Yesterday I was in Sacramento testifying in support of a bill that would help eliminate flame retardants from baby and toddler products.

The good news is the bill survived the business and professions committee and will be heard by the Assembly appropriations committee. The bad news is it was watered down a bit. The bill passed with two amendments. One amendment restricts the bill's coverage to only four baby products: strollers, high chairs, nursing pillows and bassinets. The other called for labels on flame retardant-free products, which I support but am not thrilled with the wording.

The Assemblyman who proposed the amendment, John Pérez, wants it to say (paraphrased), "These items do not meet California's fire guideline TB117." While I cannot speak for all advocates of this bill, I would like the labels to read, "This item contains no flame retardants."

Passions ran high on both sides. Those of us who supported the bill largely hailed from environmental organizations and activist groups. The opposition was largely comprised of industry lobbyists and members of the Black Chamber of Commerce who were very well represented. They had African American doctors, teachers and even children testify against the bill because the victims of fires tend to disproportionately be African American.

While I do not doubt their sincerity on this issue, I wish someone had pointed out that these deaths are occurring even with flame retardants in everything in our homes. Statistically, the six-to-12-second resistance offered by flame retardants have had no measurable benefit in preventing fire deaths, according to the National Fire Protection Association.

But the science on flame retardants is mixed at best. Those of us who are uncomfortable with these toxins in our homes should have the right to purchase toxic-free products without breaking the bank. At least give us the option. I do believe the door was cracked open to that possibility.

This is of course an open thread. Chat away!

As I mentioned earlier today, I am at the state capitol testifying on behalf of MomsRising to help rid baby and children's products of flame retardants.

Here is my testimony:

"Madame Chairwoman, Mister Vice Chair and esteemed members of the business and professions committee, thank you for having me here today. My name is Elisa Batista and I live in Berkeley, California.

"I am here today representing MomsRising.org. Started in May of 2006, MomsRising has 1.2 million members nationwide, including tens of thousands of members in California, all who would like to create and live in a more family-friendly country.

"I am testifying in support of Senate Bill 772 that exempts “juvenile products” designed for children 6 and under from fire retardant requirements.

"As the mother of two small children, a son aged 5 and a two-year-old daughter, I am tired of having to question the safety of the children’s products I use. To my dismay, it is only in the last two years that I learned what flame retardants were; and I also learned that these chemicals were most likely in the foam of my children’s stroller, their changing table, and nursing pillow. Needless to say it was disconcerting to learn that these chemicals may cause cancer, and that they are also required by the state to be included in most baby products with foam. Very young children have developing brains and organs, which are highly at risk from exposure to toxic chemicals.

"Often the only alternative to regular baby furniture is high-end toxic-free products. Just to give you an idea of what these products cost, an organic cotton-filled baby and toddler mattress is selling for $400 on a website called GoNaturalBaby.com. A similar non-organic mattress at Walmart.com is available for as little as $40. How can parents reconcile this price difference during a recession?

"Needless to say, I am disappointed the bromine chemical industry has mounted such a fierce and misleading campaign against this bill – as if parents do not have enough to worry about.

"Last week, industry members testified before the Assembly environmental committee that there was a fire safety hazard from baby and children’s products and that their children’s safety would be increased with these flame retardants.

"Nothing can be further from the truth. The six to 12-second flame resistance provided by flame retardant chemicals in foam has shown no measurable benefit in terms of actual fire protection. According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), while fire deaths declined by 38 percent in California from 1980 to 1999, the decline in fire deaths was similar or even greater in states that do not require the toxins at all. Considering that most victims of fires die from smoke inhalation and not the actual flames, alternative fire-fighting measures like smoke detectors and sprinkler systems have proven far more effective.