Notice of objection filed by Phantom Plastics and Minister’s response to the Notice of objection

Minister's response to Phantom Plastics

Notice of objection

The Honourable Steven Guilbeault
Minister of the Environment
c/o Christina Paradiso
Executive Director Chemicals Management, Environmental Protection Branch
Department of the Environment
351 Saint-Joseph Boulevard, Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0H3

Email: ec.interdiction-prohibition.ec@ec.gc.ca

Re: Notice of Objection and Request for Board of Review in relation to proposed regulations prohibiting the manufacture, use, sale and import of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE, CAS Registry Number 84852-53-9) while providing exemptions to the prohibitions, Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 156, Number 20 – May 14, 2022: Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022.

Dear Minister Guilbeault:

As President of Phantom Plastics, I am writing to state my formal objection to the above-referenced ECCC regulatory proposal.

As provided for by section 332(2) of CEPA 1999, I am filing this Notice of Objection and respectfully request that a Board of Review be established, pursuant to section 333 of CEPA 1999, to “inquire into the nature and extent of danger” posed by DBDPE for the reasons set out below.

Executive Summary

Phantom Plastics has conducted an extensive review of the scientific peer-reviewed literature on DBDPE and consulted with commercial users of this specific flame retardant additive to assess the potential impact of the proposed ban.

The proposed ban is based purely on unfounded speculation about the possible degradation products of DBDPE. It was assumed, in a complete absence of supporting experimental evidence, that the degradation pathway and products for DBDPE would be similar to those for the banned substance DecaBDE.

That assumption was not valid; and, in fact, peer-reviewed evidence demonstrates that DBDPE does not behave at all similarly to DecaBDE; and so, using the latter as an analogue for the former is both inappropriate and unscientific. DBDPE does not degrade under environmental conditions and is therefore safe. Furthermore, DBDPE does not degrade to the toxic substances hypothesized by the ECCC.

Banning a lifesaving additive without evidence would be rash in the extreme; and yet, the present proposal is to ban one safe additive simply because it looks somewhat similar to another, unsafe additive. Just as it would be unjust to incarcerate one innocent person because they look similar to another guilty person, it would be unjust to ban DBDPE because it looks somewhat similar to DecaBDE. Chemistry is a science and determinations cannot be made based on appearances and assumptions – only scientific testing and peer-reviewed data from such testing can be used as the basis for decision making.

As DBDPE saves lives, it would be illogical, unjust and unwise to ban it without overwhelming evidence of harm, and that evidence simply does not exist. In this instance, the precautionary principle has been misapplied. The current proposal will increase harm to human health and mortalities without any evidence of benefit.

Introduction

Phantom Plastics is a leading independent consultant formulating plastics, including flame retardants, for companies including P&G, Apple, HP and hundreds more, both in Canada and globally. My credentials as a recognized expert regarding plastics and the environment include authoring The Plastics Paradox book. (My complete biography, including relevant experience and qualifications on this matter, is attached as an appendix to this filing).

Crucially, Phantom does not sell, distribute market or use brominated flame retardants. Rather, our sole intention is to ensure that beneficial policies are promulgated based purely on scientific facts and logic stemming from those facts.

The goal of government policy should always be to protect the public; and sound policy must always be the result of careful deliberation once those scientific facts have been ascertained. This report summarizes all of the pertinent evidence in order to provide a platform upon which to come to a proper conclusion.

The Safety of Brominated Flame Retardants

Certain low molecular weight brominated flame retardants were found to migrate and bioaccumulate. Scientific evidence led to a justified ban and the public was protected. That initial experience produced a new generation of brominated flame retardants. Lessons were learned, and the new additives were larger molecules to hinder migration. In the case of DBDPE, the molecule has extremely low solubility which dramatically reduces exposure.

What Evidence is there that DBDPE is a Threat to Human Health? After a review of the scientific literature, I found extensive testing had been performed but could find no evidence that DBDPE is a threat to human health. This view is the same as that of the many regulatory agencies around the world.

Decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) brominated flame retardant CAS 84852-53-9

Degradation of DBDPE

The proposed ban is based purely on unfounded speculation about the possible degradation of DBDPE. It was incorrectly assumed that the degradation pathway and products would be similar to those for the banned substance DecaBDE.

“DBDPE testing under longer-term (e.g., greater than 6 month), environmentally relevant conditions to determine the degradation pathways and transformation products is lacking (possibly influenced by analytical challenges). Nevertheless, potential DBDPE transformation products were evaluated on the basis of predictions from photodegradation studies and biodegradation modeling, and by considering analogue decaBDE transformation products.”^{Footnote 1}

It is the use of “modeling” by the ECCC which is incorrect and misleading. Modeling is just a fancy scientific name for guessing and we should not make decisions affecting the lives of our fellow human beings based on guesswork.

Let us instead examine the peer-reviewed science.

“The current photolytic degradation experiments were performed on DBDPE in solvents and on silica gel. Large differences in the photolytic degradation behaviors of DBDPE may exist between lab matrixes and the natural environmental media such as atmospheric particles, soil, and water as suggested previously for deca-BDEs (Raff and Hites, 2007). Additional evidence is therefore needed to understand the potential photolytic degradation kinetics and to examine the occurrence of degradation intermediates of DBDPE in the real environment.”^{Footnote 2} 

The study indicated that DBDPE degrades under ultraviolet light in solvents. However, they correctly note that the conditions in the real-world environment are completely different. Any substance can be made to degrade under harsh laboratory conditions. That is not what matters though. What matters is whether or not DBDPE degrades to toxic substances under real environmental conditions.

Another study specifically states that DBDPE does not at all degrade in the same manner as DecaBDE. Whereas the banned molecule debrominates to form toxic substances, DBDPE does not. This proves that using DecaBDE as an analogue for the behaviour of DBDPE is not valid.

“The resistance of DeBDethane against debromination compared to DecaBDE might be attributable to differences in molecular structure, i.e. the ether bond in BDE 209 and the aliphatic C-C bridge in DeBDethane.”

and

“Photodebromination of technical decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE) incorporated into high-impact polystyrene (HIPS) and TV casings was compared under natural sunlight conditions with that of technical decabromodiphenyl ethane (DeBDethane). BDE 209 in pulverized HIPS+DecaBDE samples degraded with a half-life of 51 days. In contrast, no marked loss of DeBDethane occurred throughout the experimental period of 224 days. During BDE 209 photolysis in HIPS+DecaBDE samples, partly debromination to nona- and octa-BDE was observed, however, environmentally relevant polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) congeners such as BDE 47, 99, and 100 were not formed.”^{Footnote 3}

The scientists found that when inside plastic, DBDPE does not degrade in UV light. This is more concrete evidence that banning DBDPE is unfounded. The proposed ban is based on an incorrect guess that it would degrade under UV light to form toxic substances, when, in fact, we know that does not happen.

On the left, the scientists show the rapid degradation of the banned DecaBDE under UV light, whereas on the right they show that DBDPE does not degrade. The proposed ban was based on the statement that no experimental evidence existed on this matter; and so, they thought it appropriate to take a guess at what might happen. Apparently, they did properly consider this peer-reviewed evidence. There was no need to guess about the degradation of DBDPE, and so the foundation for the proposed ban has been invalidated.

I have seen further work showing that DBDPE does not degrade under real conditions and does not degrade to the toxic substances proposed by the ECCC in their modeling / guesswork.

“...calculated half-lives of more than 200 years vs. minutes in solution. Perhaps more importantly, there is no subsequent debromination to the octabrominated congeners and lower. No evidence of debromination is seen in PP, which confirms that matrix effects are important. EBP is much more photolytically stable in resins than decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE), and read-across comparisons between the two are misleading.”^{Footnote 4} 

I understand that this data has been submitted independently for your consideration. This is categorical proof that the “modeling” used by the ECCC was completely unreliable and should be discarded because experimental data disproves it.

The Use of Modeling

As the ECCC has based the proposed ban entirely on modeling, it is appropriate to discuss what modeling is and whether it is the correct tool for such a recommendation.

Modeling is a tool that chemists and other scientists sometimes use to predict the properties of chemicals. It has been used for decades, and although it has developed a great deal, we still cannot rely on predictions from modeling. For example, drug companies use modeling to find potential molecules to screen as new drugs. The results of the modeling are therefore just used as a hint as to what experiments need to be done. New drugs are never launched based on modeling alone, because it would be unsafe and unscientific to use the guess of a computer program to discover new drugs.

Another example of modeling that the layperson can relate to is weather forecasts. When we are not sure of the weather in the future, we ask a computer program to model the weather and take a guess at the future. We all know that this sometimes works, and sometimes does not work.

It has happened to me that I stood outside in the rain while my weather app, working from a computer model, told me that it was not raining. The sensation was eerie. The computer was convinced that it was not raining; and yet, in the real world, my own senses told me that it was indeed raining.

Now let us discuss the ECCC’s use of modeling. They claimed that in the absence of scientific, real world experimental data, they needed to use modeling instead. The model made some guesses about how DBDPE might behave, and then the ECCC made a recommendation to ban the flame retardant. That use of modeling is incorrect and not proper science. As with the case above about the development of drugs, the model should only be used to suggest what experiments to do. It cannot and should not be used to make policy decisions, because it is only a guess.

As we have seen in this report, the experimental evidence does exist. We know that DBDPE does not act like the banned decaBDE, so the model was working from a false assumption. We also know from experimental evidence that DBDPE does not degrade in UV light. Lastly, we know that it does not degrade into the toxic substances that the model predicted.

Many companies have sent objections to the Canadian Government showing them conclusively that the actual scientific data simply does not support the Government’s proposed action. In each case the Minister’s response has been to deny the request on the grounds of:

“not raising sufficient uncertainty or doubt in the scientific considerations of the underlying the proposed regulations...”

This response is not appropriate. The Minister is saying that he would prefer to believe a disproven guess over real, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to the contrary. That is unwise, unscientific and not in the best interests of the public.

Let us compare what the Minister has said to the analogy above of the weather forecast. In our analogy, the Minister is standing outside in the pouring rain (real-world data) and insisting that it is not raining because his weather app (computer model guess) says that it is not raining. Believing a guess when the real world evidence says the opposite is unwise to say the least.

Conclusions

Brominated flame retardants including DBDPE are proven to save lives. Alternative flame retardants do not perform as well, and, in many cases, they fail to pass the flame retardancy safety tests, putting lives at risk.

There is no scientific evidence that DBDPE is toxic. It has high molecular weight to prevent migration, and crucially, it is extremely insoluble, which prevents exposure.

The proposed ban in based on pure guesswork. Based on the appearance of the DBDPE molecule, someone has speculated / modeled that it will degrade to form toxic substances. However, there is no scientific experimental evidence to support that speculation. Therefore, banning DBDPE would be as foolhardy and unjust as convicting an innocent person based on hearsay. Sound science and justice both depend upon evidence, and, in this instance, there is no evidence of harm.

Furthermore, the proposed ban was based on an assertion that no scientific evidence existed to show how DBDPE actually degrades. That assertion was incorrect. Peer-reviewed science does exist and was overlooked. The data clearly show that DBDPE does not degrade under environmental conditions, and thus the premise of the proposed ban is invalid. The proposed ban was based on a guess that certain toxic substances would form during degradation of DBDPE when experimental evidence shows that the guess was incorrect and invalid.

In summary, the ECCC proposed a ban based on these invalid assumptions:

1. That DBDPE degrades rapidly like DecaBDE – disproven by experiment
2. That DBDPE forms toxic substances like DecaBDE – disproven by experiment
3. That a model /guess should be used because experimental data was not available – disproven – models cannot substitute for real data and experimental data does exist

Brominated flame retardants save lives, especially among the vulnerable, including the very young and the elderly. Fires often start in the home when the occupant is asleep, and flame retardant regulations enacted by responsible governments have halved the number of fatalities. Removing one of our most powerful weapons for saving lives would be the exact opposite of applying the “precautionary principle”.

As an independent expert, Phantom Plastics implores the Minister to appoint a Board of Review to “inquire into the nature and extent of danger” posed by DBDPE because, at present, there is no scientific justification for a ban.

Your faithfully,

Dr. Chris DeArmitt FIMMM, FRSC, CChem
President
Phantom Plastics
July 12th 2022

Statement of interests: Phantom Plastics was retained by Albemarle to conduct an independent review of the science around brominated flame retardants. Subsequently, Phantom Plastics asked Albemarle for permission to use some of the findings from that review for this objection letter. We wish to express our gratitude for permission to use those findings.

Scientific Citations Reviewed for this Report

J. Clare and H. Kelley Roe, Fire and at risk populations in Canada Analysis of the Canadian National Fire Information Database, University of the Fraser Valley - Center for Public Safety & Criminal Research, 2017

Toxicological Risks of Selected Flame-Retardant Chemicals, National Academy of Sciences, 2000

M. S. Blais et al., Comparative Room Burn Study of Furnished Rooms from the United Kingdom, France and the United States, Fire Technology, 56 489-514, 2020

https://blog.polymers.co.uk/flame-retardants-save-lives

National Safety Council - Injury Facts

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/home-and-community/safety-topics/fire-related-fatalities-and-injuries/

M. L. Hardy et al., Studies and evaluation of the potential toxicity of decabromodiphenyl ethane to five aquatic and sediment organisms, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 75, 73–79, 2012

M. L. Hardy et al., Prenatal Developmental Toxicity of Decabromodiphenyl Ethane in the Rat and Rabbit, Birth Defects Research (Part B) 89:139–146 (2010)

N. Wemken et al., Concentrations of Brominated Flame Retardants in Indoor Air and Dust from Ireland reveal elevated exposure to Decabromodiphenyl Ethane, Environmental Science & Technology, 54 (18), 2020

Kierkegaard et al., Identification of the Flame Retardant Decabromodiphenyl Ethane in the Environment, Environmental Science & Technology, 38 2004

Y. Liu et al., Exploring the membrane toxicity of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE): Based on cell membranes and lipid membranes model, Chemosphere, 216 (2019)

A. De la Torre et al., Concentrations and sources of an emerging pollutant, decabromodiphenylethane (DBDPE), in sewage sludge for land application, Journal of Environmental Sciences, 24 (3), 2012

C. Li et al., Photodegradation of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) adsorbed on silica gel in aqueous solution: Kinetics, products, and theoretical calculations, Chemical Engineering Journal, 375, 2019

J. Wang et al., Photolytic degradation of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), Chemosphere, 89, 2012

S. N. Zhou et al., Measurements of Selected Brominated Flame Retardants in Nursing Women: Implications for Human Exposure, Environmental Science & Technology, 48, 8873-8880, 2014

M. Leung et al., Maternal-Child Exposures to Persistent Organic Pollutants in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Exposure and Health, 12, 79-87, 2020

A. Mannetje et al., Current concentrations, temporal trends and determinants of persistent organic pollutants in breast milk of New Zealand women, Science of the Total Environment 458–460, 399–407 2013

N. Ricklund et al., Levels and Potential Sources of Decabromodiphenyl Ethane (DBDPE) and Decabromodiphenyl Ether (DecaBDE) in Lake and Marine Sediments in Sweden, Environmental Science and Technology, 44 (6), 2010

L. Jiang et al., Bioaccumulation, elimination and metabolism in earthworms and microbial indices responses after exposure to decabromodiphenyl ethane in a soil-earthworm-microbe system, Environmental Pollution, 289, 2021

J. Wang et al., Photolytic degradation of decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE), Chemosphere, 89, 844-849, 2012

L. Nadjia et al., Spectroscopic behavior of saytex 8010 under UV-visible light and comparative thermal study with some flame bromine retardant, Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry 275, 96–102, 2014

D. Zhou et al., Photodegradation of 1,3,5-Tris-(2,3-dibromopropyl)-1,3,5-triazine-2,4,6-trione and decabromodiphenyl ethane flame retardants: Kinetics, Main products, and environmental implications, Journal of Hazardous Materials 398, 122983, 2020

Expert Witness Resumé – Dr. Chris DeArmitt FIMMM, FRSC, CChem

Qualifications

Dr. Christopher DeArmitt FRSC, CChem, FIMMM

Dr. DeArmitt obtained a BSc (Hons) in Chemistry with Polymer Science from the University of Sussex, United Kingdom. He then obtained his MPhil and PhD from the same establishment, also in the polymer field.

He has over 30 years of industrial experience in plastics and formulation of plastics including additives such as fillers, reinforcements, antioxidants (stabilizers), impact modifiers, pigments and slip aids. Dr. DeArmitt is considered one of the foremost experts on plastic materials and additives for plastics. The Fortune 100 regularly enlist his assistance.

He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC) and is a Chartered Chemist (CChem). Dr. DeArmitt is also Fellow of the Institute for Materials, Minerals and Mining (FIMMM).

Dr. DeArmitt was Manager of the Polymeric Materials Group at the Institute for Surface Chemistry in Stockholm. He created multi-national, multi-client projects on the topics of polymers, mineral fillers and antioxidants. During that time, he worked with the KTH Stockholm to create new hyperbranched, high molecular weight antioxidants to provide extraction resistance and long-term performance.

He was Senior Project Manager at Electrolux (known as Frigidaire in the US) in which capacity he led a team to optimize Carboran, a polypropylene material which Electrolux uses in amounts exceeding 55,000 metric tons (over 120 million pounds) per year. Optimization of the fillers and antioxidant package were major topics. Later, Dr. DeArmitt ran a project which identified new natural antioxidants for polypropylene. Work included plastic materials selection formulation and testing for appliances.

As Global Product Development Manager at BASF’s headquarters in Germany, Dr. DeArmitt worked on a wide range of styrenic polymers such as polystyrene, HIPS, ABS, ABS/PA and ASA including competitor analysis, new product creation and new additives to give extended durability. Several patents resulted.

As President of Phantom Plastics LLC, Dr. DeArmitt creates new plastic materials, solves problems and provides training to well-known companies like P&G, Apple, Exxon, Disney, Total, Eaton and more.

Publications to date include 3 encyclopedia chapters, 14 book chapters, 2 books over 40 articles and 16 granted patents.

Recent Testimony – Chris DeArmitt PhD FIMMM FRSC CChem

2017 Deposition / trial testimony on behalf of the Plaintiffs against the Defendant Boston Scientific Corporation - Transvaginal Mesh Medical Product Cases – Superior Court of California – County of Los Angeles – Central Civil West, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4733

2019 The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review of the UK Government regarding the safety of polypropylene vaginal and hernia repair mesh. Dr. DeArmitt gave written evidence free of charge in order to protect the public from harm.

Curriculum Vitae

Conference Chairing and Organizing

Polymer Degradation & Stabilisation Conference (Sweden 1999) – Organizer

Functional Fillers for Plastics, Intertech, (2002, 2007, 2008) – Chairman & Organizer

High Performance Plastics, RAPRA, Cologne (Germany 2011) – Organizer

Minerals in Compounding 2010, AMI, Atlanta Georgia (USA 2010, 2011, 2012) – Chairman / Organizer

Presentations

Conference in Mineral Processing (1999)

Macromolecules ’99

Functional Fillers for Plastics (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008)

Nano-structured Materials (2002)

Engineering Thermoplastics (2004)

High Performance Fillers (2005*, 2006, 2007)

Cosmeceuticals Summit 2008

AddCon 2008

Nanopolymers (2008, 2009)

NPE/Antec (2009)

Advanced Materials Symposium (2009)

USM Business School (2009, 2010)

Smart Polymer Systems (2010)

Minerals in Compounding (2010, 2011**, 2012)

Plastics Modification: Additives, Compounding & Coatings (2011, 2012)

Silicone Elastomers 2011

Dragonite – SPE New Jersey Section 2011

Fire Retardants in Plastics 2012

InnoPlast Solutions 2012

BCC 2012

Polymer Foam 2012

Fire Retardants in Plastics 2014

Polymers in Cables 2014**

NPE/Antec (keynote) – USA (2015)

Plastics in Motion 2015

Compounding World Forum 2014*, 2016**, 2017, 2018

CBS 60 Minutes Gynecological mesh: The medical device that has 100,000 women suing

Interview with Scott Pelley, Season 50, Episode 35, May 13th 2018

AMI Compounding World EXPO, Cleveland, May 8th 2019, Understanding and Formulating Plastic Compounds

AMI Compounding World EXPO, Cleveland, May 9th 2019 – FINALLY THE TRUTH Learn the facts about plastics & the environment

Sky News Implanted PP Mesh Report with Correspondent Charlotte Lomas-Farley July 29th 2019

Engineering Solutions for Sustainability: Materials & Resources 4 – Keynote AIST Indianapolis October 2019

SPE – Plastics & The Environment: Dispelling Popular Myths with Scientific Facts – July 2020

Rotary Club – PLASTICS & THE ENVIRONMENT Facts for a Brighter Future – August 2020

AP Mexico – Plastics & the Environment Interview – August 2020

British Plastics Federation – November 2020 – The Plastics Paradox

Association of Plastic Processors – Russian Federation – February 2021

Global Research and Innovation in Plastics Sustainability (GRIPS) March 17th 2021 – What does the evidence say about plastics in the environment?

AMI Functional Fillers Virtual Summit March 18th 2021

UC Berkeley – Deplastify the Planet 2021

The Plastics Paradox: verità sorprendenti sul materiale che usiamo tanto ma conosciamo poco (~500 registrants)

The Great Plastics Distraction INEOS August 2021

The Plastics Paradox – The Truth about Plastics & the Environment European Plastic Converters October 2021 (>350 participants)

TPO Conference Society of Plastics Engineers October 2021 (typically 900 attendees from 20 countries on 4 continents)

AMI Compounding World EXPO, Cleveland, Ohio, Formulating with Fillers

Competitive Enterprise Institute, November 16th 2021 – The Plastics Paradox feat. Dr. Chris DeArmitt and Angela Logomasini

In-Cosmetics Formulation Summit, November 30th 2021 – The Great Plastics Distraction Part 2

*Voted best presenter

** Voted best presentation and best presenter

Publications (excluding conference papers)

The Surface Characterization of Polyacrylonitrile-based Carbon Fibres by Electrochemical Techniques

S. J. Porter, C. L. DeArmitt, R. Robinson, J. P. Kirby and D. C. Bott, High Perf. Polym., 1 (1), 85, (1989).

Synthesis of Novel Polyaniline Colloids Using Chemically Grafted Poly(N- vinylpyrrolidone)-Based Stabilizers

C. DeArmitt and S. P. Armes, J. Colloid Interf. Sci., 150 (1), 134, (1992).

A novel N-substituted polyaniline derivative

C. DeArmitt, S. P. Armes, J. Winter, F. A. Uribe, S. Gottesfeld and C. Mombourquette, Polymer, 34 (1), 158, (1993).

Colloidal Dispersions of Surfactant-Stabilized Polypyrrole Particles

C. DeArmitt and S. P. Armes, Langmuir, 9, 652, (1993).

Surface Composition of Surfactant-stabilised Polypyrrole Colloids

S. Y. Luk, W. Lineton, M. Keane, C. DeArmitt and S. P. Armes, J. Chem. Soc. Faraday Trans., 91 (5), 905, (1995).

A study of the kinetics of polymerization of aniline using proton NMR spectroscopy M. T. Gill, S. E. Chapman, C. L. DeArmitt, F. L. Baines, C. M. Dadswell, J. G. Stamper, G. A. Lawless, N. C. Billingham,S. P. Armes, Synthetic Metals, 93, 227, (1998).

Improving synthetic hindered phenol antioxidants; Learning a lesson from vitamin E K. D. Breese, J.-F. Lamèthe and C. DeArmitt, Polymer Degradation and Stability, 70, 89, (2000).

Filled polypropylene: a cost – performance comparison of common fillers

C. DeArmitt & K. Breese, Plastics Additives & Compounding (Elsevier), 3, 9, 28-33 (2001).

Synthesis and evaluation of hyperbranched phenolic antioxidants of three different generations H. Bergenudd, P. Eriksson, C. DeArmitt, B. Stenberg, E. Malmström Jonsson, 76, 503-509, (2002).

Fillers & Surface Treatment

C. DeArmitt & R. Rothon, Plastics Additives & Compounding (Elsevier), 4, 5, 12-14 (2002).

Thermoplastic Composites (Chapter 8)

C. DeArmitt & M. Hancock, Particulate-Filled Polymer Composites, 2nd Edition, Editor Professor R. Rothon, RAPRA, UK, 2003.

Composites Using Nano-Fillers (Chapter 10)

C. DeArmitt & R. Rothon, Particulate-Filled Polymer Composites, 2nd Edition, Editor Professor R. Rothon, RAPRA, UK, 2003.

Raising the softening point of PVC

C. DeArmitt, Plastics Additives & Compounding (Elsevier), 6, 4, 32 (2004).

Styrene-based polymers offer diversity for processors

C. DeArmitt, Modern Plastics, World Encyclopedia, 2004. (Revised & reprinted in 2005).

Thermoplastic compounds: finding the balance between performance and cost C. DeArmitt, Plastics Additives & Compounding (Elsevier), 7, 2, 26-29 (2005).

Fancy Fillers

C. DeArmitt & R. Rothon, Plastics Additives & Compounding (Elsevier), 7, 4, 28-31 (2005).

Understanding filler interactions improves impact resistance

C. DeArmitt Plastics Additives & Compounding (Elsevier), 8, 4, 34-39 (2006).

New thermo-opaque thermoplastics offer novel visual effects

C. DeArmitt Plastics Additives & Compounding (Elsevier), 9, 6, 30-31 (2007).

POSS User’s Guide (book)

C. DeArmitt POSS User’s Guide 700 downloads per month since 2007.

POSS keeps high temperature plastics flowing

C. DeArmitt & P. Wheeler, Plastics Additives & Compounding (Elsevier), 10, 4, 36-39 (2008).

Polyhedral Oligomericsilsequioxanes: Additives for Unique Cosmetic Properties C. DeArmitt Cosmetics & Toiletries (Allured Publishing), 123, 8, 51-56 (2008).

POSS Handbook (book)

C. DeArmitt (properties and applications of polyhedral oligomericsilsesquioxanes).

Innovation in Industry

C. DeArmitt, SpecialChem Marketing and Innovation Newsletter #3, July 2009.

Filled with Success

C. DeArmitt, Compounding World, July / August 2010.

The Open Approach to Open Innovation

C. DeArmitt, European Plastics News, November 2010.

Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsequioxane (POSS) Enhanced Plastics (Chapter 23)

C. DeArmitt, Functional Fillers for Plastics, 2nd Edition, Editor Professor M. Xanthos, Wiley-VCH, 2010.

Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxanes in Plastics (Chapter 5)

C. DeArmitt, Applications of Polyhedral Oligomeric Silsesquioxanes, Editor C. Hartman-Thompson, Springer Press, 2011.

Functional Fillers for Plastics (Chapter 26)

C. DeArmitt, Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook: Processing and Materials, Editor Myer Kutz, PDL, 2011.

Dispersants and Coupling Agents (Chapter 25)

C. DeArmitt, R. N. Rothon, Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook: Processing and Materials, Editor Myer Kutz, PDL, 2011.

Making the Most of Minerals

C. DeArmitt, Compounding World, February 2011.

Dragonite Handbook (book covering properties and applications of the nanotubular mineral halloysite)

C. DeArmitt, 2012.

Magnetite (chapter)

C. DeArmitt, Encyclopedia of Polymers and Composites, Springer 2014.

Particulate Fillers, Selection, and Use in Polymer Composites (chapter)

C. DeArmitt and R. Rothon, Encyclopedia of Polymers and Composites, Springer 2014.

Surface Modifiers for Use with Particulate Fillers (chapter)

C. DeArmitt, Encyclopedia of Polymers and Composites, Springer 2014.

Magnetite: exploring the multi-functional filler (chapter)

C. DeArmitt, Compounding World, August 2015.

Innovation Abyss: An Innovator’s Solutions to Corporate Innovation Failure (book)

C. DeArmitt, available on Amazon as paperback, hardback and Kindle versions 2016.

Dispersants and Coupling Agents (Chapter 22)

C. DeArmitt, R. N. Rothon, Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook 2nd Edition: Processing and Materials, Editor Myer Kutz, PDL, 2016.

Functional Fillers for Plastics (Chapter 23)

C. DeArmitt, Applied Plastics Engineering Handbook 2nd Edition: Processing and Materials, Editor Myer Kutz, PDL, 2016.

Fillers (Including Fiber Reinforcements) (Chapter 8)

R. Rothon and C. DeArmitt, Brydson’s Plastics Materials, 8th Edition, M. Gilbert Editor, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2016.

Particulate Fillers, Selection, and Use in Polymer Composites (chapter)

C. DeArmitt, R. Rothon, Polymers and Polymeric Composites: A Reference Series, Springer 2017.

Surface Modifiers for Use with Particulate Fillers (chapter)

C. DeArmitt, R. Rothon, Polymers and Polymeric Composites: A Reference Series, Springer 2017.

Magnetite (chapter)

C. DeArmitt, Polymers and Polymeric Composites: A Reference Series, Springer 2017.

The Last Straw, Lies & Bad Journalism

C. DeArmitt, LinkedIn 2018 (over 11 000 views)

Fillers and Filled Plastics (chapter)

C. DeArmitt, Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (in press), Wiley-VCH 2019

How the Environmentalists are Killing our Planet

C. DeArmitt, LinkedIn 2018

DeArmitt defends plastics by challenging data

Frank Esposito – Plastics News June 19th 2019

Innovation Enlightenment

C. DeArmitt, Feintool Horizons Magazine August 2019

The Plastics Paradox: Facts for a Brighter Future (acclaimed book revealing the truth about plastics and the environment)

C. DeArmitt, available on Amazon as full colour hardback edition 2020.

Patents

EP 1 582 136 Dishwasher Provided with a Hot Warning Device for the Temperature of the Dishes

Christopher Lynn DeArmitt, Fabio Spizzo

DE 10 2005 027 547 Polymer films with improved scratch-resistance

Dr. Chris DeArmitt, Asimina Kavarnou, Dr. Graham Edmund McKee, Steffen Funkhauser

DE 10 2005 046 818 Tough, filler-containing styrenic polymer based materials Dr. Graham Edmund McKee, Hans-Jürgen Renner, Dr. Daniel Wagner, Dr. Chris DeArmitt

DE 10 2006 011 074 Polymer blend, useful for the production of foil, molded body or fiber, comprises acrylate rubber modified vinyl aromatic copolymer, glycol modified PET, phase mediator and fibrous- or particulate fillers

Dr. Chris DeArmitt, Dr. Graham Edmund McKee, Robert Huber, Dr. Michael Breulmann

EP 1 770 114 Sound damping sheets based on styrenic SBS polymers Chris DeArmitt, Konrad Knoll, Robert Huber

WO 2006/048168 Method for Producing Polymer Compositions Containing Mineral Oil and a Filler

Christof Mehler, Chris DeArmitt, Philippe Desbois, Norbert Niessner, Claudius Schwittay, Jürgen Koch, Hans-Dieter Schwabe

WO 2006/053711 Tenacious Moulded Masses Containing Fillers and Based on Styrol Polymers

Graham Edmund McKee, Hans-Jürgen Renner, Daniel Wagner, Chris DeArmitt

WO 2007/113297 Method for Coagulating Aqueous Polymer Dispersions Chris De Armitt, Graham Edmund McKee, Konrad Mitulla

WO 2007/118788 Continuous Process for Performing a Chemical Reaction in which a Gaseous Phase is added to a Charge Stream Comprising one or more Solid Phases which have been Dissolved or Dispersed in Water

Wolfgang Fischer, Rainer Bardon, Chris DeArmitt

WO 2007/118796 Continuous Process for Performing a Reaction

Chris De Armitt

WO 2008/031719 UV-Stabilizers for Plastics

Chris DeArmitt, Graham Edmund McKee, Moritz Ehrenstein, Norbert Mosbach

WO 2008/065133 Method for Producing Dyed Textiles Comprising Polypropylene Fibres

Claudia Sierakowski, Chris DeArmitt, Hans-Helmut Görtz, Martin Weber, Philippe Desbois, Helmut Reichelt, Peter Poganiuch

EP 1 985 663 Moulded Article with Temperature Dependent Transparency Chris DeArmitt, Graham Edmund McKee

WO 2015/031629 Dynamic Tactile Interface

Micah Yairi, Christopher DeArmitt, Michael Hammersley

WO2019190572A1 Polyethylene Terephthalate Alloy Having Talc (a revolutionary high-flow injection moldable PET)

Chris DeArmitt, Mohammed Razeem

WO2021113061A1 Multimodal Polyalkylene Terephthalate (a revolutionary transparent high-flow injection moldable PET)

Chris DeArmitt, Mohammed Razeem

Minister's response

Chris DeArmitt, Ph.D.
President
Phantom Plastics
chris@phantomplastics.com

Dear Dr. DeArmitt

This letter is in response to your Notice of Objection and request to establish a board of review to the publication of the proposed Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2022 (proposed Regulations), which was received by Environment and Climate Change Canada on July 12, 2022. The proposed Regulations were published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, on May 14, 2022.

I have carefully considered all the issues in your Notice of Objection, including those dealing with the nature and extent of the danger posed by decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) and the other questions and considerations that you brought to my attention. In my opinion, your Notice of Objection does not raise sufficient uncertainty or doubt in the science underlying the proposed Regulations that would warrant the establishment of a board of review under subsection 333(1) of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA). Therefore, I am denying your request, and I will not establish a board of review. The reasons for my decision are explained below and in the Annex to this letter.

Responses to comments in your Notice of Objection related to the outcomes of the screening assessment for DBDPE, which concluded that there is a risk of harm to the environment due to the persistence and widespread occurrence of DBDPE in the environment along with the potential for bioaccumulation and toxicity of its transformation products, are provided in the Annex.

The comments in your Notice of Objection regarding the development of the proposed Regulations have been considered alongside other comments received on these regulations. The specific points you have raised on the proposed Regulations and how they will be addressed are also summarized in the Annex to this letter. Your Notice of Objection raised specific concerns on the proposed exemptions for DBDPE, and to address these concerns, the proposed timeline of the DBDPE exemptions will be extended by an additional 10 years (i.e. extended from 5 years to 15 years for new products and from 20 years to 30 years for replacement parts) and the scope of these exemptions will be broadened to include all manufactured items and additional intermediate materials. This extended timeline will allow all stakeholders additional time for the research and development of alternatives, testing and certification, and transitioning their manufacturing and supply chains. Broadening the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will help to reduce the risk of prohibiting critical components, reduce the need to apply for permits under the proposed Regulations for non-exempted parts, and reduce compliance burden of stakeholders throughout the supply chain.

Please note that the comments on the proposed Regulations will be summarized in the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement that will be published with the final Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2025 (2025 Regulations) in the Canada Gazette, Part II, which describe how these matters have been addressed.

I appreciate your bringing your concerns to my attention. Please accept my best regards.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Julie Dabrusin, P.C., M.P. (elle/she/her)

Annex

1) The following provides a summary of comments as set out in the “Executive Summary” section in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided:

1A) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that proposed risk management is based on assumption about the possible degradation products of DBDPE and the assumption was not valid and the use of decaBDE is both inappropriate and unscientific because DBDPE does not degrade under environmental conditions and is therefore safe.

The use of analogues and read-across in risk assessment, much like how decaBDE is used in the DBDPE screening assessment, is well established and internationally recognized. Canada’s approach to the use of analogues and read-across in risk assessment ^{Footnote 1.0}  is consistent with OECD Guidance^{Footnote 2.0}  and the approaches used in other jurisdictions, including by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)^{Footnote 3.0} .

DecaBDE is considered to be a suitably close analogue for DBDPE given the high degree of structural and functional similarities between the two substances, and the availability of relevant empirical information. In addition to Canada, the United Kingdom (UK) in 2007 and Sweden in 2024 utilized decaBDE as an analogue substance in their respective assessments of the target substance DBDPE^{Footnote 4.0} .

Structural and functional similarities between substances have typically translated to similarities in environmental fate, behavior, and other properties. It is noted that some differences in molecular makeup, dimensions, and configurations exist between DBDPE and decaBDE that may affect the manner in which these molecules interact with their environment; however, these differences are well within what is typical for analogue-target differences found in regulatory risk assessments. 

The abundance of empirical data on decaBDE also factored in its selection as the most appropriate analogue for DBDPE. Expert judgement is applied in this process, where chemical properties and the various empirically known properties, fate or behaviour of decaBDE is read-across to DBDPE on a case-by-case (e.g., per endpoint or property) basis rather than in an absolute manner, taking into consideration the suitability and comparability of these attributes.  

The assessment of DBDPE draws on the available empirical, modelling, and scientific information for DBDPE. In the absence of certain data on DBDPE, information on its close analogue, decaBDE, was used to evaluate certain properties of DBDPE and its potential to cause adverse effects in the environment including breaking down to lower brominated products. A weight of evidence approach is applied with consideration of multiple lines of evidence, and some uncertainty associated with data gaps in the assessment warranted application of precaution. Given this supporting scientific information, further details on the rationale for the risk management of DBDPE is provided in the response 1B and further detail on the degradation of DBPDE is provided in the response 4A and 4B.

1B) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that the proposed risk management measures for DBDPE were rash in the extreme, illogical, unjust and unwise without evidence and that evidence does not exist. In addition, you commented that just as it would be unjust to incarcerate an innocent person because they look similar to a guilty person, that it would be unjust to ban DBDPE because it looks somewhat similar to decaBDE, and that scientific testing and peer-reviewed data such as testing should be used as the basis for decision making.

Your views are noted.  However, the proposed risk management for DBDPE is based on the following reasons:

The DBDPE screening assessment concludes that DBDPE is toxic, persistent and results predominantly from human activities and that DBDPE is expected to contribute to the formation of persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic transformation products, such as lower brominated diphenyl ethanes, in the environment. As such, at the time the risk management approach for DBDPE was published, DBDPE met the criteria outlined in the Government of Canada’s Toxic Substances Management Policy for virtual elimination from the environment (Canada, 1995).

Upon the coming into force of the Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act (S.C. 2023, c. 12) in June 2023, the virtual elimination provisions of CEPA were replaced with a new regime that remains risk based. In developing a proposed regulation or instrument respecting preventive or control actions in relation to substances added to Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act, priority will be given to the total, partial or conditional prohibition of activities in relation to the substance or of releases of the substance into the environment. For substances added to Part 2 of Schedule 1, priority will be given to pollution prevention actions, which may include prohibition, when managing risks posed by those substances. 

An Order adding DBDPE to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 was published in the Canada Gazette, Part II on February 26, 2025.

As indicated in the risk management approach for DBDPE, the environmental objective for DBDPE is to reduce its concentrations in the Canadian environment to the greatest extent practicable, and the risk management objective for DBDPE is to achieve the lowest level of release of the substance into the Canadian environment, taking into account social, economic and technical matters. 

The high importation volumes of DBDPE into Canada, along with information on its uses, indicate potential for widespread release into the Canadian environment. Aquatic exposure to DBDPE is expected through activities such as formulation, either directly to receiving surface water or to a wastewater treatment system that discharges its effluent to a receiving surface water body. In addition, products containing DBDPE have the potential to release DBDPE at various stages of lifecycle, including use (see house dust studies referred to in Section 10.1.1.2 and Appendix D of the DBDPE screening assessment) and disposal. Once released into the environment, DBDPE will be found mainly in sediment and soil, where it may persist for long periods of time, resulting in DBDPE build-up, as seen by rapid doubling times in sediment in the Great Lakes. 

In addition, the suitability of decaBDE analogue comparison with DBDPE is outlined in the DBDPE screening assessment and in the first three paragraphs of the response to 1A.

Given the above, regulatory prohibition is the best approach to meet the risk management objective for DBDPE, which is to achieve the lowest level of release of the substance into the Canadian environment, taking into account social, economic and technical matters.

2) The following provides a summary of comments as set out in the section, “The Safety of Brominated Flame Retardants” in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided.

In your Notice of Objection, you commented “In the case of DBDPE, the molecule has extremely low solubility which dramatically reduces exposure”.

DBDPE accumulation in environmental media such as sediment despite its low solubility may present a significant source for the generation of potentially more bioavailable, bioaccumulative and hazardous transformation products, via degradation under various environmental conditions. Thus, DBDPE’s low solubility does not reduce the exposure to certain organisms or more broadly to its more harmful degradation products in the environment.

3) The following provides a summary of comments as set out in the “What Evidence is there that DBDPE is a Threat to Human Health?” section in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided.

In your Notice of Objection, you commented “After a review of the scientific literature, I found extensive testing had been performed but could find no evidence that DBDPE is a threat to human health. This view is the same as that of the many regulatory agencies around the world”.

While you make this point regarding human health in your Notice of Objection, the May 2019 DBDPE screening assessment concluded that DBDPE does not meet the criteria under paragraph 64(c) of CEPA and thus, was not considered harmful to human health at exposure levels described in the screening assessment. 

4) The following provides a summary of comments related to the “Degradation of DBDPE” section in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided.

4A) In your Notice of Objection, you commented “ The proposed ban is based purely on unfounded speculation about the possible degradation of DBDPE. It was incorrectly assumed that the degradation pathway and products would be similar to those for the banned substance DecaBDE.”, “It is the use of “modeling” by the ECCC which is incorrect and misleading. Modeling is just a fancy scientific name for guessing and we should not make decisions affecting the lives of our fellow human beings based on guesswork” and “The proposed ban was based on the statement that no experimental evidence existed on this matter and so, they thought it appropriate to take a guess at what might happen. Apparently, they did properly consider this peer-reviewed evidence”.

The scientific evidence cited in your Notice of Objection pertaining to the photodegradation of DBDPE was considered in the assessment of DBDPE, except for the 2,000-hour photodegradation study (R. S. Mathur et al., Photolysis of ethane-bis(pentabromophenyl) (EBP) flame retardant in resins, manuscript in preparation) subsequently published in the Journal Chemosphere in 2023 after the assessment. The available evidence presented in the screening assessment illustrates that lower brominated congeners (e.g. nona, octa, hepta-, hexa, and pentaBDPEs) are likely formed from transformation of DBDPE under various environmental conditions and processes which can include photodegradation. Scientific studies cited in the screening assessment demonstrated that lower bromo-diphenylethanes were identified in water with humic acid under UV light^{Footnote 5.0} . With regards to the 2,000-hour photodegradation study, while the applied weathering conditions appear reasonable for simulation of environmental conditions when DBDPE is bound within high impact polystyrene and polypropylene, this study represents only one specific scenario with limited relevance to overall DBDPE environmental release and fate. Similarly, photodegradation results from the study cited, Kajiwara et al. (2008), was considered in the final screening assessment and this study only considers a relatively short exposure period (224 days) that only reflects photo-transformation versus other important transformation mechanisms (e.g., biodegradation). The study reflects only one aspect of product lifecycle (DBDPE in HIPs polymer) and is considered to have limited relevance to the assessment. Evidence from studies with DBDPE adsorbed to solid matrices such as soil or sediment are most relevant to the fate of the substance in the natural environment. As an additive brominated flame retardant that is blended with the polymer product (rather than a reactive flame retardant chemical bonded to the polymer product), there is the possibility of release of DBDPE from these products to the environment. In addition, DBDPE may be released to air or dust by volatilization or abrasion of product containing the substance and then deposited to soil or water. Thus, the information presented in the photodegradation studies you reference with DBDPE present within a polymer matrix has no impact on the regulatory conclusion reached in the DBDPE screening assessment.

The transformation of both decaBDE and DBDPE is expected to proceed slowly (half-lives may be as long as decades) in the environment and some evidence suggests that DBDPE may proceed more slowly than decaBDE. 

It is well established that decaBDE may be a significant source of release of more hazardous debromination products in the environment even if the transformation is slow; meaning that when there is sufficient parent compound (decaBDE) in the environment, the more hazardous transformation products will accumulate. As DBDPE is a high-volume substance which has been detected in the Canadian environment at increasing concentrations in some instances, such as in the sediment of the Great Lakes, an element of precaution is applied for the consideration of its debromination and comparison to that of the rate of debromination seen for decaBDE in the environment. 

Regarding the statement on the “use of “modeling” by the ECCC which is incorrect and misleading” please refer to the response in 5A.

In summary, your comment incorrectly assumes that decaBDE debromination would proceed rapidly, while empirical evidence suggests otherwise. DecaBDE debromination proceeds slowly but it still leads to the problem of transformation products in the environment. DBDPE may debrominate more slowly than decaBDE in the environment; however, this would likely still lead to significant release of more hazardous transformation products in the environment. 

4B) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that the science you reviewed proved “that using decaBDE as an analogue for the behaviour of DBDPE is not valid.”

The suitability of decaBDE analogue comparison with DBDPE is outlined in the DBDPE screening assessment and in the response to 1A.

5) The following provides a summary of comments related to “The Use of Modeling” section in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided.

5A) In your Notice of Objection, you commented “That the use of modeling is incorrect and not proper science.” and that “experimental evidence does exist. We know that DBDPE does not act like the banned decaBDE, so the model was working from a false assumption” You also stated that “We know from experimental evidence that DBDPE does not degrade in UV light” and “[DBDPE]….does not degrade into the toxic substances that the model predicted.”

Relevant and well-established models, readily used by other jurisdictions, industry, and academia have been applied. The generated model results were evaluated to ensure reliability in order to inform the assessment and were applied in a weight-of-evidence approach, together with empirical data, an analogue approach, and information submitted by industry, to reduce uncertainties associated with any one line of evidence. Thus, model results are considered a robust and realistic line of evidence and were used in the assessment with consideration of any underlying uncertainties.

Regarding the statements on the degradation of DBDPE refer to the response provided in 4A.

5B) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that many companies have sent Notices of Objection to the Canadian Government ”showing them conclusively that  the actual scientific data simply does not support the Government’s propose action” and you further stated that in each case the Minister responded to deny the request on the grounds of “not raising sufficient uncertainty or doubt in the scientific considerations of the underlying the proposed regulations….” You commented that this response is not appropriate.

I am of the view that this statement is incorrect on all fronts. While multiple Notices of Objections were received, none demonstrated that the scientific data does not support the proposed regulatory measures. In addition, at the time of your correspondence (July 2022), I had not responded to any of the Notices of Objections on DBDPE; your comment on my response appears to be quoted from an unconnected, separate initiative.

With respect to the reasons to deny your request for a board of review, these have been provided in detail in this response letter and the corresponding Annex.

6) The following provides a summary of comments related to “Conclusions” section in your Notice of Objection and the analysis of the information you have provided.

6A) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that brominated flame retardants including DBDPE are used as flame retardants to meet critical flammability standards and safety requirements in products and that alternative flame retardants do not perform as well.

Flame retardant substances are generally used to meet performance-based flammability requirements. These requirements do not specify what chemical flame retardants need to be used; rather they may require a product or component to pass a laboratory test such as a cigarette smolder or open flame ignition test (ASTM 2014). Using chemical flame retardants such as DBDPE in products is one of the ways by which companies can meet flammability requirements for their products. Alternate substances as well as non-chemical-based alternatives may also be used to replace the use of DBDPE as a flame retardant in various applications.

In addition to the concerns you have raised in your Notice of Objection, a number of similar comments were received during the public comment period for the proposed Regulations. To address these concerns, the proposed timeline of the DBDPE exemptions will be extended by an additional 10 years (i.e. extended from 5 years to 15 years for new products and from 20 years to 30 years for replacement parts) and the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will be broadened to include all manufactured items and additional intermediate materials. This extended timeline will allow all stakeholders additional time for the research and development of alternatives, testing and certification, and transitioning their manufacturing and supply chains. Broadening the scope of the DBDPE exemptions will help to reduce the risk of prohibiting critical components, reduce the need to apply for permits under the Regulations for non-exempted parts, and reduce compliance burden of stakeholders throughout the supply chain. 

6B) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that there is no scientific evidence that DBDPE is toxic and its physical properties prevent migration and exposure.

The DBDPE screening assessment which considers empirical, modelled and analogue evidence concludes that DBDPE is toxic (meets the criteria under paragraph 64(a) of CEPA), persistent and results predominantly from human activities and that DBDPE is expected to contribute to the formation of persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic transformation products, such as lower brominated diphenyl ethanes, in the environment. In relation to your comment “its physical properties prevent migration and exposure” please refer to the response in point 2.

6C) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that the proposed risk management is based on pure guesswork, that there is no scientific evidence to support the speculation, existing data shows that DBDPE does not degrade under environmental conditions, that there is no evidence of harm and the risk management was based on invalid assumptions.

Please refer to the responses in points 1, 4 and 5.

6D) In your Notice of Objection, you state:

“1. That DBDPE degrades rapidly like DecaBDE – disproven by experiment

2. That DBDPE forms toxic substances like DecaBDE – disproven by experiment

3. That a model /guess should be used because experimental data was not available – disproven – models cannot substitute for real data and experimental data does exist”

Please refer to the responses in points 1, 4 and 5.

6E) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that brominated flame retardants save lives and the proposed risk management measures restricting DBDPE was the opposite of the applying the “precautionary principle”.

Please refer to the response in point 1B.

6F) In your Notice of Objection, you commented that “flame retardant regulations enacted by responsible governments have halved the number of fatalities”.

Please refer to point 6A detailing that performance-based flammability testing requirements do not specify the use of a specific substance such as DBDPE.  

In addition, it is noted that information such as peer-reviewed studies (e.g. Babrauskas, Vytenis & Blum, Arlene & Fuoco, Rebecca & Birnbaum, Linda. (2011). Flame Retardants in Furniture Foam: Benefits and Risks. Fire Safety Science. 10. 10.3801/IAFFS.FSS.10-265) have indicated flame retardant regulations, such as the California Furniture Flammability Standard Technical Bulletin 117 (TB117), and use of chemical flame retardants in products, have not been shown to have a measurable fire safety benefit.