HB 27-HIGH-RISK CHEMICALS FOR CHILD EXPOSURE  2:16:34 PM CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to chemicals that are of high concern for children and to the manufacture and sale of products containing certain flame retardant chemicals; relating to an interstate chemicals clearinghouse; adding an unlawful act to the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was Version D, labeled 30-LS0264\D, Bannister, 3/15/18, the proposed committee substitute (CS) adopted as the working document on 3/9/18, and open for public testimony.] 2:17:01 PM ANAHMA SHANNON, Director, Environmental Program, Kawerak, Inc., testified in support of HB 27. She noted Kawerak is a Native nonprofit organization in Nome serving the 20 tribes in the Bering Sea region. She said children should not be exposed to toxics by having them put directly into bedding, clothing, toys, and household goods. The chemicals being directly put into household products affect neurological, reproductive and immune system health. It is known that children are affected at a greater rate because their bodies are smaller, they breathe faster, and they have a greater rate of exposure due to the nature of where and how they play. Flame retardants are not effective in preventing fires, she stated, but they are harmful to children through ingestion and inhalation. MS. SHANNON pointed out that in the Bering Sea region and in rural communities throughout Alaska, many of the Class 3 landfills burn whatever is taken to the dump, including items containing flame retardants. The toxic smoke produced by burning these products makes its way into the environment by smoke fallout, toxic ash that leaches into groundwater, or tracked out of the landfills on the bottom of people's boots. The polluted air that is produced affects everyone exposed to the smoke. Landfills are burned on a daily basis and often are less than two miles away from the village, she noted, and it is known that cancer-causing dioxins are produced when these products are burned. She urged that the environment and people stop being exposed to these detrimental chemicals and that Alaska's children by kept healthier through passage of HB 27. 2:19:35 PM ART DELAUNE, Legislative Chair, Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special Education, spoke in support of HB 27 from the perspective of brain development. He said the council's mission is to advocate for individuals with developmental disabilities and work to ensure that they flourish in safe environments. The council also has the responsibility to advocate for early intervention systems that allow very young children to develop in natural and stimulating environments. He stated the council supports HB 27 because it believes the bill would help protect the health and brain development of Alaska's children. It would benefit families and firefighters, he added, by preventing exposure to toxic retardant chemicals found in children's products and upholstered furniture. MR. DELAUNE pointed out that numerous scientific papers in the peer-reviewed literature have documented the harms posed by the use of these chemicals in consumer products. Children are especially at risk, he noted, because they tend to come into greater contact with toxic chemicals found in household dust. Studies show that, up to five years old, children's developing brains and reproductive organs are most vulnerable. Children can have three to five times higher blood levels of these chemicals than their parents. In Alaska during the long winter months, he continued, infants and toddlers tend to spend more time indoors in homes with greater insulation and less ventilation, which makes them more vulnerable to these levels of toxic flame retardants in these consumer products. He urged the passage of HB 27 because it will enrich and protect the brain development of Alaska's children. 2:21:49 PM ANDREW HACKMAN, Registered Federal Lobbyist, Juvenile Products Manufacturing Association (JPMA), noted JPMA represents over 85 percent of the makers of juvenile products, everything from cribs to car seats to strollers. He said four statutes regulate JPMA with regard to the materials and the chemicals that go into its products, including the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act, the federal Hazardous Substances Act, and the Toxic Substance Control Act. He said JPMA has worked with a number of states in trying to reduce requirements for flame retardants. For example, JPMA worked with California in revising its flame retardant requirements under Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117) so that flame retardants don't have to continue to be used to reach the mandates of those standards. However, he pointed out, there are instances where flame retardants are required to meet certain Underwriters Laboratories (UL) performance standards for electronic components. Also, flame-retardant standards must be met under the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) standards for car seats. MR. HACKMAN said JPMA is concerned that if HB 27 moves forward and doesn't acknowledge those instances where those types of requirements are placed upon the components and the products themselves, there is the potential of car seats being banned or restricted in the state. Other states that have moved forward in this area have acknowledged things like electronic components and car seats, he continued. Even San Francisco, which took action on flame retardants this past year, acknowledged those types of products in those types of situations. He said JPMA hopes the committee will look to move toward some consistency on this legislation. He further noted that JPMA has some concerns with the breadth and the additional listing of an open-ended process to continue to restrict chemicals. Other states have used weighted evidence standards for similar types of processes and programs. He stated JPMA looks forward to being involved with the committee and opportunities for making sure HB 27 is consistent with other states. 2:25:17 PM THOMAS ZOELLER, PhD, Professor, Biology Department, University of Massachusetts Amherst, testified in support of HB 27. He spoke as follows: My research over the past 25 years has really been focused on understanding how thyroid hormone controls brain development, and whether, and how environmental chemicals like halogenated and other chemical flame retardants can interfere with this action. It is first important to recognize that thyroid hormone is essential for brain development in the fetus, in newborns, and in children, and this fact is so well recognized that every baby born in this country is tested for normal functioning of the thyroid gland at birth. In some regions of the country as many as 1 in 1,200 newborns have low thyroid hormone, and this is really considered a medical emergency to ensure that they are identified and treated quickly to limit cognitive deficits caused by low thyroid hormone during development. It's also become clear that thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women are particularly important because the thyroid gland in a fetus doesn't begin to function until about 20 weeks. Having said that, thyroid hormone is still important for brain development during that period. My research on flame retardants such as poly- brominated diphenyl ethers, tetrabromo bisphenol A, and some perfluorinated chemicals has demonstrated that these chemicals can interfere with thyroid hormone in the developing brain, but in ways that we don't fully understand. And in particular these chemicals can interfere with thyroid hormone action in the brain without affecting hormone levels in the blood. Currently, the only tool we have to test whether flame retardants affect the human thyroid system is to measure blood levels of thyroid hormone. But since chemicals can interfere with thyroid hormone action without affecting hormone levels in the blood it produces a situation where the so-called weighted evidence winds up being obfuscated because of this disconnect between the ability of chemicals to work in tissue without affecting measures that we normally use as an index of safety. This observation should be concerning because it means that these kinds of chemicals can act like a stealth bomber that slides below the radar of the ways we can test for safety of these chemicals and therefore protect human health. So, in closing, it's clear to me that these kind of flame retardants can and do affect human development in part by interfering with thyroid hormone. And this conclusion is based on years of really high-resolution research that can't be duplicated for every flame retardant that comes on the market. These chemicals are robbing our children and grandchildren of critical intellectual potentials. And while these effects may not be visible on the faces of our children, they're no less important for them individually and for our society. 2:29:16 PM ROBERT SIMON, Spokesperson, North American Flame Retardant Alliance, American Chemistry Council, testified in opposition to HB 27. He said his industry is committed to strong chemical safety regulation, including support for the overwhelmingly bipartisan 2016 Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) signed into law by President Obama, which fundamentally strengthened and changed the federal regulation of chemical safety. That law, he continued, is relevant to HB 27. MR. SIMON said the council opposes HB 27 based on three points. First, the legislation would duplicate federal and international chemical regulatory initiatives, including those recently adopted in the U.S. that fundamentally strengthen chemical regulation. Numerous federal and international regulatory agencies already assess the safety of chemicals, including the explicit consideration of children's health. Second, he continued, HB 27 would impose overly broad bans on the use of certain chemicals in all consumer products and could undermine overall consumer product safety. Under HB 27 if the state identifies a chemical of potential concern to children's health it would automatically be banned in all consumer products. From the council's perspective this is inappropriate and not supported by the science. There may be cases where a chemical in a specific application is not even available or does not result in any exposure to consumers or to children and yet HB 27 would automatically ban all of its uses in consumer products. Furthermore, banning certain chemicals could have unintended consequences of creating other consumer safety risks. A number of chemicals are used in product chemistry to provide a broad range of product benefits. By broadly banning all the consumer product applications, Alaska could be undermining overall consumer product safety, which is important to consider as legislators reflect on this legislation. Third, he said, the bill includes, from the council's perspective, an inappropriate ban on a broad range of flame retardants and would ban specifically substances that government regulators around the globe have determined do not pose a risk. For example, HB 27 specifically calls out TCPP, which has a very different safety profile from the criteria referenced in the bill and despite it having been reviewed and having a safety determination for its uses in Canada and the European Union (EU), HB 27 would ban it. 2:34:18 PM SUSAN WALSH, RN, President, Ketchikan Bargaining Unit, Alaska Nurses Association, testified in support of HB 27. She said the bill would protect Alaska children and firefighters from high- risk exposure to halogen flame retardants. She noted she is a nurse with a diverse background that includes family practice, pediatrics, emergency room, and chemo infusion, and currently she is employed as a labor and delivery nurse and in-house lactation consultant. MS. WALSH drew attention to a fact sheet provided to members by Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) and to the testimony provided by experts regarding this toxic chemical. She reinforced "the shocking statistic" that birth defects in Alaska are twice as high than the U.S. as a whole and that Native infants have twice the birth defects as white infants in Alaska. There are currently no federal laws that protect people from the unnecessary addition of flame retardant products even though in September [2017] the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission released a long list of adverse health effects of these noxious chemicals that have a disproportionately negative effect on vulnerable populations, which include children. MS. WALSH noted that the Alaska Nurses Association has long supported the precautionary principle and joined national affiliates in support of passage of similar bills at the federal level. However, she said, that process is moving at a snail's pace. She urged the committee to protect Alaskans and pass HB 27 and join the other 15 states that are considering policy to ban toxic flame retardants. That this bill is in the House Resources Standing Committee might be confusing for some, she added, but she would contend that [Alaska's] children are its biggest resource and they need and deserve protection. 2:36:35 PM SAMARYS SEGUINOT-MEDINA testified in support of HB 27. She said she is a scientist and public health professional, but primarily she is a mother and grandmother. She stated there is much evidence showing the harmful effects that flame retardants have in children. Continuing her testimony, she paraphrased from the following written statement [original punctuation provided]: I thought it would be relevant and important for this hearing to remember former Dr. David M. Heimbach who failed to disclose his ties to the flame retardant chemical industry. He testified at least three times in Juneau between 2010 and 2012 against bills to restrict chemicals proven to be hazardous, especially to children. Washington medical board reported that Heimbach invented tragic stories of children burn victims in his testimony to Alaska and other states. Heimbach fabricated testimony and falsely presented himself as an unbiased burn expert when, in fact, he was on the payroll of the manufacturers of chemical flame retardants. Washington state officials said that he had been paid $240,000 for his help. Chemical industry is paying people to give false testimony. This is an example of the deceptive tactics that the chemical industry uses for their own benefit without any consideration of the harm they can cause to people, especially children who are the most vulnerable. Is our duty and responsibility as citizens and public servants to care for our children and provide, ethically and respectfully, the protection they need so they can thrive and grow in a safe and healthy environment. I support HB 27 and I want to thank Rep. Tarr and Rep. Josephson for working for the wellbeing of our children. CO-CHAIR TARR inquired about the name of the documentary that exposed Dr. Heimbach. MS. SEGUINOT-MEDINA replied she would send this information. 2:40:03 PM CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony after ascertaining no one else wished to testify on HB 27. CO-CHAIR TARR held over HB 27. 2:40:35 PM The committee took a brief at-ease. 2:40:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether this material could still be purchased online and whether the bill would make a difference if that were the case. CO-CHAIR TARR responded that all of the manufactured goods could not be quickly removed from the shelves, but the bill would draw a line in the sand so that any new products being sold would be without these chemicals. Any person owning the [now prohibited] products would keep them and dispose of them in a, hopefully, safe manner. After the effective date, she continued, any products sold in Alaska would not contain these chemicals. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated her question about whether online orders would be included. CO-CHAIR TARR offered her belief that online sales would be included, but said she would get back to the committee with a firm answer. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER drew attention to the sectional analysis for HB 27 and asked how [under Section 2] the sixth bullet can exist given the fourth bullet. CO-CHAIR TARR answered there would be two sets of products products already on shelves [at the bill's effective date] and products coming into the state after the effective date. Products already in a retailer's possession containing these chemicals would be subject to the informed consumer option, and the retailer wouldn't be required to take them off the shelf. After the bill's effective date, products coming into the state would comply with the law and wouldn't contain those chemicals. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted the sectional analysis speaks to manufacturers. He therefore requested clarification that, once on the shelf, it would be the storeowner who is required to put on the [informed consumer] label. CO-CHAIR TARR replied it would be the retailer's responsibility to put on that public notice. But, she continued, the reason the other part of it speaks to manufacturers is that the manufacturers are being told those products can no longer be sold in Alaska. [HB 27 was held over.]