DAVID HO
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Half the chemicals proposed by the government for making upholstered furniture flame-resistant could pose a health risk to people exposed to them in the home, a scientific panel said Thursday.
While researchers found eight of the 16 candidate flame retardants to be safe, not enough information was available to say the others wouldn't cause health problems, including cancer.
``Studies are needed on the other eight to find out how much exposure people would actually have to these chemicals if they were used on home furniture,'' said Donald Gardner, chairman of the National Research Council panel that wrote the report. The council, part of the National Academy of Sciences, advises the government on scientific and technological issues.
Gardner noted that none of the tested chemicals are currently being used in the United States on furniture.
Fires started on upholstered furniture are among the leading causes of residential fire deaths, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The fires are often caused by small open flames from matches, cigarette lighters and candles.
Since 1993, the safety commission has been considering a flammability standard for all residential upholstered furniture sold in the United States. This prompted Congress to request a study on the health risks posed by the flame-retardant chemicals likely to be used to treat furniture.
Republican Rep. Roger Wicker, whose Mississippi district includes 30,000 furniture workers, wrote the House provision requiring the study.
Wicker said he wants to make sure the safety commission, by pushing for flammability regulation, ``doesn't unnecessarily endanger the health and safety of consumers, workers, and the environment.''
If the standard is enacted, the chemicals would be applied to as much as 600 million square yards of fabric each year in the United States, the report said.
The panel did not conduct its own testing, but gathered and analyzed existing research on the chemicals. Because there were few studies available, the panel intentionally overestimated the possible exposure people would have from the treated furniture.
Related
