Hannah Wallace

Toxic Mattresses?

If you're like me, you probably never gave much thought to your mattress—other than making sure it's firm and comfortable. Well, if you're chemically sensitive or at all concerned about your health, you should read my article, "Nocturnal Emissions," in the current (March/April) issue of Mother Jones.   

While researching this piece, I was surprised to learn that most mattresses are made of polyurethane foam, which in turn is made from petroleum. Polyurethane foam is highly flammable—in the insurance industry, it’s referred to as “solid gasoline.” (Once lit, mattresses release intense heat, large quantities of dense smoke, and toxic gases such as carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen cyanide.) In 1972, in an attempt to reduce the number of deaths caused by fires started in the bedroom, the U.S. Department of Commerce adopted the first federal mattress flammability regulation, which required that all mattresses made or sold in this country be resistant to a lit cigarette.    Today, however, mattress companies must comply with both the "cigarette smoldering" test and a new open-flame standard. To pass these tests, overseen by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, companies are treating mattress fabrics with fire-resistant chemicals. (We don't even know which ones since most conventional mattress companies are being very tight-lipped, calling their flame-retardant blends "proprietary.")

A note about PBDEs, the flame retardant chemicals that cause liver, thyroid, and nervous system toxicity.

In 2004, the European Union banned penta- and octaBDE (used in personal computers and small appliances), a step the EPA has so far refused to take—largely because U.S. government and regulatory agencies require proof that a product is dangerous before pulling it, whereas in Europe, manufacturers bear the burden of proving that a product is safe. (The EPA does require manufacturers to notify it if they plan to use either penta- or octaBDE, and the sole U.S. manufacturer of these chemicals phased out production in 2004.) However, two states have followed the EU’s lead, banning the sale of products containing these two PBDEs—Maine (in 2005) and California (in June 2006).

From the 1980's until the end of 2004, though, pentaBDE was the main flame retardant chemical used on polyurethane foam.   

Here's some background that was cut from my story for space:

Whether or not PBDEs were used in mattresses is a controversial issue. While anti-PBDE activists and green mattress advocates contend that mattresses made in this country before 2004 likely contain PBDEs, Luedecka of the Polyurethane Foam Association says that untreated polyurethane foam itself is resistant to smoldering ignition—so mattress companies would not have had any reason to treat their foam with fire resistant chemicals. “Polyurethane foam itself is an efficient thermoplastic—meaning without fire retardants it shrinks and retreats from a radiant heat source,” says Luedecka. In other words, mattresses made of polyurethane foam would’ve passed the federal smoldering test with flying colors. However, Luedecka admits that there were requests from mattress companies that insisted their foam be fire resistant in order to meet California’s open flame regulation for furniture, TB 117. (Passed in 1975, this standard required that all furniture sold in California pass an open flame test; though mattresses weren’t included in this proviso until 2005, some companies, according to Luedecka, still asked that their mattresses comply.) Ironically, then, California—known for its environmental leadership—unwittingly encouraged the use of PBDEs when it adopted this stringent legislation.

Bottom line?  While the chances that your pre-2004 mattress contains PBDEs is small, there are other chemicals in conventional mattresses that you may not want to sleep next to every night, particularly if you are chemically sensitive or have a weak immune system.   (Note that while "green" mattresses are expensive--in the story, I quote Savvy Rest's queen-sized model selling for $1,599, that's not THAT much more than a queen-sized mattress from Simmons, which is $1,000.) 

I'll leave you with this quote, from Michael Penny, owner of the Virginia-based organic mattress company Savvy Rest. 

“Thirty to forty years ago, tobacco companies would’ve said that there was no conclusive proof that cigarettes were bad for your health,” says Penny. “But back then, someone who was mindful of her health would’ve said, ‘I’m not sure it’s bad for me—but I’m sure it’s not good for me, either.’”

Taking Stock of the Takeover

See my interview with Noreena Hertz, author of "The Silent Takeover," in Mother Jones.

A Coup in the Hague

www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2002/06/bustani_profile.html
MotherJones.com / News / Feature

Is Washington's unilateralist bent a threat to multinational organizations? Jose Bustani, ousted as director of the world's largest chemical weapons control group, certainly thinks so.

Hannah M. Wallace 
June 28 , 2002    When the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons was formed in 1997, it was given the sweeping charge of enforcing the international Chemical Weapons Convention, the treaty banning such arms. The man appointed to lead that mission was Jose Bustani, an experienced and widely respected Brazilian diplomat.

On April 22 of this year, Bustani was ousted from that post after an unprecedented (and some say unsupportable) vote orchestrated by the Bush White House. Now, Bustani is saying that the implications of that vote should be clear -- and chilling -- for anyone committed to true multinational action.

"This problem goes beyond my own demise," says Bustani. "The emasculation of the office of a CEO of an international organization is a dangerous precedent. From now on, any Director General of any international organization may be ousted if one of a few member states manages to gather support, even in the absence of any palpable reason, or proof of malfeasance."

Indeed, US officials have offered little reason for its opposition to Bustani, saying only that they questioned his "management style" and differed with several of Bustani's decisions. Despite this, Washington waged an unusually public and vocal campaign to unseat Bustani, who had been unanimously reelected to lead the 145-nation body in May, 2000. Finally, at a "special session" called after the US had threatened to cut off all funding for the organization, Bustani was sent packing.

Before the vote, Bustani told delegates that the outcome would "determine whether genuine multilateralism will survive or whether it will be replaced by unilateralism in a multilateral disguise."

Now, Bustani says he has little faith in the future of multilateralism, especially since Washington has rejected both the Kyoto Protocol on global climate change and the Biological Weapons Convention, and has "unsigned" the pact creating an International Criminal Court.

"It's obvious that the present administration is not prepared to accept rules that bind America and limit its freedom of action, for the sake of world stability," Bustani says. "Washington's refusal to join in such efforts only undermines commitments by other countries to foster common values."

More immediately, Bustani says he is also concerned about the future of the body he led for nearly five years.

"The new OPCW, after my ousting, is already undergoing radical structural changes, along the lines of the US recipe, which will strike a definitive blow to the post of the Director General, making it once and for all a mere figurehead of a sham international regime," says Bustani.

Bustani says the first indications of Washington's displeasure became evident near the end of 2001. While he says US delegates never bothered to expand on their concerns, Bustani traces the shift to the influence of several hawkish officials in the Bush State Department, particularly Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, John Bolton.

Bolton, who has in the past argued that the U.S. should exit the United Nations, was also one of the administration's most vocal critics of the International Criminal Court. His staunch opposition to virtually every major recent arms control initiative -- including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty -- and his enthusiastic endorsement of Washington's problem-plagued Star Wars missile defense system led Ian Williams of Foreign Policy in Focus to argue that putting Bolton in charge of disarmament is akin to letting "a pyromaniac have the run of a fireworks factory."

Bustani says US delegates and other officials from Washington had become increasingly frustrated by his insistence that the OPCW remain truly independent.

With Bolton's arrival at the State Department last year, those frustrations suddenly boiled to the surface.

"I therefore fell from grace with Washington," Bustani says. "And when dealing with people like Bolton, there is no room for dialogue. You just have to go."

"I was being expected to take orders from the US delegation, and to customize the implementation of the convention to the US demands," says Bustani from his home in The Hague. "I was expected to consult Washington on every single issue, which I refused to do."

Bustani suggests US officials were particularly displeased with his attempts to persuade Iraq to sign the chemical weapons treaty, which would have provided for routine and unannounced inspections of Iraqi weapons plants. Of course, the Bush White House has recently cited Iraq's refusal to allow such inspections as one justification for a new attack on Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Of course, had Iraq [joined the OPCW], a door would be opened towards the return of inspectors to Bagdad and consequently a viable, peaceful solution to the impasse," Bustani says. "Is that what Washington wants these days?"

Eric Terzuolo, the permanent US representative to the OPCW, insists that Bustani's version of events is a "misrepresentation."

"We would be very happy if Iraq were to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. We believe in the universality of the convention." However, he says that the OPCW should not be miscontrued as a substitue for existing United Nations weapons inspections efforts.

Though State Department officials had voiced concern about Bustani before Bolton came on board, it was ultimately Bolton who made the decision to move forward, according to one senior level State Department official.

"This wasn't a step that the U.S. government wanted to take," says this official. "We gave Bustani various opportunities to do the right thing. This move -- which was approved by Secretary of State Powell and the National Security Council -- was not precipitous."

Under Bustani's leadership, the OPCW brought 58 new nations into the fold and oversaw the destruction of two-thirds of the world's chemical weapons facilities. Two years ago, delegates from all 145 member states (including the US) voted to reelect Bustani for a second term. In February 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote Bustani, praising him for his tireless work.

A little more than a year later, in March of 2002, Bustani survived a US-led motion calling for a vote of no confidence in his leadership. Having failed in that effort, Washington increased the pressure, threatening to cut off funding for the organization -- a significant threat given that the US underwrites 22 percent of the total budget. A little more than a month later, Bustani was out.

The US-led measure was actually supported by less than half of the organization's member states. While 48 nations voted to remove Bustani, 43 states -- including France, Indonesia and every South American country other than Brazil -- abstained from the vote. Other states didn't even bother to send delegates.

Only seven member countries -- among them Russia, China and Cuba -- voted against the US-led measure.

"European Union countries and Eastern European countries aspiring to become members of the EU simply acquiesced to U.S. pressure," says Bustani. "They wrongly believed that, without US financial support, the OPCW would not survive." While Brazil and Cuba voted against the US-led effort, Bustani says he believes that Washington pressured other Latin American nations to abstain.

"Washington's demarches were strong and insistent until all Latin-Americans, except for Cuba and Brazil, eventually agreed to abstain," he said.

Out of a job, Bustani is awaiting a new assignment from the Brazilian government. Still, he says he has no intention of meekly passing from the international scene.

"I do not intend to give up what I take as a mission, which is to expose the illegality of what just happened in the Hague," he says.

. . . . . . .

This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2002  The Foundation for National Progress