Kids’ low IQ linked to anti-fire chemicals
Pregnant moms’ exposure raises risk, research finds
Increased exposure among pregnant women to a class of flame-retardant chemicals found in older furniture and other everyday consumer products is linked to lower IQs in their children, UCSF researchers found in a study that is certain to further ignite the debate over the chemicals.
Examining data from nearly 3,000 mother-child pairs from previous studies done around the world, the authors concluded that every tenfold increase in women’s exposure during pregnancy to chemicals known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, was associated with a 3.7-point decrease in their children’s IQ.
The study was published Thursday in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal supported by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. It comes a little more than a week after a San Francisco supervisor
introduced legislation that would ban all flame-retardant chemicals from furniture, baby strollers and other children’s products sold in the city.
That proposal, an effort to bring down cancer rates and lessen developmental problems in children, was criticized by the chemical industry, which said flame retardants have for decades been instrumental in protecting people and allowing manufacturers to meet tough product-safety standards.
The UCSF study only evaluated exposure to PBDEs, which were phased out from use in new manufacturing since 2004 but remain in used furniture and other products.
The university’s team acknowledged that the difference in IQ scores related to chemical exposure might seem small. But such differences can necessitate increased services and support for children and heap personal and economic burdens onto families, said lead author Juleen Lam, an associate research scientist at UCSF’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.
Researchers also found a statistical link between PBDEs and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but cautioned that more studies are necessary to better understand the relationship.
While previous research on the chemicals has found similar health risks, the UCSF study provides the most comprehensive analysis of international data and the most definitive results, said co-author Tracey Woodruff, a professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences.
“There are many, many, many couches out there that still have this flame retardant in them,” Woodruff said.
A chemical industry representative, while noting that PBDEs have been banned for years, said Thursday that fire safety is important, and that consumers don’t have to choose between it and their personal health. He said flame retardants used in today’s products “are subject to review by the EPA and other regulatory agencies around the world.”
“Flame retardants provide consumers with a critical layer of fire protection, and they help save lives,” said Bryan Goodman, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council. “The major manufacturers of flame retardants have spent millions of dollars on research both before and after their products go on the market.”
PBDEs and other flameretardant chemicals are found in couches, computers, consumer plastics, mattresses, insulation and car parts, among other products. The chemicals can migrate into dust, endangering infants who crawl around on floors and people who eat at their computers, according to scientists.
The women in the study who had higher levels of PBDE exposure would have likely ingested the chemicals through food, dust or hand-to-mouth contact in their homes or other locations they frequented, researchers said.
The chemicals became common starting in the 1970s, after California imposed strict firesafety regulations on manufacturers. The state acted largely in response to fires started by cigarettes, which were manufactured so they would continue to burn even if the smoker set them down — or fell asleep.
In recent years, health concerns related to the fire retardants have prompted state and international legislation to remove such chemicals from products. In California, legislators approved new fire standards in 2013 that allowed manufacturers to use nonchemical safety measures, but they stopped short of banning all flame retardants.
“Despite a series of bans and phaseouts, nearly everyone is still exposed to PBDE flame retardants, and children are at the most risk,” Woodruff said. “Our findings should be a strong wake-up call to those policymakers currently working to weaken or eliminate environmental health protections.”
Consumers, however, are already finding their own way to chemical-free home goods made in the Bay Area and beyond.
“We have people who seek us out from all over the country because very few people sell or specialize in this,” said Rowena Finegan, owner of Pine Street Interiors in Sausalito, which sells health-conscious furniture and other household items, including nontoxic glue. “We have a lot of demand.”
But it can be financially difficult for many families to buy their way out of chemical exposure, said Avery Lindeman, deputy director of the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley.
“The good news is that the more studies there are like this, the harder it will be for decision-makers to ignore,” she said.
In the meantime, Lindeman said, people can employ simple practices to reduce exposure even if chemicals are in their home, including washing hands frequently to reduce the transfer from hand to mouth.
The legislation introduced July 25 in San Francisco by Supervisor Mark Farrell would, if passed, make the city the first in the nation to ban all flame-retardant chemicals. Farrell said banning the chemicals would not only protect children and families, but firefighters.
Advocates for firefighters have linked flame retardants to what they call an epidemic of cancer cases in the city’s station houses. Blood tests of 12 city firefighters in 2014 showed that all had high levels of dioxins, which are released when compounds in flame retardants catch fire.
While PBDEs are no longer used, Woodruff said, the lingering health impact should inform choices by public officials.
“We should not be putting these chemicals that hang around a really long time into our products,” she said. “Maybe we should ask if they’re dangerous to our health before we put them in everything we use.”