The chemical industry has long said that all of the chemicals in our household products are totally safe—and anyone who believes otherwise is being ridiculously extreme. In fact, they're just silly chemophobes!

But we here at SAFER aren't motivated by baseless extremism or irrational fears—we're motivated by scientific data. And today, the numbers are in.

Thanks to groundbreaking legislation in Washington State, makers of kids' products have to report when they have chemicals that have been flagged as dangerous. And the data have been staggering.

Over 5,000 kids' products in Washington contain toxic chemicals— everything from cadmium to phthalates to flame retardants. And these chemicals are in products with trusted labels—everything from Walmart to the Gap to H&M.

We applaud the manufacturers for reporting these chemicals in Washington—and the other states that are considering similar legislation to address the products sold in their state. We're still working for a federal solution to move these toxic chemicals out of kids' products for good. But for now, we're happy to have the data on hand, so consumers can see what's in their products. Because our concern isn't about extremism or irrationality—it's about the toxic facts.

While industry talks out of both sides of its mouth, we ask "which is it?"

This month, state legislatures across the country are working to pass bills protecting families and children from the dangerous health effects of toxic chemicals. We are hearing of many good fights, and many bills heading toward wins. You can see the bills — and follow their fights — with our Bill Tracker.

Safer States' National Director, Sarah Doll, recently talked about progress so far this year: "Our state partners are talking to me on a nearly daily basis this spring. Vermont's ban against Tris—a toxic flame retardant chemical—has passed the Senate with an overwhelming majority and is now onto the House. Oregon has made progress on HB 3162, which requires makers of children's products to disclose presence of chemicals of concern in products. And Washington State's flame retardants bill is progressing through the legislature despite a tough fight from industry. Every win is a step toward safer products for all of us."

None of the fights are easy; each tiny step forward toward safer products is met with vociferous opposition. The opposition is made up of large chemical corporations like ExxonMobil and Dow and the organization that represents them—the American Chemistry Council (ACC), as well as the Toy Industry Association which represents large toy corporations. If you go to the websites of these organizations, they seem to be looking out for the health and welfare of consumers. But each time states try to pass laws which would get toxic chemicals out of everyday consumer products like couches, beds, computers, children's toys and food packaging, industry opposition is in the hearings, arguing for these bills to be defeated.

Here's the thing that has us scratching our heads: in statehouses across the country, these groups are opposing state bills in part because they say that they would prefer nationwide regulation. In Washington State last month, the ACC opposed efforts to regulate toxic flame retardant chemicals, saying "It is the role of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to determine if chemicals are safe for use."

We here at SAFER are big supporters of national regulation that follows in the states' good example. But we just don't buy that the chemical industry is on board with us. In fact, despite their claims of support, the industry has been blocking every national effort to regulate toxic chemicals, just like they've been fighting efforts in the states. Every year, they spend millions of dollars on Capitol Hill, swaying Congress and regulatory agencies to keep away from their profits.

And while they claim that they are "constantly looking at ways to provide information to the public about chemicals in the products they use every day," we have seen first-hand evidence of industry's efforts to thwart disclosure of chemicals in every day products. When Washington State passed a policy requiring reporting of chemical use by toy manufacturers, the chemical industry and its allies lined up to express loud opposition to this policy which would provide parents with the most information in the country to the chemicals in their kids' products.

In 2011, after a particularly bitter fight to ban bisphenol A (BPA) from baby bottles and sippy cups on a national level—an effort that was thwarted by backroom, last-minute efforts by industry—Senator Feinstein commented, "I know too well how stubborn this industry has been to listen to science and concerned consumers and how heavily they lobbied lawmakers."

Even with this heavy lobbying, eleven states did the hard work of banning BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups. Manufacturers realized that fighting the ban was a losing battle, and took the unusual step of asking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) directly to ban the chemical from baby bottles and sippy cups, directly citing the number of state bans that had passed.

States succeeded where the federal government could not, and it eventually led to a change on the national level.

Last summer, Cal Dooley of the ACC called the Safe Chemicals Act, which would overhaul national regulation of toxic chemicals, "extreme." And we haven't seen any reasonable efforts by industry to offer up their version of legislation that would even begin to be acceptable on all sides. Our partners at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families are reporting that Senator Vitter (R-LA) is writing an alternative bill to the Safe Chemicals Act, one that is being heavily influenced by chemical companies like Dow and ExxonMobil. Industry is attempting to write its own rules on the federal level.

So this is where we ask industry: Which is it? Are you really just against state chemical laws because you'd prefer a national solution? Are you going to get on board with toxic chemical regulation on a nationwide level? Or are you just opposing regulation wherever it crops up—and hoping we won't notice?

Because the past few years have proven that the regulation is coming. The public and lawmakers are no longer willing to trust that the chemical industry and its allies know what's best when it comes to chemicals in household products. We don't need industry's backroom opposition and empty claims of support. We don't need industry's doublespeak. We need industry to listen to the rising tide of parents, kids, lawmakers, and everyday citizens who are standing up for safer products and safer lives. We need industry to support real reform—or get out of the way.

The fight against toxic chemicals is gaining momentum in state legislatures across the country—check out the ever-growing list! But that's not the only front of this battle. And our friends over at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have launched a new campaign to to fight these toxic products right where they come to us—the retailers—by asking them to Mind The Store.

The premise is simple: Mind The Store asks the top ten retailers to keep the worst-of-the-worst chemicals off their shelf—a list called the Hazardous Hundred (well, 100+, if we're being technical).

These stores are where we get our household products, our toiletries, our cosmetics, our clothes—all of which can be introducing toxic chemicals into our bodies. We all depend on the top ten retailers: Walmart, Kroger, Target, Walgreens, Costco, The Home Depot, CVS Caremark, Lowe's, Best Buy and Safeway. And with this great market share comes great responsibility. Step up and help us, won't you?

States are doing their part, and a new toxics bill was just released in the US Senate. So retailers, can you do your part too?

Check out the new campaign—and if you think these retailers should step up and Mind the Store, let them know!

So when Graco—a leading manufacturer of high chairs, car seats, strollers and other kids' products—took a stand (pdf) against certain toxic chemicals, concerned parents breathed a sigh of relief.

Unfortunately, all of the parents who rushed out to purchase these toxic-free products learned a hard lesson. According to data filed under Washington State's new disclosure law, Graco's kids products contain tetrabromobisphenol A, or TBBPA, a toxic flame retardant.

TBBPA is categorized as a persistent, bioacccumulative, and toxic chemical (PBT), has been shown to effect thyroid hormone activity, and may effect nervous system function as well.

Washington State is currently considering a bill that would ban certain toxic flame retardants, and prevent them being replaced with other harmful chemicals. We'd love your support for this bill. But the issue is much larger than one chemical, one company, one state.

Graco's toxic kids' products painfully underline the fact that we can't make decisions about our kids' health based on companies' voluntary announcements or concerned consumer sleuthing. We need real reform! Across the country, state governments are considering laws to ban toxic chemicals—including sweeping legislation that ensures bad chemicals aren't just being replaced with other bad chemicals, but that we have a real system in place to assess what makes its way into our products.

Check our tracking site to see what's happening in your state. Let's continue to pass real standards and reform, in the states and on the national stage—and put an end to these nasty surprises!

Last month, we let the world know that states aren't waiting for Congress to act when it comes to toxic chemicals—at least 26 of them will be introducing bills to make their residents safer. And the country has taken notice! The story of the state fight was read across the country, with everyone wondering how they could help their state step up and join the fight.

And now, these states aren't just considering toxics legislation—they're moving it through their state capitols! As legislative sessions get further underway, bills banning toxic chemicals are being introduced from Alaska to West Virginia!

As we mentioned in a recent post, the dangers of toxic flame retardants are a big concern, and bills have been introduced in California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Vermont and Washington—and more are sure to come as the sessions continue!

But flame retardants aren't the only toxic chemicals coming under state fire. States are continuing to introduce bills to keep bisphenol A (BPA) out of our lives. There are bills to pull it out of children's products (Pennsylvania, Texas, Arizona, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, West Virginia) and food containers (Tennessee, Kentucky, New Jersey, West Virginia), clearly label wherever it shows up (South Dakota, Connecticut), and remove it from places many don't even know to look for it, like the receipt paper we stash in our wallets every day (New York). States have also introduced legislation to get cadmium out of children's products (New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi), as well as formaldehyde (Minnesota).

And most importantly, several states have introduced sweeping comprehensive bills (Alaska, Florida, New York, Maine, Minnesota, Vermont). These bills don't just focus on a single problem, but take aim at a broad swath of toxic chemicals. They identify lists of chemicals of concern (and establish criteria for assessing new chemicals in the market), require manufacturers to disclose if their products contain those chemicals, and develop a process to move toward safer alternatives across the board.

Although some sessions are just a few weeks old, the bills are rolling in! This list will continue to grow, as the sessions continue and more bills are introduced. Want to let your legislator know that you support these bills? Or want to help add your state's name to the list? Check out our list of partners, and find like-minded toxic crusaders in your state! We'll check back in in a few weeks—and our list will keep getting longer!

Another kids' product is found to have cancer-causing chemicals.

As state legislatures start their 2013 legislation session, a major focus is the use of toxic flame retardant chemicals in products we use in our homes. Over the last few years, these chemicals have received increased scrutiny from health advocates, the fire safety community, and policymakers. The time to take action on these chemicals has hopefully arrived.

There are many reasons for this:

They contribute to negative health effects. These health issues include cancer, problems with thyroid levels leading to developmental and metabolic issues in fetuses and children, lower quality sperm in men, lower IQ in children, and lowered fertility in women.

They are everywhere. Toxic flame retardants are used in many of our everyday products including computer casings, furniture, foam products, carpeting, and children's products. They are found in dust build-up in our homes, and in our bodies as we inhale or ingest them.

This week, a report was released by the Center for Environmental Health that found high levels of chlorinated Tris, a toxic flame retardant chemical, in nap mats that are sold to daycares nationwide, and in other children's products sold at Walmart, Target and Babies R Us. Tris is a carcinogen that was removed from children's sleepwear in 1979, but is still found in polyeurethane foam used in children's products.

The report was cited in a letter sent by 23 United States Senators Wednesday (pdf) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting that the EPA prioritize and conduct risk assessment on flame retardant chemicals, calling the exposure to flame retardants a "serious public health concern."

They are unnecessary. Despite what the chemical industry might have us believe, chemical flame retardants are not any more effective at preventing fires in home furniture than other less toxic methods. Government regulators are realizing this. Earlier this month, California proposed a revision of its outdated furniture fire standard—TB117—that would no longer require the use of chemical flame retardants. The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) has also issued a draft fire standard for furniture, expected to be finalized this year, that does not require the use of chemicals. It relies on the use of inherently flame resistant materials, which are already in use on the market.

The rule change, in California and federally, could have benefits for everyone in the country. But only if state laws stand behind the change, and call for manufacturers to keep the worst of the worst flame retardants out of products.

"Because structure fires burn so much hotter than ever before, flame retardants offer little if any protection. But they do add to the toxic haze that often engulfs firefighters when they respond to a call." Lou Paulson, president of California Professional Firefighters.

Several states have laws on the books which are beginning to get toxic flame retardants out of our lives. Last year, the state of New York passed the first law in the country banning chlorinated Tris from children's products.

Consumers demand answers and safer products. And should there be any doubt that flame retardant chemicals are a nationwide public concern, watch the CNN video at the end of this post outlining the chemical industry's deception and lies about these toxic chemicals. These industry tricks are contributing to an environment of distrust among consumers, who are left unsure of what products are safe to purchase for their families.

Why are manufacturers so anxious to keep large amounts of flame retardants in our consumer products? Globally, flame retardant chemicals are big business, making more than $4 billion a year. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is spending big money to protect that profit, and is showing up everywhere it can to try and fight bans on these chemicals.

Our consumer products should not be dumping grounds for toxic chemicals that threaten the health and safety of our families. We will continue to work on state laws that encourage manufacturers to provide us with the safest products possible, free from harmful and toxic flame retardant chemicals.

2013 Flame Retardant Bills for Consideration in the States

CNN Video: Safety of Flame Retardants in Question

References

Toxic Flame Retardants Glossary

A California regulation that required massive amounts of flame retardants, including the harmful chemical chlorinated Tris in furniture and baby products, is being changed. The rule—called TB 117—required that foam be able to withstand 12 seconds of exposure to an open flame without catching fire.

Since the rule was enacted, however, it has been discovered that interior foam is not the cause of most fires, and the flame retardant requirement was not saving lives. TB117 led to manufacturers putting massive amounts of flame retardant chemicals, many of which are now being found to be harmful to babies and other vulnerable populations, into foam-containing products nationwide.

The rule being lifted is a step in the right in the right direction. The trick now will be to continue to pass laws in the states that require that manufacturers remove the chemicals. We announced in January that at least 15 state legislatures will consider policies to phase out the use of toxic flame retardants. The recognition by California that these chemicals are unnecessary should help legislators to understand that it's an easier decision than ever to outlaw the toxic flame retardant chemicals.

Reaction to the news from around the Safer States coalition:

"These cancer-causing chemicals have no business in products in our homes. With a change to California's obsolete regulation and the passage of state laws banning the use of the chemicals, we can protect the health of children and families from this toxic chemical," said Sarah Doll, National Director of Safer States, a network of diverse environmental health coalitions and organizations in states around the country. "That's why we expect at least 15 states have legislation this year to restrict or ban toxic flame retardants."

"The chemical corporations have spent millions to defeat restrictions on these toxic chemicals in every state, and were found by a Chicago Tribune investigation to use deceptive tactics to keep their chemicals in products in our homes," comments Laurie Valeriano, Executive Director at the Washington Toxics Coalition. "With our allies in the health and firefighter communities, we are supporting a bill that would ban chlorinated Tris here in Washington."

"In New York and California, and other places, the flame retardant industry has targeted communities of color to attempt to get them to defend their products, which is particularly egregious, since people of color are disproportionately impacted by flame retardant chemicals and all chemical exposure," says Kathleen A. Curtis, LVN, coordinator, Alliance for Toxic Free Fire Safety.

"We are relieved that our Governor Jerry Brown is finally proposing a halt to bad policy that has enabled toxic flame retardants to contaminate the world," says Ana Mascareñas, Policy and Communications Director for Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles."Now if the public can win over protections for our health in the 45 day public comment period, we will have fire safety without the virtually forced used of toxic flame retardants."