This blog will trace how tragedy and synthetic materials reshaped the building industry, prompting a need for chemical flame retardants at the expense of human and environmental health. It will grapple with the sad irony of long-term health consequences of flame-retardant use as well as what policy makers and designers are doing to limit our exposure to harmful chemicals. The goal is to uncover how material selection impacts human health and what designers can do to create a healthier future for all.

Chemical flame retardants were incorporated into our buildings with the intention of protecting lives. The ironic truth is that they are hurting us instead.

From the Ashes

"Vintage: The Iroquois Theatre fire of 1903" - Chicago Tribune

Discussion of flame retardants inherently begins with the sober recognition that the building industry has been shaped by fire. One such tragedy happened on December 30, 1903, with many children and their families gathering at the Iroquois Theater in Chicago, Illinois.[1] During the performance, a stage light shorted and ignited the curtain. The fire spread through flammable stage pieces made of wood and canvas, covered in oil paints. The theater became the site of the deadliest building fire in U.S. history until the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11, with over 600 people dying, many of them children.[2]

The resulting grief and outrage catalyzed systemic changes in how fires are considered through design.

These include codes we are familiar with: Required outward-opening emergency doors, illuminated exit lights, automatic sprinkler systems, and fire alarms. However, these events also led to a question:

To protect human lives, shouldn’t we make materials less flammable to start with?

The concept of increasing material fire resistance is ancient. Archeological evidence shows that alum solutions were used to make wood more fire resistant in ancient Greece. [3] However, it wasn’t until building material industry shifted in favor of synthetic sources over the last 100 years that the nature of fire - and fireproofing - changed. Plastics, foams, and other petrochemically derived products are highly flammable, producing thicker smoke and hotter fires than their natural counterparts. In response, chemical flame retardants rose to widespread use.

Flame retardants are intended to save lives primarily by increasing the time before flashover, which is when temperatures reach a critical point and simultaneous combustion of every material occurs. With this extra time, more people can escape. The unfortunate reality is that exposure to these flame-retardant chemicals poses serious and long-lasting dangers to human health.

The use of these chemicals in flame retardants which are now known to be hazardous is unexpectedly connected to leaded gasoline. Lead was added to gasoline to prevent engine damage from premature combustion but deposits could accumulate at some locations in the engine. Adding bromine alongside the lead prevented these buildups. However, in the 1970s when leaded gas was banned from use, companies searched for a new application of the additive bromine.[4] The paper company Albemarle, incentivized by the tobacco industry and the growing concern that residential fires would be started from cigarette use, purchased bromine with the intention of formulating chemical flame retardants.[5] They are now one of the leading producers of flame retardants globally.

Adoption of flame retardants in nearly every consumer product soon followed. This was largely because of Technical Bulletin 117, a regulation passed in 1975 by the Californian Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation, which mandated that foam must not ignite for 12 seconds when directly exposed to a small flame. The highly flammable foam, which was used extensively in furniture, thus required that roughly 10% of its weight in flame retardants to be added to meet this standard. Considering the size and population of California, every furniture provider in the U.S. changed their practices to comply with this regulation. Some 45 years later, California reversed course and went from requiring the inclusion of flame retardants in furnishings to banning its use, based on concerns over the negative health impacts of these substances.[6] Nevertheless, today, flame retardants are used extensively throughout furnishings, electronics, and building materials.[7]

Health Impacts

The problem is that flame retardants don’t stay in materials. Halogenated flame retardants are noted on the Red List, maintained by the International Living Future Institute, along with other chemicals of concern that are known to endanger human health.[8]

When inside a building, these chemicals are proven to leach into the air and accumulate into dust. We breathe in these particles, absorb them through our skin, and ingest them after getting the dust on our hands before meals. The damage can be devastating. Across the chemical classes, the health consequences are serious:

Cancer.

Reproductive system harm and decreased fertility.

Impairment to neurological and neurobehavioral development.

Endocrine and immune system disruption.[9]

Young children are particularly at risk from flame retardants because they spend so much time playing on floors and putting their hands in their mouths. Staggeringly, toddlers were found to have 3 times the amount of flame retardants in their blood as adults.[10] Babies were documented with flame retardants already in their bodies at birth, with exposure coming through their umbilical cords.[11] Further, workers both in manufacturing and recycling face more concentrated exposures to toxic flame retardants and inherit the associated health risks.[12]

However, these health consequences also occur at low levels of exposure, with notable damage to hormone regulation specifically occurring at smaller doses.[13] With flame retardants so ubiquitous in our built environment, we’re all affected.

Environmental Impacts

This impact extends beyond a simply human perspective. Flame retardants are identified as PBTs, Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins, which mean that they do not break down naturally over time and build up concentration in people and animals’ bodies.[14] These chemicals are also shockingly mobile. Flame retardants have been found all over the world, in killer whales, polar bears, bobcats and birds.[15] Because of their persistent nature, chemicals that were phased out of use decades ago are still in the bodies of wildlife throughout the globe.

This image was derived from the Green Science Policy Institutes interactive wildlife map which shows documented incidents where flame retardants have been found.

Policy and Building Industry Reform

Almost since their inception in the 1970s, there have been efforts to control and ban the dangerous chemicals used in flame retardants. The problem is what is called “regrettable substitution,” when a harmful chemical is phased out of use but replaced with one almost identical in chemistry and posing similar health concerns.[16]

Dr. Arlene Blum - *"Annapurna: A Woman’s Place"*

An example of this starts with children’s pajamas. In the 1970s, biochemist Dr. Arlene Blum, with coauthor Bruce Ames, identified that the chemical brominated tris, which was used widely in children’s pajamas, was a dangerous mutagen, with a very high likelihood of causing serious cancers.[17] They titled their paper, “The main flame retardant in children’s pajamas is a mutagen and should not be used.”[18] And, shortly after the publication of the paper, it wasn’t. Chlorinated tris, however, was used instead in cribs, car seats and furniture.[19] Dr. Blum, after a record-setting and decades-long career in mountaineering, is now an outspoken advocate for public and environmental health as well as banning whole classes of dangerous chemicals through the Green Science Policy Institute.

Over the past fifteen years, with key voices like Dr. Arlene Blum, there has been increased advocacy to ban chemical flame retardants at the state level.

However, many lawmakers were dissuaded from passing legislature on this issue.

The group Citizens for Fire Safety, which claimed to be a collective of fire professionals, burn centers and community leaders, lobbied against any bans on flame retardant chemicals. They supported the testimony of Dr. David Heimbach, a burn surgeon, who asserted the necessity of flame retardants after sharing horrific stories of caring for a severely burned baby.[20] After an investigation by the Chicago Tribune, it was found that Dr. Heimbach’s testimony was inconsistent and misleading.[21] According to the same investigation, it was also discovered that Dr. Heimbach “falsely presented himself as an unbiased burn expert when he was, in fact, collecting $240,000 from flame-retardant manufacturers.”[22] Dr. Heimbach later surrendered his medical license.[23] The Citizens for Fire Safety disbanded as well, after tax records revealed their connection as a lobbying group for the major chemical companies producing flame retardants, rather than a benevolent organization of concerned citizens.[24]

Still, notable progress has been made in recent years. Once acting as a catalyst for widespread flame-retardant use, California is now one of the strictest regulators. The initial legislation that led to flame retardant use was revised in 2013 to require a different safety test that can be passed without flame retardants.[25] In 2020, California law banned the sale of new furniture, children’s products and mattresses containing most chemical flame retardants.[26] Further, California law requires that the use of flame retardants in furniture be made transparent to consumers.[27] Other states have adopted similar policies as well.

Unfortunately, toxic chemical flame retardants are still widely found in building materials.

How Designers Can Make Change

While flame retardant chemicals are used in many building materials, from wood to insulation, there is a growing movement to design without them. The Living Building Challenge, a program of the Living Future Institute, is a building certification that seeks to holistically improve the built environment.[28] Within the Living Building Challenge, there are subcategories, dubbed “petals” in the analogy of a flower, that address many facets of a building’s performance and contribution to wellbeing.[29] One of these subcategories is the Materials Petal Certification, where no Red List chemicals are used in building materials, aside from very limited exceptions.[30] The Red List includes the worst-in-class chemicals, covering many halogenated flame retardants. While this is a high standard, many projects such as the Kendeda Building at Georgia Tech, Architectural Nexus, and the Margaret A. Cargill Lodge at Wolf Ridge Environmental Learning Center have earned the Materials Petal, where toxic flame retardant chemicals were very nearly eliminated in their construction.[31] More precedents can be found on the Living Future website.

So, what can designers at their desks do today about flame retardants?

Prioritize Your Efforts:

Start your research with materials that have the most direct exposure to occupants. Furniture, textiles and carpeting most commonly contain hazardous flame retardants and pose the highest risk for building occupants through daily exposure.

For furniture, look for the label TB 117-2013 that is marked “Contains No Added Flame Retardant Chemicals.”

Further, the most hazardous chemicals are halogenated and organophosphate flame retardants. Products that use mineral flame retardants instead present lower health risks to occupants.

Change Your Building Insulation:

The flame retardants used in foam-based insulation products like EPS and XPS often contain the most hazardous chemicals. However, cellulose options contain a less dangerous flame retardant, and mineral wool is inherently fire-resistant.

Communicate Your Stance to Your Product Reps and Vendors:

Ask questions about the ingredients are in their products. This helps incentivize the industry to move away from toxic practices over time.

For more information on how to avoid flame retardants while meeting code requirements, refer to the Perkins&Will White Paper, “Healthy Environments: Strategies for Avoiding Flame Retardants in the Built Environment.”

Ultimately, no one should have to choose between getting sick or being safe in their homes, offices or schools. The issue of flame retardants illuminates the need for both policy level reform and on-the-ground selection changes to achieve a better built environment. We must not lose sight of the impact that every choice makes in the magnitude of the problem. Through awareness and advocacy, designers can help shape a safer and healthier world.

The most important step is to bring these considerations around materials into conversation with your design team. However, it can be difficult to start and guide a discussion about which materials to focus on and what impact they have. To help with this, we have developed a discussion and resource guide that prompts focused questions and includes the information necessary to know what to research further.

Consider continuing this discussion in your teams with the support of this resource:

Download PDF Here

For additional assistance, our Healthy Materials Working Group has developed a one-page resource to navigate the various online resources for material health vetting: Download PDF Here

Works Cited

[1] Francine Uenuma, “The Iroquois Theater Disaster Killed Hundreds and Changed Fire Safety Forever,” Smithsonian.com, June 12, 2018, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-theater-blaze-killed-hundreds-forever-changed-way-we-approach-fire-safety-180969315/.

[2] NFPA Research, “Deadliest Single Building/Complex Fires and Explosions in the US: NFPA,” nfpa.org, accessed July 10, 2024, https://www.nfpa.org/education-and-research/research/nfpa-research/fire-statistical-reports/catastrophic-multiple-death-fires/deadliest-single-building-or-complex-fires-and-explosions-in-the-us.

[3] Clément Lacoste, Laurent Ferry, and Henri Vahabi, “Fighting Fire: From Ancient Egypt to Notre-Dame de Paris,” I’MTech, September 10, 2019, https://imtech.imt.fr/en/2019/09/09/fighting-fire-from-egypt-to-notre-dame/.

[4] David Brancaccio, Daniel Shin, and Redmond Carolipio, “Examining the Toxic History of Flame Retardants,” Marketplace, August 17, 2018, https://www.marketplace.org/2018/08/17/examining-toxic-history-flame-retardants/.

[5] David Brancaccio, Daniel Shin, and Redmond Carolipio, “Examining the Toxic History of Flame Retardants.”

[6] Alexis J. Morris and Jon-Erik W. Magnus, “California Enacts New Sweeping Ban on the Use of Flame Retardants in Certain Consumer Products, Effective January 1, 2020,” Rogers Joseph O’Donnell, October 31, 2018, https://www.rjo.com/publications/california-enacts-new-sweeping-ban-on-the-use-of-flame-retardants-in-certain-consumer-products-effective-january-1-2020/.

[7] Flame Retardants.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Accessed July 11, 2024. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/flame_retardants#:~:text=Brominated%20flame%20retardants%20(BFRs)%20contain,endocrine%20disruption%20and%20thyroid%20disfunction.

[8] “What Is the Living Building Challenge?,” International Living Future Institute, July 8, 2024, https://living-future.org/lbc/.

[9] Lorelei Walker and Nancy Hepp, “Flame Retardants,” Collaborative for Health & Environment, accessed July 15, 2024, https://www.healthandenvironment.org/environmental-health/environmental-risks/chemical-environment-overview/flame-retardants.

[10] “Fire Retardants in Toddlers and Their Mothers,” Environmental Working Group, September 4, 2008, https://www.ewg.org/research/fire-retardants-toddlers-and-their-mothers.

[11] “Children’s Products,” Children’s Products - Green Science Policy Institute, accessed July 15, 2024, https://greensciencepolicy.org/our-work/other-work/childrens-products/#:~:text=Babies%20are%20exposed%20to%20flame,dust%20contaminated%20with%20flame%20retardants.

[12] Lorelei Walker and Nancy Hepp, “Flame Retardants,” Collaborative for Health & Environment, accessed July 15, 2024, https://www.healthandenvironment.org/environmental-health/environmental-risks/chemical-environment-overview/flame-retardants.

[13] Hannah Mowrey, “Igniting the Debate on Flame Retardants,” Habitable, July 3, 2024, https://habitablefuture.org/resources/igniting-the-debate-on-flame-retardants/.

[14] “Flame Retardants,” Green Science Policy Institute, accessed July 12, 2024, https://greensciencepolicy.org/harmful-chemicals/flame-retardants/#:~:text=Many%20organohalogen%20flame%20retardants%20have,likely%20to%20cause%20similar%20harm.

[15] Maddie Dolan, “Map: Wildlife Polluted by Flame Retardants on Massive Scale,” Green Science Policy Institute, accessed July 16, 2024, https://greensciencepolicy.org/harmful-chemicals/flame-retardants/wildlife-map/.

[16]“Avoiding Toxic Chemicals in Commercial Building Projects (Special Report).” U.S. Green Building Council. Accessed July 5, 2024. https://www.usgbc.org/education/sessions/avoiding-toxic-chemicals-commercial-building-projects-special-report-4601857.

[17] Dashka Slater, “How Dangerous Is Your Couch?,” The New York Times, September 6, 2012, https://greensciencepolicy.org/how-dangerous-is-your-couch/.

[18] Dashka Slater, “How Dangerous Is Your Couch?”

[19] Dashka Slater, Ibid.

[20] Sanjay Gupta, “Fanning the Flames: Safety of Flame Retardants in Question,” CNN, January 28, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKye9txD__g&t=1s.

[21] David Eads et al., “A Key Witness’ Changing Stories,” Chicago Tribune, May 5, 2012, https://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/facts-vs-testimony.html.

[22] Sam Roe and Patricia Callahan, “Former Chief of Harborview Burn Unit Relinquishes Medical License,” The Seattle Times, May 24, 2014, https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/former-chief-of-harborview-burn-unit-relinquishes-medical-license/.

[23] Sam Roe and Patricia Callahan, “Former Chief of Harborview Burn Unit Relinquishes Medical License.”

[24] Sanjay Gupta, “Fanning the Flames: Safety of Flame Retardants in Question,” CNN, January 28, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKye9txD__g&t=1s.

[25] Technical bulletin 117-2013, accessed September 19, 2024, https://bhgs.dca.ca.gov/about_us/tb117_2013.pdf.

[26] “Flame Retardants in Furniture,” Green Science Policy Institute, accessed July 16, 2024, https://greensciencepolicy.org/our-work/furniture/#:~:text=Starting%20in%202020%20a%20California,the%20Duke%20University%20Foam%20Project

[27] “Flame Retardants in Furniture,” Green Science Policy Institute.

[28] “What Is the Living Building Challenge?,” International Living Future Institute, July 8, 2024, https://living-future.org/lbc/.

[29] “What Is the Living Building Challenge?,” International Living Future Institute.

[30] “Materials Petal (LBC 3.1),” The Kendeda Building for Innovative Sustainable Design, accessed September 26, 2024, https://livingbuilding.gatech.edu/materials-petal.

[31] “Living Building Challenge Archives,” International Living Future Institute, accessed September 26, 2024, https://living-future.org/program/lbc/.