Notice on this report several things. One is the Simmons representative Jonathan Dawe where he said that they didn't want to put their recipe out there. His "recipe" is one of the chemicals or a combination of the chemicals and it is most likely the same lowest cost "recipe" that every other manufacturer uses. In fact, they don't make the recipe. They purchase their FR fabric from a suplier. A supplier that is selling the same to other mattress manufacturers. So, there is no such thing as a proprietary "recipe." This is a cover up so they won't have to tell you that there are toxic chemicals in their mattresses.
Secondly, Al Klancnik of Serta said that boric acid is only toxic if a person eats enough of it and that no one is eating their mattresses. This is purposely deceptive. Boric acid can and will be absorbed into us through our skin, our lungs, and or stomachs from sleeping on mattresses treated with boric acid to the tune of 0.081 milligrams per night! The CPSC has already declared it in their risk assessment report. (Click here for entire report)
Thirdly, at the end of the video the report said that an OSHA report on the Simmons plant is pending but that the company is confident that OSHA will find nothing wrong. Of course not, OSHA has been bought and paid for also by mattress companies. Click here to learn how the mattress industry is being protected by OSHA.
The details of whether or not these chemicals will harm you is not what you need to understand in order to determine if fire-proof mattresses are something you want. You would think that mattress manufacturers would be opposed to the CPSC regulations. Instead, the International Sleep Products Association (ISPA), "the international trade association representing the mattress manufacturing industry" which in reality represents some large innerspring mattress manufacturers, as well as some fire retardant chemical manufacturers, supported the new regulations. With foam mattresses taking a larger share of mattress sales, imports have become far more prevalent in the U.S. market. The real reason for the ISPA support of the regulations is because it helps keep imports out and it hurts small domestic manufacturers with testing and compliance costs. Obviously it also helps fire-retardant chemical manufacturers. It is a pure win for the large innerspring mattress manufacturers and chemical manufacturers and about money, not fire safety. So do you think fire retardant chemicals are good for you?
As evidence that these new FR standards are really designed to help large manufacturers and hurt small manufacturers, read the following article from Furniture Today magazine:
Top 100 store Badcock to close bedding plant June 29
--Furniture Today, 5/16/2007 1:06:00 PM
MULBERRY, Fla. - Top 100 store chain W.S. Badcock said today it will close its bedding factory rather than make a "major expansion" that would be required to meet new federal flammability regulations.
Badcock said it will begin outsourcing all mattress manufacturing to International Bedding Corp., a Top 10 bedding producer.
Also this article on newsreview.com reports that the new safety codes could eliminate one third of all mattress manufacturers.
By Emanuell Orr
This article was published on 06.07.07
The new fire standard will cost mattress manufacturers more than $100 million per year to implement and is the most expensive change the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has ever made, according to a report by ConsumerAffairs.com.
There are currently only 600 mattress manufacturers in the United States, and the new safety codes could eliminate a third of them.
After presenting this information to our customers, they all have confessed they would rather have a mattress that is not flame-proof (the same way they have always been prior to the new CPSC burn standards) rather than face the risk of sleeping on known toxic chemicals. So why did the CPSC force on consumers something they don't want? If the CPSC was really interested in consumer interests and safety, wouldn't they have required mattress manufacturers to disclose what chemicals they were using to make their mattresses burn proof? THEY DIDN'T! When a consumer is looking to buy a new mattress, they have no way of knowing there are chemicals in the mattress. The consumer is completely in the dark on this issue. Moreover, since a majority of consumers don't want the fire proofing chemicals in their mattresses, couldn't the CPSC just simply require manufacturers to offer both flame-proof mattresses and non-flame-proof mattresses and then allow consumers to make up their own mind and asses their own risks? Lastly, in order for mattress manufacturers to meet the new flame standard, they must submit sample mattresses to designated testing facilities to time the burn rate and heat release of their mattresses. As quoted from
16 CFR Part 1633 Final Rule , "The standard prescribes a full-scale test using a pair of T-shaped gas burners designed to represent burning bedclothes." The obvious question with regard to this standard is, what good is a flame-proof mattress if the sheets and blankets and pillows still burn? Clearly the CPSC is not acting on behalf of consumer interests but in the interest of large mattress manufacturers and chemical manufacturers at the potential long-term health risk of consumers!
Don't Be Fooled By Fire Safety Groups!
Don't be fooled by fire safety groups or mattress companies that claim this is about fire safety. The following video illustrates that some fire safety groups are front groups for the chemical industry. This video also illustrates how special interests get what they want with large sums of money.
