Gretchen Schaefer
202.833.7311
CSPA press statement on the EPA/CPSC Petition regarding air freshener safety:
The petition filed by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other environment groups regarding air fresheners is a very misleading document that in no way justifies any concern about the safety of these products. The petition cites flawed data, takes information out of context, makes misleading and inappropriate comparisons and ignores the substantial regulatory safeguards that are in place to ensure the safety of air fresheners.
The CSPA comments below document the misleading nature of major sections of the petition:
- Perhaps the most egregious misuse of data occurs when the petition cites the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) Opinion on air fresheners to justify its position. The SCHER Opinion actually documented the safety of air fresheners and did not make any recommendation for additional regulation of the products. The European Commission's scientific review committee conducted that review of air fresheners in response to a Bureau European des Consommateurs (BEUC) study that used many of the same misleading tactics employed in this petition to promote additional regulation of air fresheners. It should be noted that the BEUC study was so misleading and scientifically inaccurate that a Dutch court ordered the BEUC remove it from its web site and discontinue citing it as evidence of alleged risks from air fresheners.
- The petition also cites an NRDC report on phthalates which is as misleading as the BEUC report. The NRDC study flies in the face of accepted science. NRDC tested only a single unit of each of 14 products and then made some very misleading generalizations about phthalates, some of which were found at extremely low levels in the product. Phthalates are a large family of chemicals used in industrial and consumer products. All but one of the phthalates mentioned in the report were found at trace levels and pose no risk. The report identifies only one phthalate (Diethyl phthalate [DEP]) as being found at any significant (but still extremely low) level. DEP has been extensively examined by authorities and scientific groups in the U.S. and Europe including comprehensive studies by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the European Commissions Scientific Committee on Consumer Products and the World Health Organization that found that DEP is safe for use in consumer products.
- In its use of American Association of Poison Control Center (AAPCC) data, the petition raises unfounded concerns about air fresheners. The petitioners demonstrate a poor understanding of AAPCC data by citing statistics that represent acute incidents to raise concerns about chronic exposures. While manufacturers are concerned about any injury, poison control experts have advised CSPA that the data cited suggests an exemplary safety profile and compares favorably with products such as crayons and water colors. CSPA is not aware of any documented link between asthma and air fresheners when the product is used properly.
- The petition states that “there are no specific federal standards regulating air fresheners,” yet allots three paragraphs to explaining how the products are regulated. Indeed air fresheners are subject to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). Contrary to NRDC's claims, air fresheners undergo extensive reviews to meet or exceed the high standards and regulations set by government regulatory agencies.
CSPA is confident that a close review of the facts will demonstrate that this petition is without merit. We plan to make extensive comments to the agencies to document the real truth about the safety of air fresheners.
