Contest! Win Watch Me Learn Video Modeling DVDs
Dachel Media Review: Blue Days Ahead, Challening Parents Healthcare Rights

Health Risk Déjà Vu: Corporations, Chemicals & Fabricated Advocates

Toxic Hot SeatBy Nancy Hokkanen

In the corporate battles for high-stakes public health contracts, a public relations parallel exists between manufacturers of vaccines and flame retardants. Both industries continually push for mandates by leveraging mortal fear into sales. Both insist their products are completely safe, despite compelling research to the contrary – along with uncounted consumers’ reports of adverse medical events such as autism.

Last December HBO’s documentary Toxic Hot Seat detailed the controversy over flame retardant chemicals used in U.S. furniture. The filmmakers assert that corporations “obscure the risks to public health and misrepresent chemical safety data by paying 'experts' to alarm legislators and the public” – and oppose state bills to eliminate toxic flame retardants from home furnishings.

HBO’s film, inspired in part by the Chicago Tribune’s 2012 investigative series “Playing With Fire,” makes the case that profiteering via manufactured fear is skewing public health decision-making. Filmmakers and reporters both noted similarities between the PR tactics of Big Tobacco and flame retardant manufacturers, saying the latter “waged deceptive campaigns that led to the proliferation of these chemicals, which don’t even work as promised.”

(Note: Age of Autism readers familiar with the Chicago Tribune‘s autism coverage might ask whether its reporters have been pejoratively labeled by critics as “pro-fire.”)

No federal law requires furniture to be flame retardant, but for decades most U.S. manufacturers have adhered to the California flammability standard outlined in Technical Bulletin 117. The document describes flame resistance limits for upholstery fillings such as foams, beads and feathers, when exposed to ignition sources such as a lit cigarette. Flame retardants work by generating reactive or additive compounds that operate alone or as synergists, interfering with combustion, insulating fuel sources, or diluting sources of fuel or oxygen.

Chemical compounds with names like Tris (TCDP) and Firemaster 500 are part of a multi-billion-dollar international industry. According to the American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance, the main uses are in electronics and electrical devices, building and construction materials, furnishings, and transportation (airplanes, trains, automobiles). Tris contains bromine, an element whose Greek name means “stench.” The U.S. Centers for Disease Control website says bromine is used as a chlorine alternative in swimming pools, though at certain concentrations it can irritate skin, mucous membranes and tissues.

Research increasingly links flame retardant chemicals to adverse health effects such as “antisocial behavior, impaired fertility, decreased birth weight, diabetes, memory loss, undescended testicles, lowered levels of male hormones and hyperthyroidism.” A Duke University study of children’s blood detected levels of flame retardants in all subjects tested; other research on children links exposure to lowered IQ’s. And a 53-page report by the Environmental Protection Agency states that Tris is neurotoxic, mutates genes, damages DNA and causes chromosomal aberrations in vitro.

Inconvenient truths, indeed. According to the Chicago Tribune, three large chemical companies – Chemtura Corporation, Albemarle and ICL Industrial Products – funneled millions of dollars into a front group called Citizens for Fire Safety used for influencing legislation and consumer purchasing. An investigative reporter discovered that:

  • the faux advocacy group’s headquarters was a post office box in Nevada,
  • its members were the three largest manufacturers of flame retardants in the world,
  • its executive director was a former tobacco executive adviser, and
  • the group’s budget was spent mostly on lobbying and political expenses.

The lead author of a 1987 Swedish study on flame retardant effectiveness, Vytenis Babrauskas, told the Chicago Tribune that his 1987 Swedish efficacy study has been misused by U.S. corporations for their financial benefit. However a 2011 paper, "Flame Retardants in Furniture Foam: Benefits and Risks" by Babrauskas et al. concluded, "[A] fire safety benefit has not been established" that would justify the hundreds of millions of pounds used over forty years.

Last year California revised its flame retardant law, effective January 1, 2014, stating that upholstery must only withstand a smoldering source rather than an open flame. Because that bill would reduce or eliminate chemical use,  Chemtura filed suit to block that law; its Great Lakes Solutions division handles flame retardants. Buyers’ choice is paralyzed by legal limbo.

_ _ _

Over and over, consumers find themselves coerced into paying for a mandated product that not only proves to be only marginally effective, but also may cause health damage. Enough dissatisfied customers can sharply drop revenues for a company that fails to respond properly to a product safety crisis. But an industry whose product is mandated by government can do whatever it wants. Vaccine manufacturers that bear no financial responsibility for product failure have been directing money and power against complaining consumers, instead of investigating cases, improving products and compensating victims.

Here are some strategies used by producers of chemicals, cigarettes or vaccines against dissatisfied consumers – though if used concurrently, some become mutually exclusive:

  • Claim only industry science is valid. Fund questionable papers concluding organobromide compounds or cigarette tar or ethylmercury have no negative effects on human health.
  • Massage your data if it’s problematic, à la the CDC’s Thomas Verstraeten and the Generation Zero data on Thimerosal and autism (found at the SafeMinds website).
  • Create a faux consumer group to lobby legislators and influence media, whether it’s the Citizens for Fire Safety or government- & pharma-funded Every Child By Two.
  • Trumpet your tragedy, drowning out others. Insist measles is worse than autism, rather than acknowledging that both conditions merit research, treatment and compassion.
  • Deflect and redirect. Suggest that autism is caused by any of 84,000 untested chemicals, not injections of mercury or viruses.
  • Deny the problem even exists. Perpetuate memes saying autism is simply quirkiness, with few or no health issues – the new normal, or the newly discovered old normal.
  • Threaten your opposition. Promote mob mentality by suggesting jail time for nonvaccinators after disease outbreaks, while failing to mention when most or all cases were in people who were vaccinated.

Whether using PR, marketing or advertising, corporations know how to manipulate their message and stoke the fires of fear. According to the American Chemistry Council's North American Flame Retardant Alliance, the benefits of flame retardants “are often noticed only when they are not present" – pushing potential customers to imagine the worst. Members of the pharmaceutical- and CDC-funded Immunization Action Coalition travel around the U.S. claiming that removing the mercury-based preservative Thimerosal from vaccines will result in catastrophic disease epidemics and death.

In California, people testifying against the 2009 SB-772 bill on flame retardants in home furnishings were portrayed as "crazy environmentalists who didn’t care about people," as one participant recalled. At 1:03:58 in the Toxic Hot Seat  video, burn victims and their relatives were brought in to testify on behalf of the chemical companies. Whose heart would not break hearing a little boy testify about his mother dying in a fire? But who also would remain unmoved after viewing the "Not A Coincidence" video, narrated by victims harmed by an HPV vaccine... or their survivors?

Don’t expect corporations to sympathetically open their pocketbooks. Corporations bear a fiduciary duty to protect shareholder profits, using increasingly creative tactics. On May 1, the faux consumer group Every Child By Two will lobby Congress using a video titled "Invisible Threat," which they tout as a “balanced” report about vaccine safety perception. Yet the video is being praised by hospitals affiliated with key vaccine developers also on the payroll of manufacturers such as Merck. The date is near the April release of the film "Bought: The Truth Behind Vaccines, Big Pharma & Your Food."

Emotional blackmail as public opinion strategy is a two-way street. Environmental researchers call the proliferation of under-tested, under-regulated chemicals "a giant uncontrolled experiment on America's children." The same charge is being made against the ever-increasing vaccine schedule administered to infants and toddlers, with no follow-up by physicians, CDC or industry. When a 5-month-old baby stopped breathing after returning from a doctor's appointment in a national media drama February 21, many autism parents shared the same question: Had the infant suffered a vaccine adverse reaction? We probably will never know, because few people know to look. Government and industry simply will not look.

_ _ _

The public issue of flame retardants became personal when I inadvertently bought a “chemical couch” last October.

Soon after delivery an unpleasant chemical odor emanated from the couch. Over the afternoon the odor got stronger, so I opened windows. That evening my husband, son and I developed headaches. We covered the couch, avoided the living room, and left windows open overnight – though temperatures were at 50 degrees.

Searching the Internet, I found disturbing similar reports by other furniture buyers. I read that outgassing from furniture treated with flame retardants was linked to respiratory illness, cancer, and a variety of other health damage. I found the Proposition 65 label.

Overnight the furnace blew the chemical odor throughout all the rooms. We developed burning eyes and mild nausea. I covered the couch with every blanket in the house, and opened every window. Searching online again, almost every article or comment was negative: the stench (there’s that word again) would take months to “mostly” go away, but toxic chemical dust would get all over us and eventually around the house.

So I called the furniture store and the saleswoman agreed to have the couch removed. She, however, claimed the foam simply had not been “properly cured.” Later while the movers carried the couch down our stairs, one man suffered a frightening asthma attack. After he could breathe freely, I shared what I’d read online… and suggested he pursue a less hazardous occupation.

One of the delivery men had remarked about feeling a dusty coating on his hands, which a Duke researcher says is a major route of exposure. I felt concern for those furniture movers inhaling that toxic chemical dust for hours a day. But what about their many clients – particularly the small children who climb and roll on these couches? Or nursing mothers, unaware that others’ breast milk has tested positive for contamination?

Eliminating toxic chemicals from home products seems like a frustratingly labyrinthine game of Whack-a-Mole. Recently in the United Kingdom, thousands of consumers filed “sofa rash” compensation claims stating they suffered health problems after exposure to dimethyl fumarate (DMF). A Chinese manufacturer had infused 50,000 leather sofas with the fungicide DMF to prevent mold. People using the sofas mysteriously developed rashes, eczema and blisters. Unfortunately when the sufferers stayed home to recover, they had more contact with the poison – worsening symptoms until they eventually determined the source.
_ _ _

Chemical solutions for consumer problems often begin with good intentions. Fifteen minutes into Toxic Hot Seat, one man describes suffering third degree burns as a child, adding, "I don't want someone else to have to go through that goddamn experience." He became a fire safety advocate who worked (albeit unsuccessfully) to compel tobacco companies to make cigarettes self-extinguishing.

But good intentions can morph into personal bias, skewing public health policymaking. Many in government and advocacy have personal reasons for promoting a particular public health philosophy.  Biographies of vaccine researchers and administrators detail first-hand experiences with the effects of life-threatening diseases. But is a bioethicist traumatized by a childhood bout with polio truly an objective voice in the vaccine/autism debate? Will he be fair and responsive to reports that a product intended to protect health is having the opposite effect for others?

For parents of vaccine-injured children, the question of product safety is “asked and answered” – a reversal of public health’s risk/benefit equation. Our chronically ill children are proof of risk made real, despite denials of CDC agencies, vaccine manufacturers and sham advocacy groups. For us, the cure is worse than the disease.

Society cannot continue to support the devastation and costs wrought by a government program fostering an epidemic of neuroimmune damage. In an age when U.S. children are the unhealthiest ever and the autism rate is 1 in 50, it’s imperative that vaccine policymakers start providing taxpaying consumers with honest research and informed consent.

Like the in-home holocaust of Pink Disease caused by mercury in medicine seven decades ago, the vaccine/autism catastrophe should not require several generations’ distance before the unintended human toll of chemical cures is recognized and, hopefully, repaired.


[The Green Science Policy Institute's "Selected Bibliography: Furniture Flame Retardants, Toxicity and Health" (June 2013) is available at the website for the California Department of Consumer Affairs Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair, Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, which oversees that state's regulations on flame retardants in furniture.]

Nancy Hokkanen is Contributing Editor for Age of Autism.



Just saw this...I know Mother Jones has an attitude problem when it comes to vaccine safety reporting but this article is of interest re BPA. The following excerpt sounds a lot like what happened in Simpsonwood with vaccines, except with BPA. The FDA still holds that it's perfectly safe.

"At this point, BPA was among the most studied chemicals on the planet. In November 2006, vom Saal and a top official at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences convened a group of 38 leading researchers from various disciplines to evaluate the 700-plus existing studies on the subject. The group later issued a "consensus statement" that laid out some chilling conclusions: More than 95 percent of people in developed countries were exposed to levels of BPA that are "within the range" associated with health problems in animals, from cancer and insulin-resistant diabetes to early puberty. The scientists also found that there was "great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans," especially given the steep uptick in these same disorders.

At the same time, a new body of research was finding that BPA altered animals' genes in ways that caused disease. For instance, it could switch off a gene that suppresses tumor growth, allowing cancer to spread. These genetic changes were passed down across generations. "A poison kills you," vom Saal explains. "A chemical like BPA reprograms your cells and ends up causing a disease in your grandchild that kills him."


Thanks for this article, Nancy. I wasn't going to add a comment about wireless, but tonight I happened to stumble on this which I think is important to share. There is a bill up for consideration in Hawaii that, if it passes, will mandate large warning labels on cell phones similar to what is required on cigarette packs (“This device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body.”) The information in the warning is already in the cell phone instruction manual in tiny print that no one reads, hence the effort to bring the info to the public. But get this - in a letter to a Hawaiian senator signed by 16 scientists and others requesting passage of the bill,among the reasons listed is this...

"...on February 26, 2013 Verizon Communications Inc. reported the following liability risk in its Annual Report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission,

“…our wireless business also faces personal injury and consumer class action lawsuits relating to the alleged health effects of wireless phones or radio frequency transmitters, and class action lawsuits that challenge marketing practices and disclosures relating to alleged adverse health effects of handheld wireless phones. We may incur significant expenses in defending these lawsuits. In addition we may be required to pay significant awards or settlements.”

Laura Hayes

Yet again, consumer choice is eliminated for the most part. How about flame-retardant products for those who want them, and equally as many non-flame-retardant products for those of us who don't want them? So tired of the government forcing dangerous and costly choices on us that we don't want, and flame-retardant products would be a prime example.

Judy R

Doctor lies for industry:

Ex-Harborview (Seattle trauma hospital) official tells lawmakers of need for retardants; industry pays for time

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 the former director of the burn center at Harborview Medical Center. He is a star witness for the manufacturers of flame retardants.
When Heimbach testified last spring in California on the bill that could have significantly reduced the use of flame retardants, 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.

Laura Hayes

Thank you, Rosycurler, for this information about LED lights. I figured they weren't without hazards, either, just didn't know what the dangers were! Sigh.



LED lighting is not risk free. Blue/white light disturbs the circadian rhythme and may cause retinal damage.

Environ Health Perspect; DOI:10.1289/ehp.122-A81

Hidden Blue Hazard? LED Lighting and Retinal Damage in Rats

Laura Hayes

Oh, and I forgot to mention how this reminds me of the whole light bulb issue...being forced to pay more for toxic, mercury-containing light bulbs (which work terribly), or pay way more for no-mercury LED light bulbs, all thanks to big business and government regulators. Which reminds me of this great (and funny) video by Rand Paul titled "My Toilet Doesn't Work."

Laura Hayes

So well written, Nancy! And so timely...just before reading this, I emailed a friend asking her which brands of "green" (hopefully, toxin-free) mattresses and couches she had! I always love reading your comments on AoA, and was thrilled to see a whole article by you today!

After recently writing an article for the Fearless Parent blog regarding the fallout from the use of GMOs and glyhposate (Round Up), I was put in touch with an anti-GMO advocate in the UK. In an email this week to me, he included this great quote from a U.S. judge regarding the tobacco industry, which remains more than apt today with regards to pharmaceutical, agriculture, food, and chemical companies. Have a read.

U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin said in a 1992 pretrial ruling ordering the tobacco
companies to turn over internal research documents:

"All too often in the choice between the physical health of consumers
and the financial well-being of business, concealment is chosen over
disclosure, sales over safety, and money over morality. Who are these
persons who knowingly and secretly decide to put the buying public
at risk solely for the purpose of making profits and who believe
that illness and death of consumers is an apparent cost of their own


Evolution on this earth have been -- tough; and it has made us tough -- we are no delicate flowers unless made that way.

We have developed over the 1000s of years lots of protective mechanisms.

So when one is getting asthma moving a chemical filled couch ---

You have to wonder how much effect vaccinating has had on our protective mechanisms.

If this man had not had a whole series of whooping cough vaccine could he have got that chemical laden couch down the stairs with no more than stinging eyes?

It all goes back to vaccines as far as I am concerned.

Perhaps this is the one thing sort of good that will come out of vaccines moving our immune system away from the Th1 to the Th2 --- we are painfully becoming aware of all these unnecessary chemicals around us causing a Th2 response from us; making us more keenly aware of them.

Truth is hard to come by

I guess the good news is that some of these underhanded tactics by the manufacturers of toxins are getting some press coverage which might help to wake people up.

Here is an example of a researcher who has gotten the "Wakefield treatment" for his research into the effects of a pesticide:

To paraphrase Boyd Haley, "What I hate most is what they are doing to science."

Science is becoming a way of "not knowing," instead of a way of knowing or finding out anything, thanks to the way it is now funded and the way our politicians are dependent upon funding from lobbyists. We need to get corporate money out of politics and academia.

A Mom

"Don’t expect corporations to sympathetically open their pocketbooks. Corporations bear a fiduciary duty to protect shareholder profits, using increasingly creative tactics."

So, these shareholders are OK with the harm and death that often times accompanies the products said corporations produce? Money makes it all better? Makes all those pesky little details (human suffering) go away...

As with Dorit Reiss' comment: "If you’re willing to put aside the unsupported crusade against vaccines, we could discuss how we can actually help people with autism build a life."

Which says to me that "they" might help people if they just deny where the damage comes from...

Would I stop speaking out against vaccine damage and specifically the damage done to my daughter and our household for a cool $1-5 million, or whatever the going rate is? Would anyone else? Is this why so many "parents" and so many in academia (as someone else posted) have done an about face when it comes to vaccine (not to be confused with "environmental") damage?

Given that our household income is below the poverty level and has been for more than 21 years because of vaccine injury, I really wonder what I would do. And I wonder if I would be required to make a public about face statement or statements. And if I did, would I be unable to ever recant those statements? Like a Pharma Hotel California -- "You can never leave."

Something has got to be going on for things to be happening the way they are.

Bob Moffitt

"According to the Chicago Tribune, three large chemical companies – Chemtura Corporation, Albemarle and ICL Industrial Products – funneled millions of dollars into a front group called Citizens for Fire Safety used for influencing legislation and consumer purchasing."

The formulation of "front groups" to propagandize the "safety, critical need, etc." of chemically dangerous products to an unwary public .. is a standard operating procedure that has proved highly suscessful for manufacturers .. such as .. to name just ONE of thousands .. the tobacco industry which relied upon them for decades.

Indeed, the tobacco industry alone proved these "front groups" were well worth the millions of dollars they spent .. as author David Michaels outlines in his book .. "Doubt Is Their Product".

The introduction of David's book begins in 1986 .. when every bottle of aspirin in the U.S. included a label advising parents that consumption by children with viral illnesses greatly increased their risk of developing Reye's syndrome, a serious illness that often involves sudden damage to the brain or liver. Before that mandatory warning was required by the FDA, the toll from this disease was substantial: In one year .. 1980 .. 555 cases were reported, and many others quite likely occurred but went unreported because the syndrome is easily misdiagnosed. One in three children died.

Today, less than a handful of Reye's syndrome cases are reported each year .. a public health triumph, but a bittersweet one because an untold number of children died or were disabled while the aspirin manufacturers delayed the FDA's regulation by arguing that the science establishing the aspirin link was incomplete, uncertain, and unclear.

The title of David's book .. "doubt is our product" is a phrase unwisely committed to paper by a cigarette executive since it is the best means of competing with the "body of fact" that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also a means of establishing a controversy.

Unfortunately, the public is not well trained to examine the difference between "sound science" .. and .. the opposite .. "sounds like science" that is often spewed by the well-paid employees of "doubt is our product" front groups. It does explain why some "controversies" remain "controversial" decades longer then they should.

God bless those "moving men" .. who work extremely hard at their job providing for their families .. they surely do not need the unnecessary exposure of touching chemically ladened furniture .. or breathing unhealthy chemical fumes emanating from that furniture .. throughout their long .. hard day.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)