Air Fresheners,Fresheners,”” Indoorindoor Airair Qualityquality && Federalfederal Policypolicy

BUILDINGBUILDING AA FRAMEWORKFRAMEWORK FORFOR HEALTHYHEALTHY HOUSINGHOUSING ““AirAir Fresheners,Fresheners,”” IndoorIndoor AirAir QualityQuality && FederalFederal PolicyPolicy

Ralph Scott Alliance for Healthy Homes September 16, 2008

2008 National Healthy Homes Conference September 15-17, 2008 in Baltimore, MD OverviewOverview z “Air fresheners” as consumer products z Health issues z Policy issues z Citizen petition z Companies’ response z Suit vs. EPA to get info from companies

2 ““AirAir freshenersfresheners”” areare everywhereeverywhere

Almost every American is exposed to air fresheners z Used in 75% of U.S. homes; use is growing z Common in public bathrooms z Offices, stores, restaurants use them, too z Often, the public is unaware of the nature, extent, and consequences of the exposure

3 BroadBroad rangerange ofof productproduct typestypes

z Traditional sprays z Continuous release (outlet- and battery-operated) z Solid gel dispensers z Hanging car air fresheners z Potpourri

4 ““AirAir freshenersfresheners”” areare bigbig businessbusiness z US sales (excluding home fragrance products such as incense and scented candles): about $1.7 billion in 2007 z $600 million increase since 2003

5 WhatWhat areare ““airair freshenersfresheners”” goodgood for?for? FMA says: Fragrances contribute to our:

z “Individuality” z “Self-esteem” z “Personal hygiene”

6 WeWe saysay…… Nothing!Nothing! z Fail to remove contaminants z They add toxic chemicals z Intended to be inhaled by people

7 EvenEven neglectingneglecting toxictoxic chemicalchemical ingredients,ingredients, theythey dodo obviousobvious harmharm

Mold (and hidden water leaks) Mask odors Sewage backups that indicate and sewer gas unhealthful housing conditions Gas leaks

Drifting tobacco smoke

8 PotentiallyPotentially hazardoushazardous chemicalschemicals (we(we knowknow of)of)

VOCs (including formaldehyde & phthalates) z Lung irritants z Associated with asthma attacks and migraines z Formaldehyde is a lung irritant and probable carcinogen z Some phthalates are endocrine disrupters

9 RespiratoryRespiratory issuesissues -- 20042004 StudyStudy z 29.7% of those with asthma said air fresheners caused breathing difficulties z 37.2% found scented products irritating

Caress SM and AC Steinemann. 2005. National prevalence of asthma and chemical hypersensitivity: an examination of potential overlap. J Occup Environ Med. May; 47(5): 518-22.

10 SeriousSerious exposuresexposures z Amer. Assoc. of Poison Control Centers documented14,000+ calls involving air freshener exposure in 2005 z 2,500+ exposures resulted in injuries of some type

2005 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poisoning and Exposure Database, Clinical Toxicology, 44:803–932, 2006.

11 NRDCNRDC StudyStudy –– ““ClearingClearing thethe Air:Air: HiddenHidden HazardsHazards ofof AirAir FreshenersFresheners”” z September 2007 z Independent testing of 14 common air fresheners z None listed phthalates as ingredients z Some labeled “all natural” or “unscented” z 12 of 14 (86%) contained phthalates z Phthalates are known to cause hormonal abnormalities, birth defects, reproductive problems

12 NRDCNRDC StudyStudy –– TypesTypes ofof phthalatesphthalates foundfound inin 1212 commoncommon airair freshenersfresheners Phthalate Effect Di-ethyl Phthalate (DEP) Changes in hormone levels and genital development Di-n-butyl Phthalate (DBP) Called reproductive toxicant by National Toxicology Program and State of CA

Causes changes in genital development Di-isobutyl Phthalate Metabolites associated with changes in male (DIBP) genital development Di-methyl Phthalate (DMP) Inconclusive evidence of reproductive toxicity in animal studies Di-isohexyl Phthalate Limited testing has shown it’s probably a (DIHP) developmental and reproductive toxicant

Source: Clearing the Air: Hidden Hazards of Air Fresheners (NRDC, 2007)

13 VirtuallyVirtually unregulatedunregulated z Makers of air fresheners don’t have to reveal ingredients z They haven’t done it voluntarily z Chemicals and their concentrations have been secrets

14 WhatWhat’’ss inin aa name?name? “Air freshener” Manufacturers reinforce concept with ads implying they magically clean air

15 TheyThey simplysimply maskmask odorsodors withwith chemicalschemicals

You can’t smell sewage and mold, but you’re still being exposed

16 ToTo fightfight backback……

Let’s call them what they really are:

z Chemical bad smell maskers z Chemical odor dispensers z Chemical air soilers z Chemical air spoilers

17 PetitionPetition toto EPAEPA andand CPSCCPSC

z September 2007 z NRDC, Sierra Club, National Center for Healthy Housing, Alliance for Healthy Homes

18 AskedAsked CPSCCPSC toto useuse FederalFederal HazardousHazardous SubstancesSubstances ActAct toto…… z Ban air fresheners containing chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity z Require all air fresheners to be labeled with full list of ingredients CPSC rejected our petition because they said we didn’t ID the toxic chemicals of concern to us with enough specificity

19 PetitionPetition askedasked EPAEPA toto useuse TSCATSCA toto forceforce manufacturersmanufacturers toto…… z Provide consumer reports of health problems from air fresheners to EPA z Submit existing health and safety studies z Test for potential harm to people’s respiratory systems z Label products containing phthalates

20 EPAEPA’’ss responseresponse (Dec.(Dec. 2007)2007)

Denied our petition, too, but… z Asked 7 largest manufacturers to voluntarily submit product ingredients, range of concentrations for each chemical, each chemical’s function, and total annual amount used z Set Mar. 31, 2008 deadline

21 OurOur decisiondecision aboutabout suingsuing EPAEPA Timing z Our legal deadline for filing suit came before the deadline EPA gave companies to submit data z Thus, we decided to sue but delay serving EPA (to save agency from unnecessary work if companies’ responses were satisfactory)

22 OurOur goalsgoals z EPA obtain info on ingredients (as a basis for additional regulatory action) z As much as possible of the info be made public

23 CompaniesCompanies’’ responseresponse z Offered to provide EPA aggregated info on ingredients and concentrations to “protect confidential business information” z CSPA would aggregate non-fragrance ingredients z FMA would aggregate fragrance data z Only chemicals with >0.1% concentration

24 DelayingDelaying tacticstactics z CSPA requested 60 day extension z EPA granted CSPA 45 days (to May 15, 2008) z On May 15, FMA said they needed until Oct. 1, 2008, to provide fragrance data

25 MayMay 15,15, 20082008 datadata submissionsubmission z No info on chemicals below 0.1% provided to EPA z Public version severely redacted z Fragrance data delayed until Oct. 1 z Fragrance concentrations would not be given to EPA We decide to serve EPA with suit

26 PublicPublic datadata submissionsubmission

Sample page from CSPA’s May 15 response – public version

Want some info to go with those redactions?

27 PublicPublic reportreport isis virtuallyvirtually uselessuseless z Water is a non-secret ingredient, but how much? z Cardboard is a non-secret ingredient z 27 of the 100 ingredients are redacted z Total tonnage provided for only 11 of the 100 ingredients

28 SomeSome infoinfo waswas providedprovided

Companies say… z Phthalates not intentionally added among the non-fragrance ingredients z They believe only one phthalate, DEP, is added as a fragrance ingredient z Formaldehyde is an ingredient z Benzene, styrene or toluene aren’t added above 0.1% as non-fragrance ingredients

29 StatusStatus ofof lawsuitlawsuit

z Pre-trial stage – discovery z Companies & trade associations haven’t intervened and probably won’t

30 TheThe futurefuture z Still waiting for fragrance ingredients to be submitted to EPA z Will EPA seek to avoid trial by requiring companies to provide & reveal more info? z We believe ingredient info can be made public in an aggregated format

31 ForFor moremore informationinformation z Visit EPA’s web site at: www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/petitions.htm z Visit NRDC’s web site at: www.nrdc.org/health/home/airfresheners/airfresheners.pdf z Contact me at: Ralph Scott Alliance for Healthy Homes 202-347-7610 ext 11 [email protected]

32 Lead In Consumer Goods

Screening Products with the Thermo Scientific NITON® XL3 for Lead and other Heavy Metals

The world leader in serving science Presented by Bill Radosevich Lead Fatality Drives Media Attention

A sneaker manufacturer recalled 510,000 charms when a 4 year old died from lead poisoning after swallowing one in 2006.

The charm contained more than 94% lead

Lead professionals and regulatory agencies immediately began testing similar charms

Some contained lead, some did not

2 Media

EIBLL linked to consumer goods Consumer Reports, December 2007

3 Scope of Problem

1. Yellow 2. Orange 3. Brown 4. White 5. Blue 6. Black 7. Black

4 Using Handheld or test stand

5 Small Spot Example

6 Thermo Scientific NITON Analyzer Coverage

September 19: Rep. Ed Markey Brings NITON Analyzer to Toy October 18: Safety Hearing; “How Safe Are the Toys in Your Home?” Video Viewed November 1: More Than 600 Times on “ABC Tests 100 Children's Products and Finds YouTube.com 10 With Lead”

October 22: “Home Tests For Lead Found Wanting” “A Boon for Lead- November 6: Testing Companies” “Getting The Lead Out” By Louise Story As toy makers and retailers try to reassure consumers that dolls, action figures and other toys are safe, a group of relatively unknown companies that test toys and other products are emerging as clear beneficiaries. November 2: “Testing Toys For Lead”