Tribune WaTchdog Playing with fire - Pulitzer · Tribune WaTchdog Playing with fire A deceptive campaign by industry brought toxic flame retardants into our homes and into our bodies

Tribune WaTchdog

Playing with fire A deceptive campaign by industry brought toxic

flame retardants into our homes and into our bodies. And the chemicals don’t even work as promised.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

By Patricia Callahan and Sam Roe

Dr. David Heimbach knows how to tell a story. Before California lawmakers last year, the noted burn surgeon drew gasps from

the crowd as he described a 7-week-old baby girl who was burned in a fire started by a candle while she lay on a pillow that lacked flame retardant chemicals.

“Now this is a tiny little person, no bigger than my Italian greyhound at home,” said Heimbach, gesturing to approximate the baby’s size. “Half of her body was se-verely burned. She ultimately died after about three weeks of pain and misery in the hospital.”

Heimbach’s passionate testimony about the baby’s death made the long-term health concerns about flame retardants voiced by doctors, environmentalists and even firefighters sound abstract and petty.

But there was a problem with his testimony: It wasn’t true. Records show there was no dangerous pillow or candle fire. The baby he described didn’t exist.

Neither did the 9-week-old patient who Heimbach told California legislators died in a candle fire in 2009. Nor did the 6-week-old patient who he told Alaska lawmakers was fatally burned in her crib in 2010.

Heimbach is not just a prominent burn doctor. He is a star witness for the manu-facturers of flame retardants.

His testimony, the Tribune found, is part of a decades-long campaign of decep-tion that has loaded the furniture and electronics in American homes with pounds of toxic chemicals linked to cancer, neurological deficits, developmental problems and impaired fertility.

The tactics started with Big Tobacco, which wanted to shift focus away from cigarettes as the cause of fire deaths, and continued as chemical companies worked to preserve a lucrative market for their products, according to a Tribune review of thousands of government, scientific and internal industry documents.

These powerful industries distorted science in ways that overstated the benefits of the chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog group that stoked the pub-lic’s fear of fire and helped organize and steer an association of top fire officials that spent more than a decade campaigning for their cause.

Today, scientists know that some flame retardants escape from household prod-ucts and settle in dust. That’s why toddlers, who play on the floor and put things in their mouths, generally have far higher levels of these chemicals in their bodies than their parents.

Blood levels of certain widely used flame retardants doubled in adults every two to five years between 1970 and 2004. More recent studies show levels haven’t de-clined in the U.S. even though some of the chemicals have been pulled from the market. A typical American baby is born with the highest recorded concentrations of flame retardants among infants in the world.

People might be willing to accept the health risks if the flame retardants packed into sofas and easy chairs worked as promised. But they don’t.

The chemical industry often points to a government study from the 1980s as

proof that flame retardants save lives. But the study’s lead author, Vytenis Babraus-kas, said in an interview that the industry has grossly distorted his findings and that the amount of retardants used in household furniture doesn’t work.

“The fire just laughs at it,” he said. Other government scientists subsequently found that the flame retardants in

household furniture don’t protect consumers from fire in any meaningful way. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, has allowed genera-

tion after generation of flame retardants onto the market and into American homes without thoroughly assessing the health risks. The EPA even promoted one chemi-cal mixture as a safe, eco-friendly flame retardant despite grave concerns from its own scientists about potential hazards to humans and wildlife.

Since the 1970s manufacturers have repeatedly withdrawn flame re-tardants amid health concerns. Some have been banned by a United Na-tions treaty that seeks to eliminate the worst chemicals in the world.

Chemtura Corp. and Albemarle Corp., the two biggest U.S. manufac-turers of flame retardants, say their products are safe and effective, argu-ing that they have been extensively evaluated by government agencies here and in Europe.

“Flame retardants provide an es-sential tool to enable manufacturers of products to meet the fire safety codes and standards necessary to protect life and property in a modern world,” John Gustavsen, a Chemtura spokes-man, said in a written statement.

His company, Gustavsen said, strongly disagrees with the main find-ings of the Tribune’s investigation.

Heimbach, the burn doctor, has regularly supported the industry’s position that flame retardants save lives. But he now acknowledges the stories he told lawmakers about victims were not always factual.

He 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.”

Heimbach, a retired Seattle doctor and former president of the American Burn Association, also said his anecdotes were not about different children but about the same infant. But records and interviews show that the baby Heimbach said he had in mind when testifying didn’t die as he described and that flame retardants were not a factor.

After the Tribune confronted chemical executives with Heimbach’s question-able testimony, he offered, through his lawyer, another explanation for why his sto-ries didn’t add up: He intentionally changed the facts to protect patient privacy.

Yet the most crucial parts of his testimony — the cause of the fire and the lack of flame retardants — had nothing to do with privacy. Instead, they served to bolster

What do mothers want?

Mother’s Day is just a week away. Faced with the annualtask of divining what mothers want, the Tribune’s EllenWarren smartly turned to ... mothers. Each woman sharedtwo ideas: one that money can buy, and one that moneycan’t buy. And yes, sleep made the list. Sunday section

Plus: Fresh ideas for heartfelt gifts. Money & Real Estate

Sunday, May 6, 2012

D Final

$1.99 city and suburbs, $3.00 elsewhere165th year No. 127 © Chicago Tribune

Tribunefindings

Four-part investigation

INDUSTRY DECEPTION

Makers of flame retardantswage a deceptive campaignto boost demand for thechemicals even though they don’t work as billed and put our health at risk.Sunday

TOBACCO’S CLOUT

With cigarettes starting deadlyfires, tobacco companiescreated a new scapegoat — thefurniture going up in flames —and invested in a national groupof fire officials that woulddeliver the message. Tuesday

DISTORTING SCIENCE

Chemical companies sayscience shows that flameretardants prevent fire deathsand are safe, but the researchthey often cite is eitherseriously flawed or grosslydistorted. Wednesday

TOXIC ROULETTE

The U.S. government hasallowed generations of flameretardants onto the marketwithout thoroughly assessingthe risks. One chemical touted assafe is now turning up in wildlifearound the world. Thursday

Chicago officials are describing a long list ofroad closings, parking bansand mass-transit reroutesduring the NATO summitweekend as “minor incon-veniences,” but independ-ent transportation expertsaren’t so sure. Their bestadvice to drivers planningto head downtown on May 19-21? Don’t do it.Chicagoland, Page 4

NATO summit to be a hard roadfor motorists

Good deals are flying. We help you choose. Business

Airline credit cards up the perks

The five accused co-conspirators inthe 9/11 attacks, including allegedmastermind Khalid Sheikh Mo-hammed, right, staged a silent pro-test before a U.S. military tribunal atGuantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Sat-urday. Nation & World, Page 35

At 9/11 tribunal, sullen silence from suspects

Bulls down, but not out (yet)BULL RUN GAME 4 BULLS AT 76ERS

Playoff challenge intensifies without Rose and Noah hurting Chicago Sports

Luol Deng

Neither did the 9-week-oldpatient who Heimbach toldCalifornia legislators died in acandle fire in 2009. Nor did the6-week-old patient who he toldAlaska lawmakers was fatallyburned in her crib in 2010.

Heimbach is not just a prom-inent burn doctor. He is a starwitness for the manufacturersof flame retardants.

His testimony, the Tribunefound, is part of a decades-longcampaign of deception that hasloaded the furniture and elec-tronics in American homeswith pounds of toxic chemicalslinked to cancer, neurologicaldeficits, developmental prob-lems and impaired fertility.

The tactics started with BigTobacco, which wanted to shiftfocus away from cigarettes asthe cause of fire deaths, andcontinued as chemical compa-nies worked to preserve a lucra-tive market for their products,according to a Tribune reviewof thousands of government,scientific and internal industrydocuments.

These powerful industriesdistorted science in ways thatoverstated the benefits of thechemicals, created a phony con-sumer watchdog group that

stoked the public’s fear of fireand helped organize and steeran association of top fire offi-cials that spent more than adecade campaigning for theircause.

Today, scientists know thatsome flame retardants escapefrom household products andsettle in dust. That’s why tod-dlers, who play on the floor andput things in their mouths,generally have far higher levelsof these chemicals in theirbodies than their parents.

Blood levels of certain widelyused flame retardants doubledin adults every two to five yearsbetween 1970 and 2004. Morerecent studies show levelshaven’t declined in the U.S. eventhough some of the chemicalshave been pulled from themarket. A typical Americanbaby is born with the highestrecorded concentrations offlame retardants among infantsin the world.

People might be willing toaccept the health risks if theflame retardants packed intosofas and easy chairs worked aspromised. But they don’t.

The chemical industry often

Playing with fireA deceptive campaign by industry brought toxic flame retardants into ourhomes and into our bodies. And the chemicals don’t even work as promised.

TRIBUNE WATCHDOG

r. David Heimbach knows how to tell a story.

Before California lawmakers last year, the noted burn

surgeon drew gasps from the crowd as he described a

7-week-old baby girl who was burned in a fire started by a candle

while she lay on a pillow that lacked flame retardant chemicals.

“Now this is a tiny little person, no bigger than my Italian

greyhound at home,” said Heimbach, gesturing to approximate the

baby’s size. “Half of her body was severely burned. She ultimately

died after about three weeks of pain and misery in the hospital.”

Heimbach’s passionate testimony about the baby’s death made

the long-term health concerns about flame retardants voiced by

doctors, environmentalists and even firefighters sound abstract

and petty.

But there was a problem with his testimony: It wasn’t true.

Records show there was no dangerous pillow or candle fire. The

baby he described didn’t exist.

By Patricia Callahan and Sam RoeTribune reporters

UP IN FLAMES: Government scientists found that chairs containing flame retardants, like the

one being tested above, burned just as fast as identical chairs without them. Story, Page 22

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION PHOTO

Please turn to Page 20

D

Chicago Weather Center: Complete forecast in Nation & World, Page 43Tom Skilling’s forecast High 73 Low 60

Product: CTBroadsheet PubDate: 05-06-2012 Zone: ALL Edition: SHD Page: MAINCOV-1 User: grejohnson Time: 05-05-2012 23:54 Color: CMYK

Consumer ProduCt safety Commission Photo

up in flames: Government scientists found that chairs con-

taining flame retardants, like the one being tested above,

burned just as fast as identical chairs without them.

the industry’s argument that chemical retardants save lives. In the last quarter-century, worldwide demand for flame retardants has skyrock-

eted to 3.4 billion pounds in 2009 from 526 million pounds in 1983, according to market research from The Freedonia Group, which projects demand will reach 4.4 billion pounds by 2014.

As evidence of the health risks associated with these chemicals piled up, the in-dustry mounted a misleading campaign to fuel demand.

There is no better example of these deceptive tactics than the Citizens for Fire Safety Institute, the industry front group that sponsored Heimbach and his vivid testimony about burned babies.

Fear and deception In the website photo, five grinning children stand in front of a red brick fire sta-

tion that could be on any corner in America. They hold a hand-drawn banner that says “fire safety” with a heart dotting the letter “i.”

Citizens for Fire Safety describes itself as a group of people with altruistic inten-tions: “a coalition of fire professionals, educators, community activists, burn centers, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders, united to ensure that our country is protected by the highest standards of fire safety.”

Heimbach summoned that image when he told lawmakers that the organization was “made up of many people like me who have no particular interest in the chemi-cal companies: numerous fire departments, numerous firefighters and many, many burn docs.”

But public records demonstrate that Citizens for Fire Safety actually is a trade association for chemical com-panies. Its executive director, Grant Gillham, honed his political skills advising tobacco executives. And the group’s efforts to influence fire-safety policies are guid-ed by a mission to “promote common business interests of members involved with the chemical manufacturing industry,” tax records show.

Its only sources of funding — about $17 million be-tween 2008 and 2010 — are “membership dues and as-sessments” and the interest that money earns.

The group has only three members: Albemarle, ICL Industrial Products and Chemtura, according to re-cords the organization filed with California lobbying regulators.

Those three companies are the largest manufactur-ers of flame retardants and together control 40 percent of the world market for these chemicals, according to The Freedonia Group, a Cleveland-based research firm.

Citizens for Fire Safety has spent its money primar-ily on lobbying and political expenses, tax records show. Since federal law makes it nearly impossible for the EPA to ban toxic chemicals and Congress rarely steps in, state legislatures from Alaska to Vermont have become the sites of intense battles over flame retardants.

Many of the witnesses supporting flame retardants at these hearings were either paid directly by Citizens for Fire Safety or were members of groups that benefited financially from Citizens for Fire Safety’s donations, according to tax documents and other records.

At the same time, Citizens for Fire Safety has portrayed its opposition as mis-

21B Chicago Tribune | Section 1 | Sunday, May 6, 2012

about its funding of Citizens forFire Safety.

“We believe that this supportfor advocacy groups is critical toraise awareness of the importanceof fire safety and give a voice tothose who want to speak out onthis important public issue,” Clarysaid in a written statement.

Citizens for Fire Safety is thelatest in a string of industry groupsthat have sprung up on differentcontinents in the last 15 years —casting doubt on health concerns,shooting down restrictions andworking to expand the market forflame retardants.

For example, the Bromine Sci-ence and Environmental Forum,based in Brussels, may sound like aneutral scientific body. But it wasfounded and funded by fourchemical manufacturers, includ-ing Albemarle, to influence thedebate about flame retardantsmade with bromine.

Albemarle’s global director ofproduct advocacy, Raymond Daw-son, said in blunt testimony beforeWashington state lawmakers in2007 that the forum is “a groupdedicated to generating science insupport of brominated flame re-tardants.”

An official from Burson-Mar-steller, the global public relationsfirm that helps run the organiza-tion, said the bromine group is notmisleading anyone because regu-lators, scientists and other stake-holders are well-aware it repre-sents industry.

The PR firm also helps run theAlliance for Consumer Fire Safetyin Europe, which is funded by atrade association of flame retard-

ant manufacturers. The alliance’sdirector, Bob Graham, said thegroup’s aim is to improve fire-safety standards for upholsteredfurniture sold in Europe.

The group’s website taps intothe public’s fear of fire, touting an“interactive burn test tool” that

allows visitors to choose a Euro-pean country and watch a sofafrom that nation being torched.

Next to a photo of an easy chairfully engulfed in flames, fourwords stand out in large capitalletters: “ARE YOU SITTINGCOMFORTABLY?”

‘A child crying’The amount of flame retardants

in a typical American home isn’tmeasured in parts per billion orparts per million. It’s measured inounces and pounds.

A large couch can have up to 2

pounds in its foam cushions. Thechemicals also are inside somehighchairs, diaper-changing padsand breast-feeding pillows. Recy-clers turn chemically treated foaminto the padding underneath car-pets.

“When we’re eating organic,we’re avoiding very smallamounts of pesticides,” said Ar-lene Blum, a California chemistwho has fought to limit flameretardants in household products.“Then we sit on our couch thatcan contain a pound of chemicalsthat’s from the same family asbanned pesticides like DDT.”

These chemicals are ubiquitousnot because federal rules demandit. In fact, scientists at the U.S.Consumer Product Safety Com-mission have determined that theflame retardants in householdfurniture aren’t effective, andsome pose unnecessary healthrisks.

The chemicals are widely usedbecause of an obscure ruleadopted by California regulatorsin 1975. Back then, a state chemistdevised an easy-to-replicate burntest that didn’t require manufac-turers to set furniture on fire, anexpensive proposition.

The test calls for exposing rawfoam to a candle-like flame for 12seconds. The cheapest way to passthe test is to add flame retardantsto the foam inside cushions.

But couches aren’t made offoam alone. In a real fire, theupholstery fabric, typically nottreated with flame retardants,burns first, and the flames growbig enough that they overwhelmeven fire-retardant foam, scien-tists at two federal agencies havefound.

Nevertheless, in the decadessince that rule went into effect,lawyers have regularly argued thattheir burn-victim clients wouldhave been spared if only theirsofas had been made with Califor-nia foam. Faced with the specterof these lawsuits — and thelogistical challenge of producingseparate products just for Califor-nia — many manufacturers beganusing flame retardant foam acrosstheir product lines.

As a result, California has be-come the most critical battle-ground in recent years for ad-vocates trying to reduce the preva-lence of these chemicals in Ameri-can homes.

Citizens for Fire Safety hassuccessfully fought back with apowerful, and surprising, tactic:making flame retardants a racialissue.

The group and witnesses withties to it have argued that impov-erished, minority children wouldburn to death if flame retardantswere removed from householdproducts.

In 2009, for instance, membersof the California State Assemblywere considering a bill that wouldhave made it unnecessary to addflame retardants to many babyproducts by excluding them fromthe state’s flammability regula-tion.

Up to the microphone steppedZyra McCloud, an African-Ameri-can community activist from In-glewood, Calif.

McCloud was president of acommunity group that listed Citi-zens for Fire Safety as a sponsoron its website and included photosof McCloud with Gillham, theexecutive director. She did notdisclose this connection to theassembly, nor was she asked.

In a news release, Citizens forFire Safety already had quotedMcCloud saying that minoritychildren, who constitute a dis-proportionate share of fire deaths,would bear the brunt of the“ill-conceived and unsafe legisla-tion.”

At the hearing, the committeechairwoman told both sides theywere out of time for testimony, butMcCloud pleaded with her toallow two elementary school stu-dents from her district to addresslawmakers.

“We have spent all weekendlong with the kids that have hadfamily members and friends whohave died in fires, and we arepraying and appealing to you thatyou would at least allow the twoboys to speak,” she said.

One of the boys, a 10-year-old,read from a statement.

“I just want you to imagine achild crying for help in a burningbuilding, dying, when there was aperson who only had to vote tosave their life,” he said.

Citizens for Fire Safety pre-vailed. The bill later went down todefeat.

McCloud told the Tribune,“I’ve always been a person that’sfought against things that wouldhurt children.” She then asked forquestions in writing but neveranswered them.

Nearly two years after that billfailed, one of the nation’s top burnsurgeons would also invoke theimage of a dead child beforeCalifornia lawmakers on behalf of

Please turn to Next Page

ROBERT DURELL/PHOTO FOR THE TRIBUNE

JORDAN SILVERMAN/PHOTO FOR THE TRIBUNE

CHEMICALS

STATUS

Types of flame retardantsMany flame retardants are made with bromine or chlorine, which slow fire’s combustive reaction by taking the place of oxygen. However, tests have cast doubt on whether adding the chemicals to uphol-stered furniture is effective, and concerns over health risks have forced some products off the market.

Penta and octa

Polybrominated

diphenyl ethers,

or PBDEs

Build up rapidly in

breast milk and

human blood.

Hormone disruption,

developmental

problems, neurologi-

cal deficits, impaired

fertility.

Not in use.

After the European

Union voted in 2003 to

ban the chemicals,

U.S. makers pulled

them from the market.

Penta is still present in

older furniture, other

products containing

foam and recycled

carpet padding.

Deca

Also a PBDE

Persists in the

environment and

creates penta as it

breaks down.

Potential carcinogen,

neurological deficits.

Being phased out.

Manufacturers

voluntarily agreed

to end production

by December 2013.

It is still present

in the casing of older

electronics and

in wire insulation,

textiles, automobiles

and airplanes.

Chlorinated tris

Also known as

TDCCP

Probable carcinogen,


Still in use.

Voluntarily removed

from children’s

sleepwear in late

1970s but still widely

used in furniture

foam. Also has been

found in baby

products containing

polyurethane foam.

Firemaster 550

Brand name

Chemical’s bromi-

nated components

found in wildlife.

Levels increasing in

air around the Great

Lakes. Develop-

mental problems

at high doses.

Still in use.

Introduced in 2003

as a replacement

for penta. Identified

for “high priority”

review by U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency.

SOURCES: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, National Research Council, peer-reviewed research. TRIBUNE

HAZARDS

Continued from Page 20

“Citizens for Fire Safety did everything they could to portraythemselves as firefighters, as Vermont citizens for fire safety,when it really wasn’t Vermont citizens for fire safety at all.”— Matt Vinci, above, president of a Vermont firefighters union, who lobbied against a flame retardant

“I’m a well-meaning guy. I’m not in the pocket of industry.”— Dr. David Heimbach, a burn expert. Above, Heimbach testifies in 2011 against a California state Senate bill that could have reduced the use offlame retardant chemicals in furniture. He told the Tribune that Citizens for Fire Safety has paid for his travel to testify and for some of his time.

This 2008 ad in the Los Angeles

Times helped Citizens for Fire

Safety, a front group for the mak-

ers of flame retardant chemicals,

defeat a California bill that would

have reduced the widespread use

of flame retardants in products.

Product: CTBroadsheet PubDate: 05-06-2012 Zone: ALL Edition: SHD Page: MAIN1-21 User: grejohnson Time: 05-05-2012 22:23 Color: K

guided, wealthy environmentalists. But its opponents include a diverse group of public health advocates as well as firefighters who are alarmed by studies showing some flame retardants can make smoke from fires even more toxic.

Matt Vinci, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Vermont, faced what he called “dirty tactics” when he successfully lobbied for his state to ban one flame retardant chemical in 2009.

Particularly offensive to Vinci were letters Citizens for Fire Safety sent to Ver-mont fire chiefs saying the ban would “present an additional hazard for those of us in the fire safety profession.” But the letter’s author wasn’t a firefighter; he was a California public relations consultant.

“Citizens for Fire Safety did everything they could to portray themselves as fire-fighters, as Vermont citizens for fire safety, when it really wasn’t Vermont citizens for fire safety at all,” Vinci said.

The group also has misrepresented itself in other ways. On its website, Citizens for Fire Safety said it had joined with the international firefighters’ association, the Amer-ican Burn Association and a key federal agency “to conduct ongoing studies to ensure safe and effective fire prevention.”

Both of those organizations and the federal agency, however, said that simply is not true.

“They are lying,” said Jeff Zack, a spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters. “They aren’t working with us on anything.”

After inquiries from the Tribune, Citizens for Fire Safety deleted that passage from its website.

Gillham, the executive director, declined to comment. Albemarle, Chemtura and ICL Industrial Prod-ucts also declined to answer specific questions about the group.

Albemarle Chief Sustainability Officer David Clary did say that his company has been transparent about its funding of Citizens for Fire Safety.

“We believe that this support for advocacy groups is critical to raise awareness of the importance of fire safety and give a voice to those who want to speak out on this important public issue,” Clary said in a written statement.

Citizens for Fire Safety is the latest in a string of industry groups that have sprung up on different continents in the last 15 years — casting doubt on health concerns, shooting down restrictions and working to expand the market for flame retardants.

For example, the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum, based in Brussels, may sound like a neutral scientific body. But it was founded and funded by four chemical manufacturers, including Albemarle, to influence the debate about flame retardants made with bromine.

Albemarle’s global director of product advocacy, Raymond Dawson, said in blunt testimony before Washington state lawmakers in 2007 that the forum is “a group dedicated to generating science in support of brominated flame retardants.”

An official from Burson-Marsteller, the global public relations firm that helps run the organization, said the bromine group is not misleading anyone because reg-








































CHEMICALS

STATUS


Penta and octa

Polybrominated

diphenyl ethers,

or PBDEs

Build up rapidly in

breast milk and

human blood.

Hormone disruption,

developmental



fertility.

Not in use.

After the European


ban the chemicals,

U.S. makers pulled




products containing

foam and recycled

carpet padding.

Deca

Also a PBDE

Persists in the

environment and

creates penta as it

breaks down.



Being phased out.

Manufacturers

voluntarily agreed

to end production

by December 2013.

It is still present


electronics and

in wire insulation,


and airplanes.

Chlorinated tris

Also known as

TDCCP



Still in use.

Voluntarily removed

from children’s

sleepwear in late


used in furniture

foam. Also has been

found in baby

products containing

polyurethane foam.

Firemaster 550

Brand name

Chemical’s bromi-

nated components

found in wildlife.



Lakes. Develop-

mental problems

at high doses.

Still in use.

Introduced in 2003

as a replacement



review by U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency.


HAZARDS












Jordan siLVerman/Photo for the triBune

“Citizens for Fire Safety did everything they could to portray themselves as firefighters, as Vermont citizens for fire safety, when it really wasn’t Vermont citizens for fire safety at all.”— Matt Vinci, above, president of a Vermont firefighters union, who lobbied against a flame retardant.

ulators, scientists and other stakeholders are well-aware it represents industry. The PR firm also helps run the Alliance for Consumer Fire Safety in Europe,

which is funded by a trade association of flame retardant manufacturers. The alli-ance’s director, Bob Graham, said the group’s aim is to improve fire-safety standards for upholstered furniture sold in Europe.

The group’s website taps into the public’s fear of fire, touting an “interactive burn test tool” that allows visitors to choose a European country and watch a sofa from that nation being torched.

Next to a photo of an easy chair fully engulfed in flames, four words stand out in large capital letters: “ARE YOU SITTING COMFORTABLY?”

‘A child crying’ The amount of flame retardants in a typical American home isn’t measured in

parts per billion or parts per million. It’s measured in ounces and pounds. A large couch can have up to 2 pounds in its foam cushions. The chemicals also

are inside some highchairs, diaper-changing pads and breast-feeding pillows. Re-cyclers turn chemically treated foam into the padding underneath carpets.

“When we’re eating organic, we’re avoiding very small amounts of pesti-cides,” said Arlene Blum, a California chemist who has fought to limit flame retardants in household products. “Then we sit on our couch that can contain a pound of chemicals that’s from the same family as banned pes-ticides like DDT.”

These chemicals are ubiquitous not because federal rules demand it. In fact, scientists at the U.S. Con-sumer Product Safety Commission have determined that the flame retar-dants in household furniture aren’t effective, and some pose unnecessary health risks.

The chemicals are widely used be-cause of an obscure rule adopted by California regulators in 1975. Back then, a state chemist devised an easy-to-replicate burn test that didn’t require man-ufacturers to set furniture on fire, an expensive proposition.

The test calls for exposing raw foam to a candle-like flame for 12 seconds. The cheapest way to pass the test is to add flame retardants to the foam inside cushions.

But couches aren’t made of foam alone. In a real fire, the upholstery fabric, typi-cally not treated with flame retardants, burns first, and the flames grow big enough that they overwhelm even fire-retardant foam, scientists at two federal agencies have found.

Nevertheless, in the decades since that rule went into effect, lawyers have regu-larly argued that their burn-victim clients would have been spared if only their sofas had been made with California foam. Faced with the specter of these lawsuits — and the logistical challenge of producing separate products just for California — many manufacturers began using flame retardant foam across their product lines.

As a result, California has become the most critical battleground in recent years for advocates trying to reduce the prevalence of these chemicals in American homes.

20 Chicago Tribune | Section 1 | Sunday, May 6, 2012 B

points to a government study fromthe 1980s as proof that flameretardants save lives. But thestudy’s lead author, Vytenis Ba-brauskas, said in an interview thatthe industry has grossly distortedhis findings and that the amountof retardants used in householdfurniture doesn’t work.

“The fire just laughs at it,” hesaid.

Other government scientistssubsequently found that the flameretardants in household furnituredon’t protect consumers from firein any meaningful way.

The U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, meanwhile, hasallowed generation after genera-tion of flame retardants onto themarket and into American homeswithout thoroughly assessing thehealth risks. The EPA even pro-moted one chemical mixture as asafe, eco-friendly flame retardantdespite grave concerns from itsown scientists about potentialhazards to humans and wildlife.

Since the 1970s manufacturershave repeatedly withdrawn flameretardants amid health concerns.Some have been banned by aUnited Nations treaty that seeks toeliminate the worst chemicals inthe world.

Chemtura Corp. and AlbemarleCorp., the two biggest U.S. manu-facturers of flame retardants, saytheir products are safe and effec-tive, arguing that they have beenextensively evaluated by govern-ment agencies here and in Europe.

“Flame retardants provide anessential tool to enable manufac-turers of products to meet the firesafety codes and standards neces-sary to protect life and property ina modern world,” John Gustavsen,a Chemtura spokesman, said in awritten statement.

His company, Gustavsen said,strongly disagrees with the mainfindings of the Tribune’s investi-gation.

Heimbach, the burn doctor, hasregularly supported the industry’sposition that flame retardants savelives. But he now acknowledgesthe stories he told lawmakersabout victims were not alwaysfactual.

He told the Tribune his testi-mony in California was “an anec-dotal story rather than anythingwhich I would say was absolutelytrue under oath, because I wasn’tunder oath.”

Heimbach, a retired Seattledoctor and former president of theAmerican Burn Association, alsosaid his anecdotes were not aboutdifferent children but about thesame infant. But records andinterviews show that the babyHeimbach said he had in mindwhen testifying didn’t die as hedescribed and that flame retar-dants were not a factor.

After the Tribune confrontedchemical executives with Heim-bach’s questionable testimony, heoffered, through his lawyer, an-other explanation for why hisstories didn’t add up: He inten-tionally changed the facts to pro-tect patient privacy.

Yet the most crucial parts of histestimony — the cause of the fireand the lack of flame retardants —had nothing to do with privacy.Instead, they served to bolster theindustry’s argument that chemicalretardants save lives.

In the last quarter-century,worldwide demand for flame re-tardants has skyrocketed to 3.4billion pounds in 2009 from 526million pounds in 1983, accordingto market research from TheFreedonia Group, which projectsdemand will reach 4.4 billionpounds by 2014.

As evidence of the health risksassociated with these chemicalspiled up, the industry mounted amisleading campaign to fuel de-mand.

There is no better example ofthese deceptive tactics than theCitizens for Fire Safety Institute,the industry front group thatsponsored Heimbach and his viv-id testimony about burned babies.

Fear and deceptionIn the website photo, five grin-

ning children stand in front of ared brick fire station that could beon any corner in America. Theyhold a hand-drawn banner thatsays “fire safety” with a heartdotting the letter “i.”

Citizens for Fire Safety de-scribes itself as a group of peoplewith altruistic intentions: “a coali-tion of fire professionals, educa-tors, community activists, burncenters, doctors, fire departmentsand industry leaders, united toensure that our country is pro-tected by the highest standards offire safety.”

Heimbach summoned that im-age when he told lawmakers that

the organization was “made up ofmany people like me who have noparticular interest in the chemicalcompanies: numerous fire depart-ments, numerous firefighters andmany, many burn docs.”

But public records demonstratethat Citizens for Fire Safety actu-ally is a trade association forchemical companies. Its executivedirector, Grant Gillham, honed his

political skills advising tobaccoexecutives. And the group’s effortsto influence fire-safety policies areguided by a mission to “promotecommon business interests ofmembers involved with thechemical manufacturing indus-try,” tax records show.

Its only sources of funding —about $17 million between 2008and 2010 — are “membership dues

and assessments” and the interestthat money earns.

The group has only three mem-bers: Albemarle, ICL IndustrialProducts and Chemtura, accord-ing to records the organizationfiled with California lobbyingregulators.

Those three companies are thelargest manufacturers of flameretardants and together control40 percent of the world market forthese chemicals, according to TheFreedonia Group, a Cleveland-based research firm.

Citizens for Fire Safety hasspent its money primarily onlobbying and political expenses,tax records show. Since federallaw makes it nearly impossible forthe EPA to ban toxic chemicalsand Congress rarely steps in, statelegislatures from Alaska to Ver-mont have become the sites ofintense battles over flame retar-dants.

Many of the witnesses support-ing flame retardants at thesehearings were either paid directlyby Citizens for Fire Safety or weremembers of groups that benefitedfinancially from Citizens for FireSafety’s donations, according totax documents and other records.

At the same time, Citizens forFire Safety has portrayed its oppo-sition as misguided, wealthy envi-ronmentalists. But its opponentsinclude a diverse group of publichealth advocates as well as fire-fighters who are alarmed by stud-ies showing some flame retar-dants can make smoke from fireseven more toxic.

Matt Vinci, president of theProfessional Fire Fighters of Ver-mont, faced what he called “dirtytactics” when he successfully lob-

bied for his state to ban one flameretardant chemical in 2009.

Particularly offensive to Vinciwere letters Citizens for FireSafety sent to Vermont fire chiefssaying the ban would “present anadditional hazard for those of us inthe fire safety profession.” But theletter’s author wasn’t a firefighter;he was a California public rela-tions consultant.

“Citizens for Fire Safety dideverything they could to portraythemselves as firefighters, as Ver-mont citizens for fire safety, whenit really wasn’t Vermont citizensfor fire safety at all,” Vinci said.

The group also has misrepre-sented itself in other ways. On itswebsite, Citizens for Fire Safetysaid it had joined with the interna-tional firefighters’ association, theAmerican Burn Association and akey federal agency “to conductongoing studies to ensure safe andeffective fire prevention.”

Both of those organizations andthe federal agency, however, saidthat simply is not true.

“They are lying,” said Jeff Zack,a spokesman for the InternationalAssociation of Fire Fighters.“They aren’t working with us onanything.”

After inquiries from the Trib-une, Citizens for Fire Safety dele-ted that passage from its website.

Gillham, the executive director,declined to comment. Albemarle,Chemtura and ICL IndustrialProducts also declined to answerspecific questions about thegroup.

Albemarle Chief SustainabilityOfficer David Clary did say thathis company has been transparent

Front group stokes fear of fireContinued from Page 1


TRIBUNE WATCHDOG

PLAYING WITH FIRE


“When we’re eating organic, we’re avoidingvery small amounts of pesticides. Then wesit on our couch that can contain a poundof chemicals that’s from the same family asbanned pesticides like DDT.”— Arlene Blum, a California chemist who is fighting to limit flameretardants in household products. Above, she waits to testify before theCalifornia state Senate in 2011.

Most parents are forced to guess if toys,furniture and other household products areexposing their kids to toxic chemicals.

Heather Stapleton can figure it out in herlaboratory.

Stapleton, an environmental chemist atDuke University, is one of the nation’sleading experts on flame retardants. Herresearch shows that it is extremely difficultto avoid the chemicals, which she has foundnot only in furniture cushions, but also insuch unlikely fire hazards as breast-feedingpillows and diaper-changing pads.

“We detect these chemicals in almostevery home, particularly in dust,” Stapletonsaid. “When people ask me how to preventtheir kids from being exposed, I find it adifficult question to answer.”

In her own home, Stapleton switched theliving room from carpet to hardwood floorsin an attempt to keep dust from accumulat-ing.

She also bought mattresses made withorganic materials for her 3-year-old son andyear-old daughter to nap on at their day carecenter. Her tests showed the center’sregular foam mattresses were treated with

one of the flame retardant chemicals shestudies.

Not everyone can afford those dramaticsteps. Nor is it easy to figure out the specificchemical ingredients in products.

Furniture made with flame retardantsoften features a label that indicates it meetsflammability standards in California’s Tech-nical Bulletin 117. Many manufacturersapply the standards to products soldnationwide, and Stapleton cautions that shehas found flame retardants even in furni-ture that didn’t have such a label.

To reduce exposure to contaminateddust, Stapleton advises frequent hand-washing, noting that children typically areexposed to higher levels of flame retardantsthan adults because they spend so muchtime playing on the floor.

“Kids are always picking up toys andputting them in their mouths,” she said.“You can’t avoid it.”

She also advises caution with clothingdryer lint, which she said can be concen-trated not only with flame retardants, butalso with other toxic chemicals that escapefrom household products.

“I definitely recommend that everyonewashes their hands after touching dryerlint,” Stapleton said.

Labels providelittle help whenpicking productsBy Michael HawthorneTribune reporter

A furniture tag indicates the foam has been

treated with fire retardants. But even items

lacking this tag may have been treated.

ALEX GARCIA/TRIBUNE PHOTO

SOURCES: EPA, Tribune reporting KATIE NIELAND/TRIBUNE

Chemicals hard to avoid

WHERE FLAME RETARDANTS ARE FOUND

In the plastic casing

of some electronics

In home insulation

Flame retardants are present in virtually every American home even though some of the compounds have been linked to neurological deficits, developmental problems, impaired fertility and other health risks.

In upholstered furniture containing polyurethane foam —

manufacturers add it to meet flammability standards enacted by

California but followed nationwide

In some baby products

containing polyurethane

foam, including highchairs and diaper-changing pads

In carpet padding made

with recycled foam

In dust — children are

exposed to higher doses of

flame retardants than adults because they spend more

time on the floor and put

things in their mouths

Product: CTBroadsheet PubDate: 05-06-2012 Zone: ALL Edition: SHD Page: MAIN1-20 User: grejohnson Time: 05-05-2012 22:24 Color: CMYK

roBert dureLL/Photo for the triBune

“When we’re eating organic, we’re avoiding very small amounts of pesticides. Then we sit on our couch that can contain a pound of chemi-cals that’s from the same family as banned pesticides like DDT.” — Arlene Blum, a California chemist who is fighting to limit flame retardants in household products. Above, she waits to testify before the California state Senate in 2011.

Citizens for Fire Safety has successfully fought back with a powerful, and sur-prising, tactic: making flame retardants a racial issue.

The group and witnesses with ties to it have argued that impoverished, minor-ity children would burn to death if flame retardants were removed from household products.

In 2009, for instance, members of the California State Assembly were consider-ing a bill that would have made it unnecessary to add flame retardants to many baby products by excluding them from the state’s flammability regulation.

Up to the microphone stepped Zyra McCloud, an African-American community activist from Inglewood, Calif.

McCloud was president of a community group that listed Citizens for Fire Safety as a sponsor on its website and included photos of McCloud with Gillham, the execu-tive director. She did not disclose this connection to the assembly, nor was she asked.

In a news release, Citizens for Fire Safety already had quoted McCloud say-ing that minority children, who constitute a disproportionate share of fire deaths, would bear the brunt of the “ill-conceived and unsafe legislation.”

At the hearing, the committee chairwoman told both sides they were out of time for testimony, but McCloud pleaded with her to allow two elementary school stu-dents from her district to address lawmakers.

“We have spent all weekend long with the kids that have had family members and friends who have died in fires, and we are praying and appealing to you that you would at least allow the two boys to speak,” she said.

One of the boys, a 10-year-old, read from a statement.


points to a government study fromthe 1980s as proof that flameretardants save lives. But thestudy’s lead author, Vytenis Ba-brauskas, said in an interview thatthe industry has grossly distortedhis findings and that the amountof retardants used in householdfurniture doesn’t work.

“The fire just laughs at it,” hesaid.

Other government scientistssubsequently found that the flameretardants in household furnituredon’t protect consumers from firein any meaningful way.

The U.S. Environmental Pro-tection Agency, meanwhile, hasallowed generation after genera-tion of flame retardants onto themarket and into American homeswithout thoroughly assessing thehealth risks. The EPA even pro-moted one chemical mixture as asafe, eco-friendly flame retardantdespite grave concerns from itsown scientists about potentialhazards to humans and wildlife.

Since the 1970s manufacturershave repeatedly withdrawn flameretardants amid health concerns.Some have been banned by aUnited Nations treaty that seeks toeliminate the worst chemicals inthe world.

Chemtura Corp. and AlbemarleCorp., the two biggest U.S. manu-facturers of flame retardants, saytheir products are safe and effec-tive, arguing that they have beenextensively evaluated by govern-ment agencies here and in Europe.

“Flame retardants provide anessential tool to enable manufac-turers of products to meet the firesafety codes and standards neces-sary to protect life and property ina modern world,” John Gustavsen,a Chemtura spokesman, said in awritten statement.

His company, Gustavsen said,strongly disagrees with the mainfindings of the Tribune’s investi-gation.

Heimbach, the burn doctor, hasregularly supported the industry’sposition that flame retardants savelives. But he now acknowledgesthe stories he told lawmakersabout victims were not alwaysfactual.

He told the Tribune his testi-mony in California was “an anec-dotal story rather than anythingwhich I would say was absolutelytrue under oath, because I wasn’tunder oath.”

Heimbach, a retired Seattledoctor and former president of theAmerican Burn Association, alsosaid his anecdotes were not aboutdifferent children but about thesame infant. But records andinterviews show that the babyHeimbach said he had in mindwhen testifying didn’t die as hedescribed and that flame retar-dants were not a factor.

After the Tribune confrontedchemical executives with Heim-bach’s questionable testimony, heoffered, through his lawyer, an-other explanation for why hisstories didn’t add up: He inten-tionally changed the facts to pro-tect patient privacy.

Yet the most crucial parts of histestimony — the cause of the fireand the lack of flame retardants —had nothing to do with privacy.Instead, they served to bolster theindustry’s argument that chemicalretardants save lives.

In the last quarter-century,worldwide demand for flame re-tardants has skyrocketed to 3.4billion pounds in 2009 from 526million pounds in 1983, accordingto market research from TheFreedonia Group, which projectsdemand will reach 4.4 billionpounds by 2014.

As evidence of the health risksassociated with these chemicalspiled up, the industry mounted amisleading campaign to fuel de-mand.

There is no better example ofthese deceptive tactics than theCitizens for Fire Safety Institute,the industry front group thatsponsored Heimbach and his viv-id testimony about burned babies.

Fear and deceptionIn the website photo, five grin-

ning children stand in front of ared brick fire station that could beon any corner in America. Theyhold a hand-drawn banner thatsays “fire safety” with a heartdotting the letter “i.”

Citizens for Fire Safety de-scribes itself as a group of peoplewith altruistic intentions: “a coali-tion of fire professionals, educa-tors, community activists, burncenters, doctors, fire departmentsand industry leaders, united toensure that our country is pro-tected by the highest standards offire safety.”

Heimbach summoned that im-age when he told lawmakers that

the organization was “made up ofmany people like me who have noparticular interest in the chemicalcompanies: numerous fire depart-ments, numerous firefighters andmany, many burn docs.”

But public records demonstratethat Citizens for Fire Safety actu-ally is a trade association forchemical companies. Its executivedirector, Grant Gillham, honed his

political skills advising tobaccoexecutives. And the group’s effortsto influence fire-safety policies areguided by a mission to “promotecommon business interests ofmembers involved with thechemical manufacturing indus-try,” tax records show.

Its only sources of funding —about $17 million between 2008and 2010 — are “membership dues

and assessments” and the interestthat money earns.

The group has only three mem-bers: Albemarle, ICL IndustrialProducts and Chemtura, accord-ing to records the organizationfiled with California lobbyingregulators.

Those three companies are thelargest manufacturers of flameretardants and together control40 percent of the world market forthese chemicals, according to TheFreedonia Group, a Cleveland-based research firm.

Citizens for Fire Safety hasspent its money primarily onlobbying and political expenses,tax records show. Since federallaw makes it nearly impossible forthe EPA to ban toxic chemicalsand Congress rarely steps in, statelegislatures from Alaska to Ver-mont have become the sites ofintense battles over flame retar-dants.

Many of the witnesses support-ing flame retardants at thesehearings were either paid directlyby Citizens for Fire Safety or weremembers of groups that benefitedfinancially from Citizens for FireSafety’s donations, according totax documents and other records.

At the same time, Citizens forFire Safety has portrayed its oppo-sition as misguided, wealthy envi-ronmentalists. But its opponentsinclude a diverse group of publichealth advocates as well as fire-fighters who are alarmed by stud-ies showing some flame retar-dants can make smoke from fireseven more toxic.

Matt Vinci, president of theProfessional Fire Fighters of Ver-mont, faced what he called “dirtytactics” when he successfully lob-

bied for his state to ban one flameretardant chemical in 2009.

Particularly offensive to Vinciwere letters Citizens for FireSafety sent to Vermont fire chiefssaying the ban would “present anadditional hazard for those of us inthe fire safety profession.” But theletter’s author wasn’t a firefighter;he was a California public rela-tions consultant.

“Citizens for Fire Safety dideverything they could to portraythemselves as firefighters, as Ver-mont citizens for fire safety, whenit really wasn’t Vermont citizensfor fire safety at all,” Vinci said.

The group also has misrepre-sented itself in other ways. On itswebsite, Citizens for Fire Safetysaid it had joined with the interna-tional firefighters’ association, theAmerican Burn Association and akey federal agency “to conductongoing studies to ensure safe andeffective fire prevention.”

Both of those organizations andthe federal agency, however, saidthat simply is not true.

“They are lying,” said Jeff Zack,a spokesman for the InternationalAssociation of Fire Fighters.“They aren’t working with us onanything.”

After inquiries from the Trib-une, Citizens for Fire Safety dele-ted that passage from its website.

Gillham, the executive director,declined to comment. Albemarle,Chemtura and ICL IndustrialProducts also declined to answerspecific questions about thegroup.

Albemarle Chief SustainabilityOfficer David Clary did say thathis company has been transparent

Front group stokes fear of fireContinued from Page 1


TRIBUNE WATCHDOG

PLAYING WITH FIRE


“When we’re eating organic, we’re avoidingvery small amounts of pesticides. Then wesit on our couch that can contain a poundof chemicals that’s from the same family asbanned pesticides like DDT.”— Arlene Blum, a California chemist who is fighting to limit flameretardants in household products. Above, she waits to testify before theCalifornia state Senate in 2011.

Most parents are forced to guess if toys,furniture and other household products areexposing their kids to toxic chemicals.

Heather Stapleton can figure it out in herlaboratory.

Stapleton, an environmental chemist atDuke University, is one of the nation’sleading experts on flame retardants. Herresearch shows that it is extremely difficultto avoid the chemicals, which she has foundnot only in furniture cushions, but also insuch unlikely fire hazards as breast-feedingpillows and diaper-changing pads.

“We detect these chemicals in almostevery home, particularly in dust,” Stapletonsaid. “When people ask me how to preventtheir kids from being exposed, I find it adifficult question to answer.”

In her own home, Stapleton switched theliving room from carpet to hardwood floorsin an attempt to keep dust from accumulat-ing.

She also bought mattresses made withorganic materials for her 3-year-old son andyear-old daughter to nap on at their day carecenter. Her tests showed the center’sregular foam mattresses were treated with

one of the flame retardant chemicals shestudies.

Not everyone can afford those dramaticsteps. Nor is it easy to figure out the specificchemical ingredients in products.

Furniture made with flame retardantsoften features a label that indicates it meetsflammability standards in California’s Tech-nical Bulletin 117. Many manufacturersapply the standards to products soldnationwide, and Stapleton cautions that shehas found flame retardants even in furni-ture that didn’t have such a label.

To reduce exposure to contaminateddust, Stapleton advises frequent hand-washing, noting that children typically areexposed to higher levels of flame retardantsthan adults because they spend so muchtime playing on the floor.

“Kids are always picking up toys andputting them in their mouths,” she said.“You can’t avoid it.”

She also advises caution with clothingdryer lint, which she said can be concen-trated not only with flame retardants, butalso with other toxic chemicals that escapefrom household products.

“I definitely recommend that everyonewashes their hands after touching dryerlint,” Stapleton said.

Labels providelittle help whenpicking productsBy Michael HawthorneTribune reporter

A furniture tag indicates the foam has been

treated with fire retardants. But even items

lacking this tag may have been treated.

ALEX GARCIA/TRIBUNE PHOTO

SOURCES: EPA, Tribune reporting KATIE NIELAND/TRIBUNE

Chemicals hard to avoid

WHERE FLAME RETARDANTS ARE FOUND

In the plastic casing

of some electronics

In home insulation

Flame retardants are present in virtually every American home even though some of the compounds have been linked to neurological deficits, developmental problems, impaired fertility and other health risks.

In upholstered furniture containing polyurethane foam —

manufacturers add it to meet flammability standards enacted by

California but followed nationwide

In some baby products

containing polyurethane

foam, including highchairs and diaper-changing pads

In carpet padding made

with recycled foam

In dust — children are

exposed to higher doses of

flame retardants than adults because they spend more

time on the floor and put

things in their mouths

Product: CTBroadsheet PubDate: 05-06-2012 Zone: ALL Edition: SHD Page: MAIN1-20 User: grejohnson Time: 05-05-2012 22:24 Color: CMYK

“I just want you to imagine a child crying for help in a burning building, dying, when there was a person who only had to vote to save their life,” he said.

Citizens for Fire Safety prevailed. The bill later went down to defeat. McCloud told the Tribune, “I’ve always been a person that’s fought against

things that would hurt children.” She then asked for questions in writing but never answered them.

Nearly two years after that bill failed, one of the nation’s top burn surgeons would also invoke the image of a dead child before California lawmakers on behalf of Citi-zens for Fire Safety.

When Dr. David Heimbach walked into the California Senate committee hearing last year, the stakes had never been higher for flame retardant manufacturers.

Once again, senators were considering an overhaul of the state’s flammability regulation — one that advocates believed would dramatically reduce the amount of flame retardants in American homes.

The bill would allow manufac-turers to choose the existing candle-like flame test or a new one based on a smoldering cigarette, a far more common source of fires than candles. Manufacturers could pass the new test by using resistant fabrics rather than adding toxic chemicals to the foam inside.

To maintain the status quo — and avoid a hit to the bottom line — chem-ical makers needed to stress that fires started by candles were a serious threat.

Heimbach, Citizens for Fire Safe-ty’s star witness, did just that.

With Citizens for Fire Safety’s Gillham watching from the audience, Heimbach not only passionately de-scribed the fatal burns a 7-week-old Alaska patient received lying on a pillow that lacked flame retardants, he also blamed the 2010 blaze on a candle.

In fact, he specifically said the baby’s mother had placed a candle in the girl’s crib. Heimbach had told similar stories before, the Tribune found. In 2009, he told

a California State Assembly committee that he had treated a 9-week-old girl who died that spring after a candle beside her crib turned over. “We had to split open her fingers because they were so charred,” he testified.

In 2010, he told Alaska lawmakers about a 6-week-old girl from Washington state who died that year after a dog knocked a candle onto her crib, which did not have a flame retardant mattress.

Heimbach’s hospital in Seattle, Harborview Medical Center, declined to help the Tribune confirm his accounts. But records from the King County medical exam-iner’s office show that no child matching Heimbach’s descriptions has died in his hospital in the last 16 years.

The only infant who came close in terms of age and date of death was Nancy Garcia-Diaz, a 6-week-old who died in 2009 after a house fire in rural Washington.

In an interview, Heimbach said his anecdotes were all about the same baby — one who died at his hospital, though he didn’t know the child’s name. Contrary to his testimony, he said he had not taken care of the patient.








































CHEMICALS

STATUS


Penta and octa

Polybrominated

diphenyl ethers,

or PBDEs

Build up rapidly in

breast milk and

human blood.

Hormone disruption,

developmental



fertility.

Not in use.

After the European


ban the chemicals,

U.S. makers pulled




products containing

foam and recycled

carpet padding.

Deca

Also a PBDE

Persists in the

environment and

creates penta as it

breaks down.



Being phased out.

Manufacturers

voluntarily agreed

to end production

by December 2013.

It is still present


electronics and

in wire insulation,


and airplanes.

Chlorinated tris

Also known as

TDCCP



Still in use.

Voluntarily removed

from children’s

sleepwear in late


used in furniture

foam. Also has been

found in baby

products containing

polyurethane foam.

Firemaster 550

Brand name

Chemical’s bromi-

nated components

found in wildlife.



Lakes. Develop-

mental problems

at high doses.

Still in use.

Introduced in 2003

as a replacement



review by U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency.


HAZARDS












roBert dureLL/Photo for the triBune

“I’m a well-meaning guy. I’m not in the pocket of industry.”— Dr. David Heimbach, a burn expert. Above, Heimbach testifies in 2011 against a California state Senate bill that could have reduced the use of flame retardant chemicals in furniture. He told the Tribune that Citizens for Fire Safety has paid for his travel to testify and for some of his time.

Told about Nancy, Heimbach said she was probably the baby he had in mind and emailed a Tribune re-porter two photographs of a severely burned child, images that he said he had used in a presentation at a medi-cal conference. Medical records and Nancy’s mother confirmed those pic-tures were indeed of Nancy.

But Nancy didn’t die in a fire caused by a candle, as Heimbach has repeatedly testified. Fire records ob-tained by the Tribune show the blaze was caused by an overloaded, over-heated extension cord.

“There were no candles, no pets — just the misuse of extension cords,” said Mike Makela, an investigator for the Snohomish County fire marshal’s office.

In his testimony last year, Heimbach stated the baby was in a crib on a fire-re-tardant mattress and on a non-retardant pillow. The upper half of her body was burned, he said.

But public records show there was no crib — she was resting on a bed — and no pillow. And, Makela said, flame retardants played no role in the pattern of her burns.

Fire authorities, Heimbach said, “may know more about it than I do, but that was the information that I had.”

Heimbach said he couldn’t recall who gave him that information but that Citizens for Fire Safety did not help craft his statements. He said the group has paid for his travel to testify and for some of his time, though he would not give a dollar amount.

The details of his statements, he said, weren’t as important as the principle. “The principle is that fire retardants will retard fires and will prevent burns,” he said.

Later, Heimbach said through his attorney that federal rules prohibit him from disclosing information that would identify a patient. He said that when describing particular burn cases, he follows standard protocol under the rules by “de-identify-ing” patients — that is, changing or omitting identifying information to protect their privacy.

But in testimony at state hearings, Heimbach not only changed facts, he added new ones, such as candles starting deadly blazes and the lack of flame retardants — details that aided the chemical industry’s position.

Nancy’s mother, who asked that her name not be used, said she never granted Heimbach permission to use her daughter’s photograph.

“Nancy’s memory is sacred to us,” she said. “My daughter deserves respect. She lived such a short time and she suffered a lot. This is horrible.”

Heimbach was head of Harborview’s burn cen-ter for 25 years; he also was a professor of surgery at the University of Washington until his retirement last year. He estimated he might have saved “hundreds if not thousands” of lives. In 2009, the Dalai Lama gave

More watchdog reports at chicagotribune.com

VIDEO

Watch Tribune report-ers Patricia Callahan,Sam Roe and MichaelHawthorne describetheir investigation intothe campaign of decep-tion that has helped putflame retardants intoour homes and into ourbodies.

TRANSCRIPTS

Read side-by-side tran-scripts of inconsistenttestimony on babies’deaths given by Dr.David Heimbach atthree different govern-ment hearings — andcompare them withdocuments on NancyGarcia-Diaz, a 6-week-old girl who died in2009 after a house firein rural Washington.


The chemical industry’s leading trade group says addingfire-snuffing chemicals to furniture foam “can be thedifference between life and death.”

But when scientists in a government lab touched a smallflame to a pair of upholstered chairs — one with a flameretardant in the foam and one without — both were engulfedin flames within four minutes.

“We did not find flame retardants in foam to provide anysignificant protection,” said Dale Ray, a top official with theConsumer Product Safety Commission who oversaw the2009 tests at a laboratory outside Washington.

Moreover, the amount of smoke from both chair fires wassimilar, Ray said, noting that most fire victims die of smokeinhalation, not the flames.

The previously undisclosed test results call into questionthe widespread use of flame retardants in householdfurniture. Some of those chemicals have been linked tocancer, neurological disorders and developmental prob-lems.

Meanwhile, research is finding there are more effectiveways to prevent furniture fires — using specially designedupholstery that resists smoldering cigarettes or addingfire-resistant barriers underneath the fabric.

The American Chemistry Council, the industry tradegroup, declined to answer specific questions about the safetycommission’s research but in an email said flame retardantsare “a key component in reducing the devastating impact offires on people, property and the environment.”

For decades, furniture manufacturers have been relyingon the chemicals to meet a flammability standard thatCalifornia adopted in 1975. Much of the upholsteredfurniture sold nationwide is built to comply with thestandard.

Albemarle Corp., one of the world’s largest manufacturersof flame retardants, said in a written statement that “theincidence of damage, injury anddeath caused by fires related tohome furnishings has decreasedsignificantly” since Californiaadopted its furniture rule.

But Ray and other governmentexperts say declining smokingrates and increased use of smokedetectors have played major rolesin reducing fire deaths and dam-age.

Federal regulators have beenwrestling with the issue of how tofireproof furniture for years. Thesafety commission now believesthe best solution is to requireupholstery to resist smolderingcigarettes, which federal statis-tics show are by far the chiefcause of furniture fires.

That proposal, which has yetto be enacted, would make theCalifornia standard unnecessary.Most of the furniture sold todayalready is covered with fabricsthat comply with the proposedsmolder standard, Ray said. Iffurniture fabric stops a fire fromstarting in the first place, he said,there is no reason to keep addingflame retardant chemicals to thefoam underneath.

Testing by government and independent scientistssuggests additional steps might be needed to ensure thatfurniture can resist flames from lighters and candles. Butsharp differences remain about whether those types of firesare common enough to demand a standard that wouldaddress them.

In the safety commission’s tests, researchers took twoother chairs and added a barrier of acrylic, glass andpolyester fibers between the upholstery and the foam. Fourminutes after being lit, the fires went out withoutintervention from the researchers, charring only the yellow,floral-print fabric on the back of the chairs.

Similar research by Northbrook-based UnderwritersLaboratories found that replacing the normal polyesterwrapping around furniture foam with a fire-resistant layerwas much more effective at slowing fire than adding flameretardants to the foam.

Mattress manufacturers already use flame-resistantbarriers to meet national fire-safety standards. Thesebarriers are typically made of chemical-free materials orsafer chemicals than those commonly added to foam.

In the UL tests, chairs equipped with fire-resistantbarriers burned much more slowly than chairs withoutthem. The fires also didn’t spread throughout a simulatedliving room until well after the time when firefighterstypically arrive. Some test fires extinguished on their own.

The researchers also tested chairs with treated furniturefoam and others with regular foam. The regular chairsburned slightly hotter than those with flame retardants, butall the fires quickly grew to engulf the room, according to avideo and slide presentation at a March workshop at theNational Institute of Standards and Technology.

“There wasn’t a meaningful difference,” Tom Fabian,manager of UL’s fire hazards research, said later in aninterview. “There are other ways that are more effective andavoid the potential risks of those (flame retardant)chemicals.”

The trade group for foam manufacturers supportsreplacing the California standard with a federal smolderstandard but opposes attempts to add a requirement forfire-resistant barriers, saying they would make furnitureuncomfortable. Foam makers also contend that barriers aretoo expensive to be used in all furniture.

As for flame retardants, the Polyurethane Foam Associa-tion said its members don’t like using them but do so to meetthe California standard. “We know we have an environ-mental problem,” said Bob Luedeka, the group’s executivedirector. “It would be nice if we had a (flame retardant)product that didn’t have so many question marks attached toit.”

[email protected] @scribeguy

Testing showstreated foamoffers no realsafety benefitFire-resistant barriers may be moreeffective, reduce chemical exposure

By Michael HawthorneTribune reporter

“There wasn’t ameaningfuldifference.There areother waysthat are moreeffective andavoid the potentialrisks of thosechemicals.”— Tom Fabian,manager of UL’s fire hazards research

Citizens for Fire Safety.When Dr. David Heimbach

walked into the California Senatecommittee hearing last year, thestakes had never been higher forflame retardant manufacturers.

Once again, senators were con-sidering an overhaul of the state’sflammability regulation — onethat advocates believed woulddramatically reduce the amount offlame retardants in Americanhomes.

The bill would allow manufac-turers to choose the existingcandle-like flame test or a new onebased on a smoldering cigarette, afar more common source of firesthan candles. Manufacturerscould pass the new test by usingresistant fabrics rather than add-ing toxic chemicals to the foaminside.

To maintain the status quo —and avoid a hit to the bottom line— chemical makers needed tostress that fires started by candleswere a serious threat.

Heimbach, Citizens for FireSafety’s star witness, did just that.

With Citizens for Fire Safety’sGillham watching from the audi-ence, Heimbach not only passion-ately described the fatal burns a7-week-old Alaska patient re-ceived lying on a pillow thatlacked flame retardants, he alsoblamed the 2010 blaze on a candle.

In fact, he specifically said thebaby’s mother had placed a candlein the girl’s crib.

Heimbach had told similar sto-ries before, the Tribune found. In2009, he told a California StateAssembly committee that he hadtreated a 9-week-old girl who diedthat spring after a candle besideher crib turned over. “We had tosplit open her fingers because theywere so charred,” he testified.

In 2010, he told Alaska lawmak-ers about a 6-week-old girl fromWashington state who died thatyear after a dog knocked a candleonto her crib, which did not have aflame retardant mattress.

Heimbach’s hospital in Seattle,Harborview Medical Center, de-clined to help the Tribune confirmhis accounts. But records from theKing County medical examiner’soffice show that no child matchingHeimbach’s descriptions has diedin his hospital in the last 16 years.

The only infant who came closein terms of age and date of deathwas Nancy Garcia-Diaz, a 6-week-old who died in 2009 after a housefire in rural Washington.

In an interview, Heimbach saidhis anecdotes were all about thesame baby — one who died at hishospital, though he didn’t knowthe child’s name. Contrary to histestimony, he said he had nottaken care of the patient.

Told about Nancy, Heimbachsaid she was probably the baby hehad in mind and emailed a Trib-une reporter two photographs of aseverely burned child, images thathe said he had used in a presenta-tion at a medical conference.Medical records and Nancy’smother confirmed those pictureswere indeed of Nancy.

But Nancy didn’t die in a firecaused by a candle, as Heimbachhas repeatedly testified. Fire re-cords obtained by the Tribuneshow the blaze was caused by anoverloaded, overheated extensioncord.

“There were no candles, no pets— just the misuse of extension

cords,” said Mike Makela, aninvestigator for the SnohomishCounty fire marshal’s office.

In his testimony last year,Heimbach stated the baby was in acrib on a fire-retardant mattressand on a non-retardant pillow.The upper half of her body wasburned, he said.

But public records show therewas no crib — she was resting on abed — and no pillow. And, Makelasaid, flame retardants played norole in the pattern of her burns.

Fire authorities, Heimbachsaid, “may know more about itthan I do, but that was theinformation that I had.”

Heimbach said he couldn’t re-call who gave him that informa-tion but that Citizens for FireSafety did not help craft hisstatements. He said the group haspaid for his travel to testify and forsome of his time, though he wouldnot give a dollar amount.

The details of his statements, hesaid, weren’t as important as theprinciple. “The principle is thatfire retardants will retard fires andwill prevent burns,” he said.

Later, Heimbach said throughhis attorney that federal rulesprohibit him from disclosing in-formation that would identify apatient. He said that when de-scribing particular burn cases, hefollows standard protocol underthe rules by “de-identifying” pa-tients — that is, changing oromitting identifying informationto protect their privacy.

But in testimony at state hear-ings, Heimbach not only changed

facts, he added new ones, such ascandles starting deadly blazes andthe lack of flame retardants —details that aided the chemicalindustry’s position.

Nancy’s mother, who asked thather name not be used, said shenever granted Heimbach permis-sion to use her daughter’s photo-graph.

“Nancy’s memory is sacred tous,” she said. “My daughter de-serves respect. She lived such ashort time and she suffered a lot.This is horrible.”

Heimbach was head of Harbor-view’s burn center for 25 years; healso was a professor of surgery atthe University of Washington un-til his retirement last year. Heestimated he might have saved“hundreds if not thousands” oflives. In 2009, the Dalai Lama gaveHeimbach an award for his care ofburn victims around the world.

“I’m a well-meaning guy,”Heimbach said. “I’m not in thepocket of industry.”

When Heimbach testified lastspring in California on the bill thatcould have significantly reducedflame retardant use, he didn’t telllawmakers he was altering factsabout the burn victim. Only whenasked by a senator did he revealthat Citizens for Fire Safety paidfor his trip there.

When it came time to vote, thesenators overwhelmingly sidedwith Heimbach and Citizens forFire Safety, sticking with thefurniture standard based on acandle-like flame.

Public health advocates hadone last hope: Senators had sevendays in which they could changetheir votes. As the advocates triedto persuade senators to recon-sider, Citizens for Fire Safety putout a news alert that linked to avideo called “Killer Couches!”

To the sounds of sinister musicand crackling flames, a sofa madewithout flame retardants becamean inferno. Then these wordsappeared: “Are You Sitting Com-fortably?”

No senators changed theirvotes, and the bill was dead. Thechemical companies had wonagain.

Tribune reporter Michael Haw-thorne contributed to this report.

[email protected]@tribune.com

Stories aboutburned babiesdon’t add upContinued from Page 21

PHOTO PROVIDED BY FAMILY

“Nancy’s memory is sacred to us. My daughter deserves respect. She livedsuch a short time and she suffered a lot.This is horrible.”— Mother of Nancy Garcia-Diaz, above, a 6-week-old girl who diedin 2009 after a house fire in rural Washington

SOURCE: EPA TRIBUNE

Babies most exposedHigh levels of PBDE flame retardants in breast milk account for infants’ large daily dose. For others, ingestion of contaminated dust is the chief source of exposure.

7.1

47.2

13.0

8.3

141.0

Adults

Ages 12-19

Ages 6-11

Ages 1-5

Infants

Total daily doseNanograms (billionths of a gram) of PBDE per kilogram of body weight, per day

TRIBUNE WATCHDOG

PLAYING WITH FIRE



VIDEO


TRANSCRIPTS



































































SOURCE: EPA TRIBUNE


7.1

47.2

13.0

8.3

141.0

Adults

Ages 12-19

Ages 6-11

Ages 1-5

Infants


TRIBUNE WATCHDOG

PLAYING WITH FIRE


Photo ProVided By famiLy

“Nancy’s memory is sacred to us. My daughter deserves respect. She lived such a short time and she suffered a lot. This is horrible.” — Mother of Nancy Garcia-Diaz, above, a 6-week-old girl who died in 2009 after a house fire in rural Washington.

Heimbach an award for his care of burn victims around the world. “I’m a well-meaning guy,” Heimbach said. “I’m not in the pocket of industry.” When Heimbach testified last spring in California on the bill that could have sig-

nificantly reduced flame retardant use, he didn’t tell lawmakers he was altering facts about the burn victim. Only when asked by a senator did he reveal that Citizens for Fire Safety paid for his trip there.

When it came time to vote, the senators overwhelmingly sided with Heimbach and Citizens for Fire Safety, sticking with the furniture standard based on a candle-like flame.

Public health advocates had one last hope: Senators had seven days in which they could change their votes. As the advocates tried to persuade senators to recon-sider, Citizens for Fire Safety put out a news alert that linked to a video called “Killer Couches!”

To the sounds of sinister music and crackling flames, a sofa made without flame retardants became an inferno. Then these words appeared: “Are You Sitting Com-fortably?”

No senators changed their votes, and the bill was dead. The chemical companies had won again.

Tribune reporter Michael Hawthorne contributed to this report.


VIDEO


TRANSCRIPTS



































































SOURCE: EPA TRIBUNE


7.1

47.2

13.0

8.3

141.0

Adults

Ages 12-19

Ages 6-11

Ages 1-5

Infants


TRIBUNE WATCHDOG

PLAYING WITH FIRE


http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html








































CHEMICALS

STATUS


Penta and octa

Polybrominated

diphenyl ethers,

or PBDEs

Build up rapidly in

breast milk and

human blood.

Hormone disruption,

developmental



fertility.

Not in use.

After the European


ban the chemicals,

U.S. makers pulled




products containing

foam and recycled

carpet padding.

Deca

Also a PBDE

Persists in the

environment and

creates penta as it

breaks down.



Being phased out.

Manufacturers

voluntarily agreed

to end production

by December 2013.

It is still present


electronics and

in wire insulation,


and airplanes.

Chlorinated tris

Also known as

TDCCP



Still in use.

Voluntarily removed

from children’s

sleepwear in late


used in furniture

foam. Also has been

found in baby

products containing

polyurethane foam.

Firemaster 550

Brand name

Chemical’s bromi-

nated components

found in wildlife.



Lakes. Develop-

mental problems

at high doses.

Still in use.

Introduced in 2003

as a replacement



review by U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency.


HAZARDS












Documents

Tribune WaTchdog Playing with fire - Pulitzer · Tribune WaTchdog Playing with fire A deceptive campaign by industry brought toxic flame retardants into our homes and into our bodies