Fighting Wildfires with Chemicals: The Controversy and Danger of Flame Retardant Materials
For the past week, I have watched my beloved city of Los Angeles become engulfed in flames. My heart aches knowing that the places I once loved—the Will Rogers beach house, the Palisades lookout, and a drive up the Pacific Coast Highway—will never be the same.
For the past week, I have watched my beloved city of Los Angeles become engulfed in flames.
My heart aches knowing that the places I once loved—the Will Rogers beach house, the Palisades lookout, and a drive up the Pacific Coast Highway—will never be the same. As a flurry of social media posts floods my feed, I have noticed public health officials’ plea for residents to remain indoors, minimizing the risk of breathing unhealthy air. Under the guise of reducing the spread of fire in residential areas and reducing harm to people surrounded by these materials, the flame retardant chemical industry has spread like wildfire itself. These wind-borne flame retardants now threaten our health and remain in the dust and ash blown around the city.
Wildfire smoke can be extremely harmful to human and environmental health. The main component of smoke is particulate matter, which can penetrate deep into the lungs or enter the bloodstream, causing numerous respiratory, cardiovascular, and even cognitive effects. However, as wildfires have become more common in urban areas, their smoke is now likely to include numerous toxic materials including lead, asbestos, and arsenic. Since the LA fires have decimated residential areas, it is likely that toxic chemicals from multiple sources, including plastics, paint, and furniture have been released into the air.
Many of these household products actually include flame retardants, chemicals added to materials to prevent or reduce the spread of fire. Flame retardants became popular in the mid 1900s after the tobacco industry’s successful campaign shifted attention away from cigarettes as a cause of fire deaths and instead aimed to spotlight flammable materials in the household as the leading cause of residential fires. The tobacco companies argued that even if cigarettes created an initial spark, for example, on a couch, the resulting fire could be mitigated and slowed by adding fire retardant chemicals to the fabric and mattress that make up the sofa. The campaign was so powerful that California adopted a Technical Bulletin (TB) 117 in 1975 requiring that materials used to fill furniture withstand an open flame for at least 12 seconds. This encouraged the mass implementation of flame retardant chemicals in furniture, electronics, and building materials to meet the new standard. The federal government has also allowed the proliferation of hundreds of different flame retardants contained in household products due to historically lax regulations under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
In the past decade, though, flame retardant standards have become a legally contentious issue. Numerous studies have illustrated the toxic effects of flame retardants including: brominated flame retardants (BFRs) commonly found in electronics linked to endocrine disruption and thyroid dysfunction, organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs) used in textiles increasing risk to bone and brain health, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) found in furniture linked to neurodevelopmental disorders, and tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) often used in plastic paints linked to cancer. Further, National Institute of Health (NIH)-funded studies have shown an increased risk of premature birth when pregnant women were exposed to flame-retardant chemicals, and many researchers have proposed that flame retardant mixtures may play a role in metabolic disorders including obesity and hypertension.
Given this abundance of research, in 2013, California revised the old standard set by TB 117 (now named TB 117-2013). The revised standard still requires materials to withstand an open flame, but it does not require flame retardant chemicals to meet this standard. Instead, the rule allows nontoxic materials including wool and leather or manufacturing techniques including weights, weaves, and blends of fabrics to achieve this goal. Further, Senate Bill No. 1019, passed in 2014, requires all materials that continue to use flame retardant materials to affix a label to the product informing the consumer of the chemicals present. As of January 2020, with the passing of new amendments to Proposition 65, California has banned the sale and distribution of new furniture and children’s products made for residential use if these products contain more than 0.1% of chemicals used for flame retardant purposes (e.g., TBBPA). Together, these rules have pushed manufacturers to reduce the use of flame retardant chemicals in consumer products. They also reflect changing attitudes toward flame retardants in the household.
Despite this recent trend, the concern over flame retardant toxicity is far from over. Many products in California homes purchased prior to 2013 contain numerous flame retardant chemicals. Firefighters are consistently exposed to these materials when responding to fires in residential areas, leading to an elevated risk of cancer among firefighters. Moreover, many other states continue to allow flame retardant chemicals in everyday products. The federal government has also been slow to adopt regulations on flame retardants and has only recently begun in 2023 to request public comments on data needed to support the regulation of clusters of chemicals.
The rise of wildfires in urban areas requires a new look at the materials being burned and the harm leaching into the air. As illustrated by the recent California fires, chemicals used in consumer materials are failing to protect against the brutality of historic heat. These fire retardant chemicals may actually be doing more harm than good. Consumers and manufacturers must reconsider whether these chemicals are worth it and whether alternative innovations can more adequately protect not only our homes but also our health.
About the author
Jessica Samuels is a third-year dual degree law and public health student (J.D./MPH 2025). Her research interests include genetics, environmental health sciences, novel biotechnologies, and the FDA regulatory process. She has previously published work on the accuracy of ultrasound in predicting malignant ovarian masses. At HLS, Jessica is co-president of the Harvard Health Law Society.
