Minnesota legislation puts families at risk

By Raoul Lowery Contreras   

When Mark Twain wrote that, "No one's life, liberty or property is safe when the Legislature is in session," he must have the Minnesota legislature in mind.
Legislators this session are pushing a bill that will literally endanger almost all Minnesotans. Let's look at the current situation with regard to HF 934 currently being debated by the Minnesota legislature. 

Internationally recognized fire safety standards and regulations require that product manufacturers use flame retardants to stop fires before they start or to at least slow them down allowing people to get out of harm's way.
Today, manufacturers use brominated and chlorinated flame retardants to meet these standards -- standards that have cut deaths in home fires by 64 percent over the last 30 years.

Ten people a week die from fires of bedding and furniture (520 annual). In 2004 12.4 Americans per million died from fire.
Faced with these statistics, why then are legislators attempting to gut Minnesota's fire safety rules that save lives?

Supporters of HF 934 claim that these fire retardants could cause neurological or other health problems, including cancer, birth defects, learning disorders and mental retardation.

Do they cause all these health problems? Let's look at what others say.  The environmentally sensitive European Union studied one of the most common of these retardants for 10-years and found that it was, in fact, safe to use. A German study also found no connection between that flame retardant and the health problems that the advocates of this wrong headed legislation claim may be caused by these products.

So, why am I concerned about this attack on current safety standards? I am often accused of giving voice to the voiceless.

The answer is in who owns most of the bedding and furniture containing these safe flame retardant chemicals?

All Minnesotans buy protected bedding and furniture regardless of class and income. Thus, all Minnesotans are protected by current rules. If the current legislation being pushed becomes law, what will hardworking families who can't afford sprinkler systems and other expensive replacement products do to protect their homes in the future?

Will they have to buy all new and expensive furniture and bedding, or will their landlords pay huge sums to retrofit apartments and houses with sprinkler plumbing? Who would pay for all this?
These people can't afford to take a day off of work and travel to the state capitol and lobby themselves against the special interests pushing HF 934.

If someone could produce scientific studies that the currently used chemical flame retardants actually have negative impacts on our collective health, I might listen to him. If he or she could produce specific chemicals intended to replace the proven effective fire retardants currently used along with the scientific studies proving they have no negative effect on health, I might listen.

Until then, the current proposals must not be allowed to become law.

The legislature's premise must continue to be the best fire is the fire that never starts.