Black Plastic, Gray Areas: What Are The Actual Risks of Kitchen Utensils and Toys?

Flame Retardants in Household Items: A Balanced Look at Risks, Research, and Reality

Flame Retardants in Household Items: Cause for Concern or Overreaction?

Introduction

A recent study published in the journal Chemosphere has sparked concern about the presence of flame retardants in everyday household items. The research detected various flame retardants in black plastic products, including kitchen utensils, toys, and food packaging. While the findings are certainly attention-grabbing, it's important to examine them in context and understand what they mean for consumers.

Heads up: This newsletter will not provide definitive answers. Instead, it will present the nuanced reality of what we know and, more importantly, what we don't know. (In fact, you should be skeptical of anyone who offers definitive answers to most scientific questions.) Also, this is one study. More research is needed before we can say anything with great certainty.

Breaking Down the Study

The researchers analyzed 203 black plastic products purchased in the United States, focusing on items like food service ware, hair accessories, kitchen utensils, and toys. They found that about 10% of the products contained brominated flame retardants (BFRs) at levels suggesting the use of recycled electronic waste content.

Key findings include:

• 85% of products with high bromine content contained toxic flame retardants

• Total flame retardant concentrations ranged from 51 (fast food trays) up to 22,800 mg/kg (Sushi trays)

• Commonly detected compounds included BDE-209 (a phased-out flame retardant) and its replacements

While these results sound alarming, it's essential to consider them in a broader context.

Expert Perspectives

We spoke with Dr. Norb Kaminski, a toxicologist, who reviewed the study and offered this insight:

"What is completely lacking, which is typical of the many papers like this, is context. There is no discussion of whether any of the chemicals being detected are able to migrate out of the products being analyzed. If not, there is no risk because there is no exposure."

This perspective highlights a critical point: the mere presence of a chemical doesn't necessarily equate to risk. The key factor is exposure.

Dr. Joe Schwarcz, a chemist and science communicator, shared a similar sentiment:

"Detecting these flame retardants in products is one thing, but knowing to what extent they are transferred to our bodies is quite another. What is the likelihood of a significant amount of flame retardant ending up in our bloodstream after we use a black spatula to drain spaghetti? Or use a black hairbrush?"

Dr. Schwarcz raises important questions about the practical implications of these findings. He also points out a broader issue:

"The bigger question is how whatever leaches out of these items fits into the grand scheme of things, that is, everything else to which we are exposed. I think the answer to that question is that there is no answer. We just don't know."

Understanding Flame Retardants: A Closer Look at the Data

To better understand the implications of these findings, let's take a closer look at what we know about these flame retardants. We consulted with our resident toxicologist, Michelle Bridenbaker, to provide more context on the compounds found in this study.

Flame retardants are chemicals added to materials to slow or prevent the spread of fire. They've been used for decades in various products, from furniture to electronics. While their fire safety benefits are clear, concerns have arisen about potential health effects. The most common flame retardants found in the study include:

1. Decabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-209)

2. Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA)

3. Decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE)

Here's what we know about their absorption, bioaccumulation, and potential health impacts:

1. Absorption and Bioaccumulation:

   • BDE-209 and DBDPE: Poorly absorbed, with studies showing only a small fraction of ingested BDE-209 is absorbed in animal models.

   • TBBPA: Better absorbed but rapidly metabolized. Human studies show it doesn't significantly bioaccumulate.

   • Human exposure to BFRs occurs primarily through various pathways, such as dust ingestion, air inhalation (especially at home or in electronic industries), diet, and skin contact with BFR-laden dust. 

2. Exposure and Risk:

   • Human biomonitoring studies have detected BDE-209 in blood and breast milk, but concentrations are generally low.

   • TBBPA can cross the placental barrier, raising potential concerns about fetal exposure. However, it's important to note that many substances can cross this barrier, and this ability alone doesn't necessarily indicate harm.

   • BRFs have been phased out in much of the US and the world, but adverse effects stemming from long-term past exposure are indeed significant and should not be disregarded and could still be impacting populations today.

3. Migration from Products:

   • While data is limited, factors influencing migration include:

     • Type of plastic

     • Temperature of use

     • Food type (fatty foods tend to enhance migration)

   • Typical levels of migration in everyday use are believed to be low.

4. Potential Health Impacts:

   • Endocrine Disruption: Some flame retardants, particularly PBDEs, have shown endocrine-disrupting effects in animal studies, mainly affecting thyroid hormones.

   • Developmental Effects: High-dose animal studies suggest potential impacts on neurodevelopment, but these doses far exceed typical human exposure.

   • Carcinogenicity: The EPA and other regulatory bodies do not classify these compounds as carcinogenic to humans at typical environmental exposure levels.

5. Key Takeaways:

   • Absorption is limited: For example, most ingested DBDPE is excreted rather than absorbed into the bloodstream. Additionally, most studies of skin exposure from dust, dust ingestion, and inhalation of BFRs involved industrial exposure or high levels of pollution/contamination in the environment.

   • Exposure matters: The most concerning studies involve doses much higher than typical consumer exposure.

   • Low levels in humans: Biomonitoring consistently shows low concentrations in the general population.

While the presence of these chemicals in household items warrants attention, current evidence suggests that the risk from typical use is low. Additionally, in this study, the products studied pose potentially different risks as a hair brush poses a different level of risk potentially than a utensil used in cooking food, a sushi tray, or a toy that may land in the mouth of a young toddler. However, regulatory bodies continue to evaluate these substances, and our understanding may evolve with further research.  For example, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is currently evaluating safety, particularly in our food supplies slated for completion by 2025.

It's important to note that while some of these compounds have been associated with health concerns in animal studies, these studies often involve much higher exposures than what we typically encounter in daily life.

Putting the Findings in Perspective

While the detection of flame retardants in household items is concerning, it's essential to consider several factors:

1. Detection vs. Exposure: As our experts pointed out, finding a chemical in a product doesn't necessarily mean we're being exposed to it in significant amounts.

2. Regulatory Context: Many of the flame retardants detected, like BDE-209, have been phased out or restricted in various jurisdictions. Their presence likely results from recycled materials.

3. Risk Assessment Challenges: Assessing the risk from low-level exposure to multiple chemicals is incredibly complex. As Dr. Schwarcz notes in a recent article, "The fact is that we are exposed to a vast array of potential toxins in various combinations, and it is essentially impossible to know what effects they have in the doses to which we are exposed."

4. Balancing Risks: Flame retardants serve a purpose in fire safety. Any assessment of their use needs to balance potential risks against benefits.

What Can Consumers Do?

While the study raises valid concerns, it's important not to panic. Here are some balanced approaches consumers can consider:

1. Diversify Your Kitchenware: Consider using a variety of materials in your kitchen, not just black plastic.

2. Proper Use: Avoid using plastic utensils at high temperatures or with very hot foods, as heat can increase chemical migration and the potential for leaching into food when cooking.

3. Toy Safety: many of the toys evaluated in this study were of rather low quality and unacceptable for children under the age of 3. Diversifying the toys purchased for children and buying non-plastic or non-black plastic products may also help to reduce concerns about exposure.

4. Stay Informed: Keep an eye on reputable scientific sources for updates on chemical safety, but be wary of alarmist headlines.

5. Perspective: Remember that our exposure to chemicals comes from many sources. Focusing too narrowly on one type of product will likely not significantly reduce overall exposure.

Note: While the researchers initially hypothesized that larger retailers might have more stringent controls, the study found no significant difference in flame retardant levels between products from large chain retailers and small local shops. This suggests that the issue of flame retardant contamination in recycled plastics may be widespread across various retail channels (though, as discussed, the implications of the mere presence of these compounds remain unclear, as how this translates to exposure is not understood).

Conclusion

The study on flame retardants in household items underscores the complex interplay between consumer products, chemical use, and potential health impacts. As Dr. Schwarcz aptly puts it, "Life is complicated." Our modern world exposes us to countless chemicals, and understanding the implications of this exposure remains an ongoing challenge for scientists.

Different readers may interpret this information in various ways:

• Some might adopt a precautionary approach, choosing to replace their black plastic utensils or toys due to potential, albeit uncertain, risks.

• Others might maintain their current habits, given the lack of clear evidence of harm from typical use.

• Many may not have the means or desire to replace their kitchen items based on this study alone.

Ultimately, the decision comes down to personal risk assessment and individual circumstances. What's crucial is making an informed choice based on available evidence, personal risk tolerance, and your specific situation.

Key takeaways:

1. Stay informed, but don't let every new study cause undue stress.

2. Focus on a balanced approach to health and safety.

3. Remember that context and exposure are crucial factors in assessing risk.

4. There's rarely a one-size-fits-all answer to these complex issues.

As we navigate the challenges of chemical exposure in our daily lives, it's important to maintain perspective. While we should take studies like this seriously, we must also view them in the broader context of our overall exposure and the current state of scientific knowledge. It is very reassuring to see various clinical studies and regulators continuing to study the impacts and safety of BRFs and to build more scientific evidence around this topic. Continue to stay curious, ask questions, and make decisions that align with your personal health goals and values.

As we hear more, and the science evolves, we will be sure to update you!

Stay curious,
Unbiased Science