Although the challenges to a class approach might appear daunting, the alternative-individual assessments of hundreds of chemicals-is unrealistic. The authors of the report concluded that “the best approach is to define subclasses as broadly as is feasible for the analysis”. (14) This report states that “the number of chemicals in use today demands a new approach to risk assessment, and the class approach is a scientifically viable option”. In May 2019, at the request of the CPSC, the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) released a report titled “Scoping Report for Conducting a Hazard Assessment of Organohalogen Flame Retardants as a Class”. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) accepted a petition to ban furniture, children’s products, electronic enclosures, and mattresses containing any member of the class of organohalogen flame retardants. Tri- o-cresyl phosphate (tri- o-tolyl phosphate)Įxtensive scientific research now suggests that the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants may have hazardous properties, and some authoritative bodies are now addressing this problem with a chemical class approach (see Table S1). Tri- p-cresyl phosphate (tri- p-tolyl phosphate) DecaBDE was added to the Stockholm Convention in 2017 and similarly phased out of use in most countries. Penta- and OctaBDE were added to the Stockholm Convention in 2009, prompting more than 150 signatories to legislate their phase-out (see Figure 1 and Table S1 for more details about the regulatory timeline). Subsequently in 2009, the US EPA negotiated the phase-out of DecaBDE production, the PBDE with the largest production volume. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) negotiated a phase-out of new production of these two PBDE commercial mixtures with U.S. After extensive research showed that PBDEs were persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic, in 2004 the European Commission and California banned the use of Penta- and OctaBDE, two commercial mixtures primarily used in North America. (1,2) Beginning in the 1970s, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) were added to consumer products, including furniture, children’s products, and electronics. Their use is driven by flammability standards, usually based on small-scale fire testing, which may not accurately predict real life fire behavior. Given the large number of OPFRs in use, manufacturers can move toward healthier and safer products by developing innovative ways to reduce the risk of fire for electronics enclosures, upholstered furniture, building materials, and other consumer products without adding flame retardant chemicals.įlame retardants are added to consumer products and building materials to reduce the risk of fire. Obtaining the scientific evidence needed for regulation of OPFRs can take many years. Furthermore, data from toxicity testing, epidemiological studies, and risk assessments all suggest that there are health concerns at current exposure levels for both halogenated and nonhalogenated OPFRs. Exposure to OPFRs is ubiquitous in people and in outdoor and indoor environments, and OPFRs are now often found at higher levels compared to PBDE peak exposure levels. To address this question, we compared OPFRs with PBDEs for a wide range of properties. In this paper, we ask whether OPFRs are a better choice than PBDEs. As the use of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants, is declining, the use of organophosphate ester flame retardants (OPFRs) is increasing.