I've wanted to write a practitioners guide to addressing chemicals in building products for a while now, and with new developments like the Perkins+Will Precautionary List, The launch of Pharos, The EPA's announcement on a new approach to chemical policy, the time finally seemed right.
By necessity, the March EBN feature article is an overview--glossing over a lot of the details--but while it is true that generalizations can be problematic, the details can also distract and confuse. Focusing on flame retardant chemicals one-by-one led manufacturers to replace the banned PBBs with PBDEs, most of which were later banned except DBDE, which is now starting to get banned. EBN has for many years advocated for a more comprehensive approach--as illustrated by our 2004 editorial, "Beyond a ban of PBDEs."
So I know that was a lot of acronyms – but that's part of my point. Wading through these acronyms, not to mention understanding their significance is a lot to ask of consumers or designers. It's no small task to figure out what's going on and come up with an appropriate response--and the complexity of it all leads to more hazards and more distrust in all corners of the building industry.
On one side, manufacturers can get justifiably nervous about disclosing chemical ingredients. Just look at the Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) scare a while back. The DHMO hazard looks scary, until you realize that DHMO = water (H2O = di (two) hydrogen + mono (one) oxygen--get it? But its ban nevertheless received some support. This hoax illustrates how public concern can get misplaced and overblown.
At the same time, fears of this sort are driven by equally justifiable lack of trust that we are being adequately protected from chemical hazards. The daily news points to this or that new research study suggesting chemical hazards behind modern ailments from obesity to autism --and lack of 'proof' is no comfort to parents of children with the same birth defects as their neighbor's kids, or someone who believes they suffer from the controversial phenomena of 'multiple chemical sensitivity'.
It is true that there is far too little understanding of chemistry and toxicology--but it isn't just the public that needs information and education. Manufacturers may not understand the hazards in their own product, and few chemistry students have required courses in toxicology--which means they aren't being trained to create safer chemicals for the future.
With this feature, I hope to provide practical guidance for what designers can do given where we are today--while pointing once again to the need for a more comprehensive approach to chemical policy.
Let me know what you think--please comment below, read the feature article in EBN. It's a members-only resource, but the marketing team wants you to know that a one-week trial to check it out is just $12.95.
Comments
