By Alice Rossignol
rossign1@msu.edu
Great Lakes Echo
Oct. 5, 2009
Editors note: This is part of a series relevant to the International Joint commission’s biennial meeting in Windsor on Wednesday and Thursday.
An international commission that advises policymakers on Great Lakes environmental issues is questioning why the U.S. is making a fire retardant that Canada has banned.
See poll
The use of the substance is part of a report that will be discussed at the International Joint Commission’s biennial meeting in Windsor, Ontario on Wednesday. The commission is responsible for upholding the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between the U.S. and Canada.
The chemical in question is called deca-BDE, one of a group of so-called PBDEs that are used as flame-retardants in products such as mattresses, upholstery and electronics.
In 2004, the U.S. discontinued the use of some of these chemicals due to concern over how they could disrupt thyroid function, interfere in brain development and accumulate in animals and humans. Research has also found concentrations of deca-BDE in the breast milk of U.S. and Canadian women.
Deca-BDE can turn into the more dangerous forms of the chemicals that have been banned, according to research cited in the commission report.
In July 2008, the Canadian government banned the manufacturing of all PBDEs and the use or sale of three of them, including deca-BDE.
The US government did not follow suit.
The IJC cannot enforce environmental policy to resolve the difference.
“In general we don’t have any authority over the governments,” said John Gannon a senior scientist at the commission. “When you don’t have direct authority you use different mechanisms, like the power of embarrassment.”
The commission can recommend action to the two governments, although one concerning deca-BDE has not been made, said David O. Carpenter the chair of the committee that prepared the Fish Consumption Report.
That report details concerns over whether eating Great Lake’s fish is safe. It describes deca-BDE as an emerging contaminant that could be an environmental and health threat.
Even though Canada has banned the manufacturing of deca-BDEs, the country never manufactured PBDEs nor had plans to do so in the first place, according to a document released by Ecojustice, a Canadian non-profit environmental organization.
Furthermore, the new policy does not ban the importation of PBDEs in finished products, although a recent proposal has been introduced to do so.
According to Ecojustice, the U.S. is the only place that manufactures Canada’s only commercial mixture of deca-BDE.
“Anything helps,” Carpenter said, “but without a ban on imports, exposure will continue. We know levels are rising exponentially in humans, and they are probably doing the same in the Great Lakes, especially in fish.”
Some state governments have forged ahead. Both Washington and Maine have set timelines for phasing out deca-BDE.
Great Lakes states have also reviewed their use of the chemical. In May 2008, the Michigan Department of Environmental recommended that it be placed on a list of chemicals whose use and discharge must be reported annually.
In January 2006, the Michigan House introduced a bill to prohibit the sale, use and distribution of deca-BDE in products beginning June 2007. Exceptions would be made to recyclable materials and replacing manufacturing parts.
According to Michigan legislative records, the bill wasn’t even discussed in committee and similar bills introduced in 2007 and 2009 had the same fate.
Other Great Lake states have explored alternatives. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency in 2006 cited alternatives such as using non-brominated chemicals, using production materials that do not require PBDEs and designing products to make them less flammable.
Despite scientific evidence showing deca-BDE having negative effects on human health and the environment, the complete ban of the chemical has been difficult because of the need to find safe, effective alternatives that are as cost-effective as deca-BDE.
“We have found that the numerous state, federal, and voluntary fire safety standards have driven the industries that use deca-BDE to provide a high level of flame retardant performance,” said the Illinois report.
This report concludes that alternatives to deca-BDE must meet or exceed these high flame retardant expectations.