Quantcast
Health

What You Need to Know About Toxic Chemicals in Your Furniture

Once upon a time, flame-retardant furniture seemed like a good idea. It seemed like less kindling in the case of someone tipping over a candle or a wire overheating.

Just as manufacturers are being pressured to remove flame retardant chemicals from children's clothing, bedding and furniture, the pressure has been mounting on makers of upholstered household furniture. Photo credit: Shutterstock

Instead, the chemicals used to make upholstery foam less flammable brought their own problems—problems more immediate and more common than those rare instances of fire. Those toxic chemicals, shed into the air by sofas and other furniture containing the foam, were linked to a host of health problems including fertility issues, neurological deficits, developmental delays and cancer. American infants were found to have extremely high concentrations of fire retardants in their blood compared to those in other countries, according to a study sponsored by the Environmental Working Group. And when they did burn, the fumes were highly toxic and dangerous.

So just as manufacturers are being pressured to remove flame retardant chemicals from children's clothing, bedding and furniture, the pressure has been mounting on makers of upholstered household furniture. Organizations like Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have been leaning on manufacturers through its Mind the Store campaign.

That campaign is paying off. The group is reporting that some of the U.S.'s largest furniture retailers have agreed to phase out the chemicals, although the companies aren't necessarily saying what and when. The country's largest furniture retailer/manufacturer Ashley Furniture has agreed to eliminate them but hasn't announced a timetable to do so. Ashley's announcement came in response to a letter from the Safer Chemicals, Health Families Mind the Store campaign.

"For years, consumers were saddled with few safe choices when they wanted to buy a couch or other foam-padded furniture," said Mind the Store campaign director Mike Schade. "Thankfully big retailers are beginning to remove toxic flame retardants. The nation’s top furniture retailer Ashley has recognized that these toxic flame retardant chemicals are not necessary and will be manufacturing and selling furniture products that are safer as they meet the new California flammability standards. But customers want and have a right to know what they are buying. It’s vital Ashley take the next step by announcing a clear public timeframe for phasing out these chemicals in furniture foam and fabrics."

Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported that Crate and Barrel, Williams-Sonoma's Pottery Barn and West Elm, and Room and Board have mostly eliminated the toxic chemicals already, and that Futon Shop, IKEA, La-Z-Boy, Scandinavian Designs and Walmart have told their manufacturers to stop using the chemicals. Other companies such as Pier 1 did not respond to inquiries.

"The inconsistent messages mean consumers must ask retailers pointed questions if they want to ensure a particular couch or chair doesn't contain flame retardants linked to cancer, developmental problems, reduced IQ and impaired fertility," reported the Tribune.

California was the impetus for the addition of the chemicals to upholstered furniture and now it's the impetus for their removal. Furniture companies began loading sofas with flame retardant upholstery foam after the state passed TB-117 in 1975. That law required the foam to meet a certain level of resistance to an open flame, providing home residents with a window of escape in case of fire. Since California is such a big market, companies just added it to all their furniture.

But evidence emerged over the years that not only were the chemicals escaping into the air and causing potential health problems but they weren't even that effective in fending off fires. Public sentiment turned against them. In late 2013, California passed new flammability standards which kicked in at the beginning of this month. While not banning flame retardants, they no longer require that furniture be resistant to open flame but only to smoldering cigarettes. Most upholstery fabrics meet that standard without chemicals, eliminating  the need for fire-resistant foam underneath. For greater consumer protection, the state later added a requirement that  products containing the chemicals be labeled.

The California law was challenged by Chemtura Corp., one of the world's largest makers of chemical flame retardants, but its challenge was dismissed by a judge in California in August who said its reasoning would lead to "absurd results." Chemtura, which devoted $23 million to lobbying against the new standards over a five-year period and defeated five previous failed efforts to reform the California standards, is most likely concerned with another result: the hit to its profits.

“Eliminating toxic flame retardant chemicals makes our homes safer while improving our health. The industry is responding, but with varying degrees of success to consumers. We urge other leading furniture retailers to adopt policies with clear timeframes to phase out these unnecessary and dangerous chemicals," said Schade.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

New Guide to Flame Retardants in Baby Products

10 Environmental Health Questions to Ask When Choosing Childcare

Michael Green Takes on Toxic Chemicals

Show Comments ()
Sponsored
iStock

The Hazards of EIA Energy Forecasts

Accepting the conclusions of the latest energy outlook, released last week by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) means also accepting certain climate catastrophe.

As we have noted before, the EIA has made a routine out of releasing unrealistic, distorted and dangerous outlooks on the future of global energy demand. These projections should come with a warning label.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular

Sci-Fi Novel Envisions Corporatocracy in a Climate-Changed Future

By Nexus Media, with Tal M. Klein

In Tal Klein's new novel, The Punch Escrow, humans have successfully tackled disease and climate change, but powerful corporations control everything. The book has created a stir among sci-fi fans, and there are already plans to adapt it to the big screen. In this conversation with Nexus Media, Klein shares his perspective on science, technology and the future of our species. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Dubai Electricity and Water Authority Facebook

World's Largest Solar Park to Also Host World's Tallest Solar Tower

The Dubai government has awarded a $3.9 billion contract to construct the 700-megawatt fourth and final phase of the world-record-holding Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Solar Park.

The project also includes the construction of an 850-foot-tall solar tower that receives focused sunlight, the world's tallest such structure once complete.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
Nike

Nike's New 'Flyleather' Sneakers Are Made From 50% Recycled Leather

By Daniele Selby

Nike's new sneakers are pretty fly—and we're not just talking about how they look. The company's new Flyleather sneakers look good, feel great and are less damaging to the environment.

In 2012, Nike introduced its Flyknit technology, which recycled plastic and other material into lightweight shoes, according to GQ. With Flyknit shoes, Nike aimed to make sustainable fashion functional and trendy, and it has applied that same mentality to its new Flyleather shoes, which it unveiled this week to coincide with Climate Week.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of 15 threatened wild places profiled in "Too Wild To Drill." Florian Schulz

These 15 Unique Wild Lands Are Threatened By Extractive Industries

A new report released Tuesday by The Wilderness Society raises the alarm about wild lands threatened by extractive industries eager to exploit the resources on or underneath them, including oil, gas and coal.

Too Wild To Drill identifies 15 unique places found on public lands that are at high risk of drilling, mining and other development—and the damage and destruction that inevitably follow. These lands provide Americans with important benefits such as clean air and water, wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and jobs and other socioeconomic benefits.

Keep reading... Show less
Popular
USGS Science Explorer page has zero search results for "effects of climate change." It previously had 2,825 items, according to climate scientist Peter Gleick.

'No Results Found': Thousands of Climate Science Links Purged From USGS Online Database

Yet another U.S. agency has deleted climate change information from its website. This time, the U.S. Geological Survey's "Science Explorer" website—a tax-payer funded online database for the public to browse USGS science programs and activities—has been purged of thousands of formerly searchable climate science links.

The startling discovery was made by Peter Gleick, a climate scientist and member of the U.S. National Academy of Science.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored
New York City lights up green to stand for the Paris agreement. C40 Cities

These Companies Support Climate Action, So Why Are They Funding Opposition to It?

By Rachel Leven and Jamie Smith Hopkins

The international climate-fighting pact would create jobs, Google said. Leaving the deal known as the Paris accord would be bad for business, top executives from Bank of America and Coca-Cola argued. When President Donald Trump committed to yanking the U.S. out anyway, PayPal and Western Union countered "We are still in."

These corporate titans and at least 22 others were among those who sought to preserve the U.S.' role in the landmark Paris agreement ratified by about 160 countries. So why exactly would these 27 business powerhouses also support a GOP group that's fought to undo a key Obama-era domestic climate initiative?

Keep reading... Show less

How Monsanto Manufactured 'Outrage' at Chemical Cancer Classification It Expected

By Carey Gillam

Three years ago this month Monsanto executives realized they had a big problem on their hands.

It was September 2014 and the company's top-selling chemical, the weed killer called glyphosate that is the foundation for Monsanto's branded Roundup products, had been selected as one among a handful of pesticides to undergo scrutiny by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Monsanto had spent decades fending off concerns about the safety of glyphosate and decrying scientific research indicating the chemical might cause cancer or other diseases. And even though the IARC review was still months away, Monsanto's own scientists knew what the outcome would likely be—and they knew it wouldn't be good.

Keep reading... Show less
Sponsored

mail-copy

Get EcoWatch in your inbox