If you want a case study of everything that is wrong with money politics, this is it.
Chances are that if you're sitting on a couch right now, it contains flame retardants. This will probably do no good if your house catches fire — although it may release toxic smoke. There is growing concern that the chemicals are hazardous, with evidence mounting of links to cancer, fetal impairment and reproductive problems.
For years, I've written about this type of chemical, endocrine disruptors, but the Chicago Tribune has just published a devastating investigative series called "Playing With Fire" that breaks vast new ground. It is superb journalism.
It turns out that our furniture first became full of flame retardants because of the tobacco industry, according to internal cigarette company documents examined by The Tribune.
A generation ago, tobacco companies were facing growing pressure to produce fire-safe cigarettes, because so many house fires started with smoldering cigarettes. So tobacco companies mounted a surreptitious campaign for flame retardant furniture, rather than safe cigarettes, as the best way to reduce house fires.
The documents show that cigarette lobbyists secretly organized the National Association of State Fire Marshals and then guided its agenda so that it pushed for flame retardants in furniture. The fire marshals seem to have been well intentioned, but utterly manipulated.
An advocacy group called Citizens for Fire Safety later pushed for laws requiring fire retardants in furniture. It describes itself as "a coalition of fire professionals, educators, community activists, burn centers, doctors, fire departments and industry leaders."
But Citizens for Fire Safety has only three members, which also happen to be the three major companies that manufacture flame retardants: Albemarle Corp., ICL Industrial Products and Chemtura Corp.
Citizens for Fire Safety paid a prominent Seattle physician, Dr. David Heimbach, who testified in some states in favor of flame retardants. Heimbach, the former president of the American Burn Association, told lawmakers stories of children who had burned to death on cushioning that lacked flame retardants.
According to The Tribune, Heimbach made these stories up. Heimbach told me that the stories were real, with details changed to protect the survivors' privacy. He said he testified for flame retardants because he believed in them, not because of money he received.
The problem with flame retardants is that they migrate into dust that is ingested, particularly by children playing on the floor. R. Thomas Zoeller, a biologist at the University of Massachusetts, told me that while there have been many studies on animals, there is still uncertainty about the impact of flame retardants on humans.
But he said that some retardants were very similar to banned PCBs, which have been linked to everything from lower IQ to diabetes, and that it was reasonable to expect certain flame retardants to have similar consequences.
"Despite all that we have learned about PCBs, we are making the same mistakes with flame retardants," he said.
Linda Birnbaum, the top toxicologist at the National Institutes of Health, put it to me this way: "If flame retardants really provided fire safety, there would be reason for them in certain circumstances, like on an airplane. But there's growing evidence that they don't provide safety and may increase harm."
Arlene Blum, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, told me, "For pregnant women, they can alter brain development in the fetus." Her research decades ago led to the removal of a flame retardant, chlorinated Tris, from children's pajamas. But chlorinated Tris is still used in couches and nursing pillows (without any warning labels).
The European Union has banned one common flame retardant, Deca BDE, and has generally been more willing to regulate endocrine disruptors than the United States. Why the difference?
"The money is jingling," notes Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J. Lautenberg has introduced legislation, the Safe Chemicals Act, that would tighten controls — but it has gotten nowhere.
It's not easy for a democracy to regulate technical products like endocrine disruptors that may offer great benefits as well as complex risks, especially when the hazards remain uncertain. A generation ago, Big Tobacco played the system like a violin, and now Big Chem is doing the same thing.
This campaign season, you'll hear fervent denunciations of "burdensome government regulation."
When you do, think of the other side of the story: your home is filled with toxic flame retardants that serve no higher purpose than enriching three companies. The lesson is that we need not only safer couches but also a political system less distorted by toxic money.