Flame retardant may cause hyperthyroidism in cats

https://phys.org/news/2019-08-flame-retardant-hyperthyroidism-cats.html#:~:text=An%20epidemic%20of%20cats%20with,in%2010%20cats%20are%20afflicted.

by dmitriy_ko • 6 years ago

151 87 6 years ago

phys.org

cm20123• 6 years ago

Seem alike rooting out actually toxic substances, like leaded gasoline, is so important. Kudos to the experimenter here for the clever experimental design (cat collars that absorb chemicals for later study).

pwarner• 6 years ago

How does one avoid this? I need some new furniture in the next year or so.

coding123• 6 years ago

Cover the furniture, it's in the article

mysterypie• 6 years ago

Furniture already comes with a covering, but the chemical manages to seep through (I'm assuming it's been applied to the foam itself). For a volatile chemical, adding yet another fabric covering may not help. Maybe a super thick quilt or a fabric that isn't porous would work?

ed25519FUUU• 6 years ago

Many furniture manufacturers are no longer using flame retardants, thanks to an update to California's furniture flammability standard, TB117-2013. Most furniture that meets this standard will also include a label stating whether the product contains flame retardants.

Basically look at the tag if it was manufactured recently.

https://goop.com/wellness/detox/flame-retardants-furniture/

owlie• 6 years ago

I'm really sorry for this off-topic reply, but... is that a useful article from Goop of all places? ...What? Huh.

gnicholas2• 6 years ago

Basically look at the tag if it was manufactured recently.

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The update to the CA law is that manufacturers are no longer required to include flame retardants. They are still allowed to. I was surprised that even at a high-end furniture chain (Restoration Hardware), they were unable to tell me whether their furniture contained flame retardants or not.

Bud• 6 years ago

Leather!

ip266• 6 years ago

The scorched-earth approach is to reject any furniture with polyurethane foams.

In other words, wood, wool, and tight weave cotton are your new friends.

LargoLasskhyfv• 6 years ago

Only if dyed organically.

dnndevem5• 6 years ago

Any furniture we buy we always leave it out in the sun as long as possible to off-gas (release toxins) then leave it in the garage for a few weeks to further loose that new 'furniture' smell of chemical.

205guy• 6 years ago

In the SF Bay Area, we found a company selling natural latex mattresses, no flame retardants added. The showroom was on University Avenue in Palo Alto, so the price was high (at least $3K for a queen). But the factory was in Marin, so they could do custom sizes, and then we asked about replacing all our couch cushions, and we could special order those too. So we replaced all our mattresses and couch and chair cushions with natural latex. For covering and waterproofing, we also bought a natural wool mattress cover.

Sorry, I don’t remember the names of the businesses, but this was 10 years ago when the flame retardants were mandatory for synthetic materials. I don’t even know if they are still in business.

For chairs that had built in padding, we bought 1960s and 70s furniture from thrift stores with the hope this was before flame retardants were in use. We did all this after my partner and our female cat developed Hashimito’s, had years of low energy, and needed daily thyroid medication.

gmac• 6 years ago

In general: be prepared to pay significantly more for natural fibres and fillings.

If you're in the UK, it's harder than that. You either find one of a handful of small companies that are prepared to interpret the law more leniently, or you import from somewhere else in the EU.

These chemicals are also in carpets, and here you're in a worse bind, because the natural fibre alternatives are generally treated against insects and/or impossible to properly clean.

This website (which I'm not sure strikes the most helpful tone) has more on the UK situation: http://www.toxicsofa.com/

ip266• 6 years ago

From research I did, the flame retardant in carpet is actually mainly in the padding. So I compromised on a wool underlayment and regular nylon carpet. The underlayment was not cheap but on the whole the cost was not that much higher.

PaywallBuster• 6 years ago

Litigious environment causes companies to "over protect" consumers with such chemicals, causing all kinds of unexpected issues.

rlt• 6 years ago

Will humans ever learn the law of unintended consequences?

taneq2• 6 years ago

You mean that there are always unintended consequences of every action and so you just have to do the best you can with what you know?

anigbrowl3• 6 years ago

Somehow 'sofas light on fire and burn like a torch' isn't an unintended consequence of using cheap materials?

ddeck• 6 years ago

The lobbying efforts of the manufacturers of the chemicals are a major contributor:

The legislators wrote that the “worst tactics outlined in the Chicago Tribune series — which we each saw some of firsthand in our states — included: deliberately misrepresenting the science around flame retardant chemicals relating to both their effectiveness and their health risks; employing an expert witness who repeatedly invoked a phony story of a child dying in a fire in order to justify flame retardant mandates; creating a front group called ‘Citizens for Fire Safety’ to counter the opposition to flame retardants among firefighters and health organizations; and using racial profiling to mislead community leaders about the impacts of toxic flame retardant chemicals.”

...

These powerful industries distorted science in ways that overstated the benefits of the chemicals, created a phony consumer watchdog group that stoked the public's fear of fire and helped organize and steer an association of top fire officials that spent more than a decade campaigning for their cause.

http://media.apps.chicagotribune.com/flames/index.html

remote_phone• 6 years ago

I’m glad California outlawed these chemicals for foam.

gnicholas2• 6 years ago

I don't think they outlawed them. IIRC, they just changed the law to no longer require them.

dzhiurgis3• 6 years ago

The cats wore the tags for a week and owners filled out a questionnaire. Once collected, the tags went through a process to extract the chemicals by soaking them in a solvent.

Do we use these tags for humans? Would be cool to see what sort of chemical exposure we get.

cm20123• 6 years ago

I would totally pay for this at 23&me prices

taneq2• 6 years ago

As long as it didn't come with 23&me privacy implications. I can't believe people sent samples to them.

dnndevem5• 6 years ago

You can use something such as awair (https://www.getawair.com/) to track your indoor air quality (voc's, etc.).

In the first few weeks of owning one we realized if we leave our bedroom door open the CO2 is much lower while we sleep. Our quality of sleep has improved.

finger• 6 years ago

The next paragraph mentions human equivalent items:

The feline passive samplers—similar to a rabies tag—are produced out of the same material used in the silicone wrist bands invented in Anderson's lab for measuring exposure to environmental chemicals in humans, including after Hurricane Harvey in Houston in 2017.

laretluval• 6 years ago

Electronics are full of fire retardants like these.

anigbrowl3• 6 years ago

Yeah but you don't lounge around and rub your face on most of your electronic devices. I don't think your cellphone screen counts.

ab2• 6 years ago

It's more about what happens when you toss your phone into the landfill after two years, and the mountain of dead electronics starts leeching toxins into the groundwater.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3908467/

centimeter• 6 years ago

I wonder what fraction of modern disease, and what conditions, are due to prolonged low-level exposure to random slightly toxic chemicals. I wouldn’t be surprised if we found out that relatively recently diagnosed conditions like autism are the result of some random seemingly innocuous product like shampoo detergent or sunscreen or something.

hourislate• 6 years ago

Bruce Ames, at the University of California, devised a method of screening for mutagens, using bacteria. One of his graduate students using the technique found that the flame retardants in children's pajamas and bedding were powerful mutagens, and were probably causing cancer. That event made Ames a celebrity, and in the 1980s he went on a lecture tour supported by the American Cancer Society. His lectures reflected the doctrine of the A.C.S., that industrial chemicals aren't responsible for cancer, but that individual actions, such as smoking or dietary choices, are the main causes of cancer. He used a fraudulently "age adjusted" graph of cancer mortality, that falsely showed that mortality from all types of cancer except lung cancer had leveled off after the A.C.S. came into existence. He described tests in which he had compared DDT to extracts of food herbs, and found DDT to be less mutagenic than several of the most commonly used flavoring herbs. His message, which was eagerly received by his audience of chemistry and biology professors, was that we should not worry about environmental pollution, because it's not as harmful as the things that we do to ourselves.

-Ray Peat

savemefromchem• 6 years ago

It’s a public health menace that has also been implicated with childhood maladies. There’s some weak links to autism and allergies. Of course most people will dismiss this as conspiracy theory, but eventually the science will catch up.

lobster45• 6 years ago

Fire retardants are everywhere! Car seats, even children pijamas. Not sure why people thought it was a good idea to put chemicals on children

toast0• 6 years ago

I mean --- if you thought it was safe, wouldn't you prefer children's clothing to be less flamible?

Children can be very heavy sleepers and not hear smoke alarms, and even if they do wake up, they might have a harder time getting out of a burning building than adults, so having a bit extra time because their clothes didn't catch fire would be helpful.

Seems like a good idea, until you consider the negatives of the fire retardants, and then you have a complex decision to make.

basicplus2• 6 years ago

the answer is safer materials like wool

ab2• 6 years ago

if you thought it was safe

The problem is that companies introducing chemicals into a clothing product aren't required to show that they're safe, at least in the US. So considering the negatives only happens much later, if at all.

KennethPT• 6 years ago

How about that red powder that is dropped over everything when there's wildfires? I've always suspected it can't be healthy.

ip266• 6 years ago

It's ammonium polyphosphate & iron oxide.

cm20123• 6 years ago

Smoke from burning wood is really bad for you. Doubt that's worse.

dnndevem5• 6 years ago

Its insane. I always hear that level of chemical is so low it has no negative effect on a person. But you add up all the low levels of toxic chemicals and they add up to something significant! Pesticides, detergents, personal products such as perfumes, hair dye, make-up.. oh gosh. The list goes on. People are drenching themselves in chemicals then take pills to mask the effects.

And its expensive to avoid these things, my family of three spend about 2K per month on food alone trying to eat healthy. Nothing extravagant, fruits, vegetables, and organic when it matters. Sure we could live on $400 with highly processed or fast food... but you feel terrible afterword. The longer you stay away from them the more sensitive you are to toxic food.

waheoo2• 6 years ago

The definition of a fat cat.

dnndevem5• 6 years ago

I should also mention, we dont eat out / order in food. our budget is probably not much higher than most once you factor in the restaurant/takeout/food delivery budget.

captainredbeard• 6 years ago

No, it's really not. You just don't realize how "fat" the fat cats are. Go visit Tiburon or Woodside and you'll know what I mean.

jrmg• 6 years ago

And yet we live longer, healthier lives than humans ever have.

rriepe• 6 years ago

Most of the chemicals are preservatives.

saiya-jin• 6 years ago

Not because we eat more of these chemicals, rather due to progress in healthcare and nutrition (not the 'chemical' one obviously).

Plus nations with obese epidemics like US is seeing overall health of the population and life expectancy decreasing

fps_doug• 6 years ago

Longer yes, healthier... Hard to judge. We weeded out a dozen nasty things, but got others in return, for which "chemicals" might be an explanation. Parkinson's and Alzheimer's come to mind here.

We were smart enough to add lead to fuel, so I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if something we mindlessly use today is actually super unhealthy too. People often seem to suffer "End of History" syndrome when judging these things. "Yeah we were stupid back then but today's scientists are smart."

If people try to avoid processed food, products containing a lot of suspicious "chemicals", use the washer's program that does an extra rinse-run and whatnot I don't think that's entirely unjustified.

lm284692• 6 years ago

Life expectancy is going down in the US, obesity is skyrocketing, &c. The foundations are collapsing while we're maintained alive by machines and pills. You can live healthier than ever if you consciously chose to, most people don't make that choice.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-lif...

https://www.cdc.gov/DIABETES/statistics/slides/long_term_tre...

https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

Amezarak• 6 years ago

And yet we live longer, healthier lives than humans ever have.

Do we?

Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/

The major medical advances have been sanitation, antibiotics, and vaccination, which have saved the lives of millions of children. We are otherwise much unhealthier than most people in the past, unless they were unlucky enough to grow up in times of famine, which was not common - though, in all fairness to the modern world, famine has been essentially eradicated altogether in advanced countries.

lm284692• 6 years ago

Its insane. I always hear that level of chemical is so low it has no negative effect on a person.

At some point lead in gas was "safe", lead in paint was "safe", asbestos was "safe". Safety is an afterthought, and in some cases I'd bet my left nut that the long term negative effects are even desirable : cause a disease, sell the cure, profit

literallycancer• 6 years ago

I always see Americans with these crazy quotes for healthy food. I'm very curious what you spend the 2k on.

Here are some prices for central Europe. Kg of rice is 1 euro. Kg of oats is 1 euro. Potatoes and other tubers and root vegetables, even less. Cherry tomatoes, maybe 4 euros per kg. Lentils, peas, chickpeas less than 2 euros per kg. Whole chicken maybe 4 euros per kg. Chicken breasts are like 7 euros per kg if you don't want to bother with cutting it up. I think meat in general is cheaper in the USA (but quality may differ).

Do you guys eat a literal ton of vegetables a month, or do we have different ideas of what healthy food refers to?

dnndevem5• 6 years ago

Food in other countries is so much better and cheaper. We stayed in Mexico for a few months (not saying I want to live there) and food was all organic and dollars. A bag of about 15 avocados cost $1-$2 dollars. In the US that will buy you maybe one avocado.

Dozen eggs = $5-$8 Bag of apples = $5

We have some food allergies such as sensitive to gluten (wife is celiac).

Two things broken in US (that are pain points for us now) - food cost and healthcare. I pay about $800 month for healthcare that is essentially a safety net for an accident ($5K deductible). I am not sure why universal healthcare is not viewed the same as public schools. Many people dont have children but still pay taxes for schools and education. I would probably pay less than $800/month in extra taxes for healthcare.

ip266• 6 years ago

I don't spend 2k, but a US data point-

   1lb of rice: 0.89$
   1lb of rolled oats: 0.69$
   1lb Cherry tomatoes: $4
   (Quality) chicken breast: $8

In other words they sound similar. However, there's a shop downtown that sells all the same things for 30% more.

I suspect people with crazy food bills are:

   1) in exceptionally expensive locations like SF or Switzerland
   2) buy more packaged food
   3) eat out more than you
   4) maybe are taller than you

In regards to the last, I swear my (short) friends eat half what my (tall) family does.

leetcrew• 6 years ago

american here, $2K per month sounds like a pretty wild food budget for a family of three (one of whom is presumably a child). I spend $300-400 a month to feed myself, and I could cut that down a lot if I didn't primarily shop at whole foods. if you aren't focused on saving money, there are a lot of opportunities to spend extra money on stuff that isn't healthier (eg, prime NY strip vs flank steak, fancy aged cheese, high end butter/oils). the nicest version of something in a grocery store can be 2-3x as expensive and nutritionally equivalent.

epmaybe2• 6 years ago

What in the world? This title is extremely editorialized. I encourage readers to actually assess the evidence in the journal article: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.est.9b02226/suppl...

1) It's important to note that the article title is actually: Flame retardant may cause hyperthyroidism in cats

2) Of note, they determined that a p-value of <0.10 was considered statistically significant, and of the studied compounds TDCIPP was the only one with significant odds ratio of exposure being associated with hyperthyroidism in cats (1.36, p value = 0.059).

3) Look. Organophosphates are probably one of those things that we should continue studying in detail. They seem more trouble than they're worth. But I don't think I'd hang my hat on this study alone.

sellyme• 6 years ago

and of the studied compounds TDCIPP was the only one with significant odds ratio of exposure being associated with hyperthyroidism in cats (1.36, p value = 0.059).

Am I correct in reading that they tested 24 different compounds (or compound groups)?

Not often you see such a faithful recreation of https://xkcd.com/882/

mr_toad2• 6 years ago

TBF they did just report the odds ratios & p values. They didn’t jump to conclusions. I’d put this us the ‘more research is needed’ box.

bananaface• 6 years ago

I would argue you see that uncomfortably often

zug_zug3• 6 years ago

I can't understand your response at all.

The article shows that a flame-retardent increases risk of autoimmune condition with 94% confidence.

And you downplay it because... it's less than 95% confident? (by the way, the paper finds its main finding at p < .02)

To my mind, a major post-mortem is necessary, government funded. How many other flame-retardents cause health issues? How did they get past approval?

In the meantime, an immediate injunction against flame-retardent laws should be passed (numerous tobacco-lobbied laws REQUIRE retardents), and all used retardents should be listed on the labels of all products.

I expect the people in charge of public health to be as anal about their job as I am about mine.

JoeAltmaier3• 6 years ago

94% is an ordinary 'coincidence' value.

Flip a coin until it comes up heads 5 times in a row. What are the odds! Well, if you keep flipping you always can see that. It's inevitable.

That's why investigation is done until there are many more 9's. Because one 9 can be found just by trying a bunch of stuff.

epmaybe2• 6 years ago

Ah, I see what you're saying on the survival curve, thanks for the point out! I agree that's an interesting statistic, and it'll be interesting to see further studies investigating flame retardants. I'd be very interested in human studies, as I myself have thyroid issues (albeit more familial than anything).

That being said, I'm not sure that you can claim that hyperthyroidism in cats is an autoimmune condition. I also am interested in what the effect size of this correlation actually is. We see the data that says that cats in 1995 had 20x lower rates of hyperthyroidism, but we don't have any additional information on how many cats were actually being screened for that. It's like saying (hopefully this isn't too controversial) the prevalence of autism is higher today than it was 20 years ago.

That's an interesting question you bring up though, whether or not we should immediately intervene based on animal studies. And this is something we should probably extend to human studies, and as far low level as basic science studies. Where do you draw the line? Do you ban cell phones? Wifi? Milk? Meat? Coffee? Aspartame?

And finally - Do you require all compounds to be listed on labels of all products? Or just some? How many compounds? Only when we find correlations? Or prior to that based on empirical evidence?

ip266• 6 years ago

We've been introducing new flame retardants, discovering they are toxic, rinse, repeat on a 10-year cadence since something like the 70's. We're just about coming due for the next wave of discovery.

DoingIsLearning• 6 years ago

If I am to err on the side of caution:

Can fire retardants be filtered by commercial off-the-shelf Air Filters?

If yes what type of tech or air filter type would filter these? For the sake of 'neutrality' would prefer a discussion focused on the working principle of the filter tech instead of just casual 'product naming'.

DiabloD32• 6 years ago

Depends on how you define air filter.

I think you have to have one that can capture VCOs, which puts you into expensive, but still considered normal consumer (as opposed to professional/enterprise/commercial/etc), products.

So, I'd suggest offhand to look at IQAir and Austin Air products to see if any of them state they can grab OPFRs. Their bottom level products probably won't.

ip266• 6 years ago

If you own your residence, and live somewhere with good air quality most of the year, forget about air filtering and go for air changeovers. Read about ERV/HRV.

Activated carbon filters are inexpensive and remove VOCs but in my experience not terribly quickly.

Gustomaximus• 6 years ago

I assume this would apply to car seats too.

Does anyone know if leather avoids/reduces these kind of chemicals?

mr_toad2• 6 years ago

The title of the article doesn’t says that hyperthyroidism is 20x times higher because of flame retardants. I’m not sure if the article’s title was changed, or edited by the OP.

The odds ratios for the levels of thyroid hormone in cats exposed to the compounds detected are no higher than 1.61x times higher.

The 20x increase is an increase over time, and isn’t explained by the paper or the article.

18af219e• 6 years ago

invasive species?

Flame retardant may cause hyperthyroidism in cats

Related Stories