded.

[erasmus111]

I can't believe that anyone would be surprised by this. We all know that flame retardants are toxic. And we also know that foam has toxic chemicals in it. If you don't, you sure as hell should.

There is formaldehyde in clothes. I think it is in things that are "polyester".

Toxic chemicals are in just about everything. I was talking to someone in the Department of Agriculture, and they said that if we knew what we were breathing in, in our homes, we would NEVER have our windows closed.

[lchary]

As a public health professional who specializes in environmental health and exposures to toxic chemicals, I was very happy to see this report tonight. Regretfully, the response from the fire retardant industry regarding TRIS is disingenuous and quite misleading - the chemicals being used today are just another version of what was taken off the market in children's pajamas, and they know that. But more to the point, why are these chemicals even in infant products such as car seats and nursing pillows? Adding these chemicals does not enhance the safety of these products in any way, and the fact that they are still in use is simply another indication of the great need for updating and modernizing our chemicals policy. Most of the laws which govern these chemicals were instituted in the 1970's and our current knowledge about them far exceeds what was understood 40 years ago, but unfortunately our laws have not caught up to the science. Reports such as this one are critically important to helping people become more aware of the need for stronger regulations and the integration of new ways of looking at chemicals such as through green chemistry, and finding safer alternatives.

[jlevin2011]

Thank you so much for covering this issue. Since infants and young children are at such a critical time in their brain development, it is especially important that toxic chemicals be avoided. Flame retardants in breast feeding pillows?!? How dare these companies insert these unnecessary chemicals in products that involve the most intimate moments between mother and child.