The proposal is an effort by fireplace makers to blunt the threat of regulation by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission. And it comes amid a string of lawsuits over burns from the scorching glass panes of gas fireplaces, which commonly reach temperatures above 400 degrees. The change would come through a revision to the current voluntary industry standard.

According to a federal estimate, since 1999 more than 2,000 children ages five and under have been injured through contact with the unprotected glass, with some suffering 3rd degree burns.  Some burn specialists believe the true number is much higher.

On Tuesday, officials of the Hearth, Patio, and Barbecue Association., a trade group for fireplace makers, are scheduled to brief commissioners and CPSC staff about their plans. Under the revision, manufacturers would provide a safety screen or barrier with each new fireplace. The current voluntary standard, certified by the American National Standards Institute, provides for warnings in owners manuals but does not include a barrier to prevent contact with the superheated glass.

The warnings have been ineffective in part because the parents of victims may not see them. Often, the buyer of the fireplace is a building contractor or a commercial establishment, while the end user is a renter, a second owner of the home, or a hotel guest who does not realize that the glass gets dangerously hot.

Industry representatives had previously considered a more limited change: requiring manufacturers to offer barriers to fit each fireplace, but only as a separate purchase.

The new proposal “is the prudent thing to do,” said Leslie Wheeler, director of communications for the hearth and patio association. “We’re very supportive of it.”

Consumer advocates say the proposal, recommended last month by an industry panel, is a positive step but does not go far enough. They said the wording should make clear that the screen must come attached to the fireplace to make buyers aware of its importance for safety.

“We would feel much more comfortable if the units were sold with the barrier affixed,” said Daniel Dillard, chairman of the prevention committee of the American Burn Assn. Consumers who don’t want the barrier “would have to take the initiative to remove it,” Dillard said.

“You can’t make somebody be safe,” but attaching the screen tells the buyer “this manufacturer must think this [the screen] needs to be here,” said Carol Pollack-Nelson, a psychologist and former member of the commission staff.

However, Wheeler of the hearth association said the intent of the proposal, as written, is to make sure the screen is attached when the fireplace is installed, in order “to protect the manufacturer and the retailer himself, as well as the homeowner.”

Following a comment period and further technical review, the revised standard could become final by July.

Consumer advocates last spring petitioned the commission to adopt government safety rules.  The industry briefings Tuesday are part of an effort to convince the agency that the companies should be allowed to continue regulating themselves.

Under federal law, the agency is supposed to defer to voluntary standards unless it’s clear they aren’t effective in preventing injuries or deaths. To manage a heavy workload, the commission also prefers to rely on voluntary standards rather than go through the laborious rule-making process.

“Preventing child burn injuries from incidents involving fireplaces is an important safety issue,” said commission spokesman Scott Wolfson, adding that agency staffers are reviewing public comments.

Gas fireplaces once were mainly ornamental, and many consumers aren’t aware of the danger of modern hearths, which are designed to serve as heating appliances. Fireplace makers generally have failed to actively warn of the dangers or push the use of safety screens, fearing they would limit the aesthetic appeal and scare away buyers.

However, two leading manufacturers already provide screens at no extra cost. For safety reasons, Hearth & Home Technologies of Lakeville, Minn., includes a permanently attached mesh screen with all of its gas fireplaces. Another top manufacturer, Lennox Hearth Products of Nashville, Tenn., last year began offering a free attachable screen with each fireplace as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

Related Posts:
Toddlers Suffer Severe Burns From Broiling Fireplace Glass, as Businesses Write Their Own Safety Rules
Burn Cases Turn Up the Heat on Fireplace Makers
Industry Seeks to Stave Off Regulation Over Toddler Burns

A molecular model of Bisphenol A or BPA. (iStockphoto)

The controversial chemical bisphenol A was not on my radar screen back in 2008, when I ordered a polycarbonate electric food steamer from Target.com. I thought I had purchased a nifty appliance, which offered a clever and fun way to cook dinner.

Not so fun were the news stories I started reading soon after. These articles reported research questioning the safety of polycarbonate in food applications, because that plastic contains BPA. It seemed each week a new study came out, implicating the widely used chemical in potential health problems, including neurological damage, diabetes and cancer.

Determined to get the chemical out of my kitchen, I stopped buying canned foods, because most had an epoxy resin lining containing BPA. I took a closer look at my cooking tools and didn’t like what I saw. Especially worrisome were the polycarbonate ones employing heat, because high temperatures can cause BPA to leach out.

Five months after buying the steamer, I tried unsuccessfully to return it to Target, where customer service would not override the standard 90-day return window, even though I explained my worries about BPA. Target suggested I contact the manufacturer, West Bend.

But I also struck out with West Bend, because the steamer was not under recall and the product materials were FDA approved.

I stashed the steamer in our garage, where it remained until last month when I tripped over the box. This got me wondering if West Bend and Target had changed their policies. After all, a lot has happened in the world of bisphenol A since 2008. “BPA Free” now is a rallying cry on many store shelves, including Target. Several food manufacturers have started using alternative linings in their canned foods, and some stores are eliminating thermal-paper cash register receipts coated with BPA. Eleven states have passed laws banning the chemical in bottles and cups for infants.

Even the American Chemistry Council, which has vigorously fought bans of the chemical, recently took the paradoxical position of asking federal regulators to make sure BPA is not used in baby bottles and sippy cups. (The industry group pointed out that the six leading manufacturers of baby bottles have not used BPA in those products since 2009.)

On its website the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that “BPA levels rise in food when containers/products made with the chemical are heated and come in contact with the food.”

Given all that, I was surprised to get a blast from the past when I called West Bend: they still would not take back the steamer because there is no recall of the product and its components are FDA approved. I made clear my intent was not to get a refund. I simply was curious if the company had any kind of policy regarding polycarbonate appliances, in light of all the new evidence about BPA.

Not only is there no such policy, the steamer continues to be manufactured and sold at Target and other retailers. With all the headlines about BPA, you have to wonder – why the heck is anyone still making and selling polycarbonate cooking tools?

Asked to comment, a West Bend spokesperson emailed:

“When products are conceived and designed, we consider all material options for the application and are sensitive as well to environmental and social factors. Coupled with FDA guidelines and mandates, we choose materials we feel will best support the product and ultimately the customer.”

A Target spokesperson emailed: “Target does offer a variety of BPA-free products. Guests may return products only if the product is either part of a recall or if the product falls within our normal return policy.”

A cynic might say, oh well, we’re surrounded by dangerous chemicals. Even if a plastic product is BPA-free, it might leach some other compound when heated. But many scientists insist that very low-dose BPA exposure is linked to health problems. So it would seem wise for consumers and manufacturers to eliminate exposure when they can.

But if we want to rid our kitchens of BPA, what are we supposed to do with these polycarbonate appliances? Taking apart the steamer and putting it in my community’s recycling program is not a responsible option, because this would just put BPA deeper into the environment. (In fact, recycled paper products have been contaminated with BPA, traced to cash register receipts coated with the chemical, which were put into recycling bins.)

“BPA will likely continue to find its way into other consumer products and the environment via recycling and disposal, which is why we need to phase it out of consumer products as soon as possible,” said Mike Schade of  the advocacy group Center for Health, Environment and Justice.

For now, I have placed the steamer back in the garage. Hopefully, by the next time I trip over the box, companies will have stopped making, and retailers will no longer sell, polycarbonate kitchen tools. And maybe someone will have figured out what we should do with all the unwanted products containing BPA.

Emily Dwass is a contributor to FairWarning.

E-Z-Go Recalls Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Utility Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard

Recall: 2011 Nissan Juke for Faulty Turbocharger Sensor Bracket

Handheld Massagers Recalled by Fourstar Group Due to Burn Hazard From Leaking Batteries (Sold Exclusively at BJ’s Wholesale Clubs)

More Dog Food Recalled Due to Aflatoxins

Honda Recalls 126,000 Gold Wing Motorcycles for Rear Brake System Flaw

2012 Subaru Impreza, Legacy, Outback: Recall Alert

Some Nissan Juke Models Recalled for Freezing Door Locks, Faulty Boost-Pressure Sensors

2011 Nissan Rogue Recalled

Children’s Pajamas Recalled by Bella Bliss Due to Violation of Federal Flammability Standard

Nautilus Recalls Schwinn Elliptical Exercise Equipment Due to Fall Hazard

Halloween Projection Flashlights Recalled by Nygala Corp. Due to Fire and Burn Hazards

Ocean Spray Recalls More Dried Cranberries for Metal Fibers

Allergen Alert: Wheat in Chorizo Sausage

Cilantro Recalled Due to Possible Salmonella

Lack of Inspection Spurs Recall of Frozen Pasta

Chicken Recalled for Possible Listeria Contamination

Bottled Ice Team May Contain Glass Fragments

Allergen Alert: Peanuts in the Almond Clusters

Cargill Recalls Dog Food for Elevated Aflatoxin Levels

Cheese Recalled Due to Possible Listeria Contamination

Allergen Alert: Undeclared Milk in Uncle Ben’s Rice

Some Iams Dry Dog Food Recalled

Sandwiches Recalled Due to Listeria Concerns

Listeria Test Leads to Butter Recall

Allergen Alert: Almonds in Cereal

Bread Recalled Due to Aluminum Flakes

Allergen Alert: Soy in Frozen Chicken Products

Salmonella Test Prompts Grape Tomato Recall

E. Coli Contaminated Egg Nog Recalled

Stanton Smith suffered severe hand burns from the unprotected glass of a gas fireplace.

Soon after his family checked in at a mountain resort in Breckenridge, Colo., one-year-old Stanton Smith quietly drew close to the gas fireplace in their suite.

Suddenly, Stanton burst into agonized screams, the victim of second- and third-degree burns. The child had simply touched the glass front of the fireplace, and left behind a patch of melted skin. Horrified and angry, his parents sued the fireplace manufacturer and the resort.

As FairWarning has reported, more than 2,000 children ages five and under have suffered burns from fireplace glass since 1999, according to a federal estimate. Some burn specialists think the actual toll is higher.

The glass commonly reaches temperatures of 400 degrees, as hot as an oven on broil, and is usually placed at a perfect height for curious toddlers to touch or fall into. These encounters can easily result in skin graft surgery and painful recovery, with medical costs in the six figures. One safety expert called it an “insidious and unappreciated hazard.”

Consumer groups and anguished parents are urging the Consumer Product Safety Commission to impose federal safety regulations. But the fireplace industry, which up to now has policed itself, is resisting. To head off federal regulation and more lawsuits from families of burned kids, manufacturers are working on a revision to their current voluntary standard that will be taken up by an industry technical panel on Dec. 13.

The proposal would not change provisions allowing the glass to reach a peak temperature of 500 degrees, or of 1,328 degrees, depending which of two types of glass is used. Rather, it would call for manufacturers to offer for sale an optional safety screen or other barrier designed to fit each fireplace.

Leslie Wheeler, spokeswoman for the Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Assn., an industry trade group, said the screens to be provided under the revised standard would be significantly more protective than those on the market now. She said the industry also aims to step up consumer education on the need for a protective screen if small children are around.

But Christopher Gannon, whose daughter in March suffered severe palm burns from the glass of a hotel fireplace, said there is no assurance that an optional screen “would be installed in the hotel or in a home where a child may be visiting.”

He is among those calling on the commission to impose federal regulations. If the companies “were able to develop a solution that would protect children,” he asked, “why wouldn’t they have done it already?”

Citing the “extreme risk of injury,” the American Burn Assn., representing burn surgeons, nurses and therapists, last week became the latest to call for adoption of a mandatory safety standard. It joins such groups as Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America.

Stanton Smith had skin grafts on his right hand after suffering third-degree burns.

“We want there to be a requirement that there would be a barrier or screen that would prevent contact with the glass,” said Rachel Weintraub, director of product safety for the consumer federation. “We want the barrier to be included, and not to be an accessory.”

Warnings provided with fireplaces haven’t prevented serious burns, in part, because the parents of victims may never see them. Often, the buyer of the fireplace is a building contractor or commercial establishment, while the end user is a renter or second owner of the home, or a hotel guest.

And since gas fireplaces in the past were mainly ornamental, many consumers aren’t aware of the danger of modern hearths. Installed by the millions in recent years, they are designed to serve as heating appliances. Fireplace makers generally have failed to actively warn of the dangers or push the use of safety screens, fearing they would turn off potential buyers.

However, two leading manufacturers provide screens at no extra cost. For safety reasons, Hearth & Home Technologies of Lakeville, Minn., for several years has included an attached mesh screen with all of its gas fireplaces. Another top manufacturer, Lennox Hearth Products of Nashville, Tenn., recently began offering a free attachable screen with each fireplace as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit.

Officials at the Consumer Product Safety Commission are reviewing public comments on two petitions requesting federal safety regulations. According to spokesman Scott Wolfson, the commission staff is expected to make a recommendation early next year on whether the agency should regulate fireplaces or accept industry revisions to the voluntary standard.

The petitions each propose a different fix. One submitted by William S. Lerner, a New York inventor, would require a high temperature warning light, such as one he has developed. It would be visible from the time the fireplace is lit until the glass cools enough to touch safely.

The other, from Carol Pollack-Nelson–a former commission staff member and expert witness in a lawsuit against a fireplace maker—asks the commission to require that all new fireplaces include attached safety screens.

As he described in a letter to the commission, Gannon, his wife and daughter, Julianne, were staying in a hotel in Pennsylvania last March when the 18-month old toddler, attracted by the flames of the gas fireplace, placed her hands on the glass enclosure.

“We had never had a gas fireplace at home,’’ Gannon wrote, and thought it “was for decorative purposes.”

The episode “was absolutely the most horrible time of our lives,” he recalled.

However, “the doctors at the burn unit weren’t shocked at all,” Gannon said in an interview. “They all nodded like they’d seen this before.”

Stanton Smith was burned during what his family had hoped would be a relaxing vacation. His father, Kim, a mechanical engineer, had just been treated for non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a type of cancer, and was under orders to find a stress-free place to aid his recovery. That’s what led the family from their home in Katy, Texas, to the Mountain Thunder Lodge in Breckenridge in June, 2009. Kim Smith passed away earlier this week at the age of 56.

Stanton was treated at a burn center near Denver, and later had skin from his thigh grafted onto his right hand at Shriners Hospital for Children in Galveston, Texas. Now three and a half, Stanton has decent range of motion in his hands, but “the scars are terrible,” Kim Smith said in an interview last month. He added that he feared his son would be teased by other kids as he gets older.

The Smith lawsuit, filed this June in federal court in Denver, seeks damages from several fireplace companies along with operators of the resort. They knew “these fireplaces would be installed at heights for which the decorative glass front was perfectly suited to contact by infants and small children,” the lawsuit states, yet “took no steps to guard against direct contact with the super-heated glass or to meaningfully warn about the extreme…burn potential.”

However, several fireplace businesses named as defendants are defunct, court papers show. The only active firm, Monessen Hearth Systems Co. of Paris, Ky., says it is not liable because the fireplace at issue was built and sold before Monessen acquired assets of the defunct companies. A Monessen lawyer declined comment.

The suit also names the lodge operator, Vail Resorts. A spokeswoman said the company wouldn’t comment on pending litigation.

“Nobody would dream that this thing would be so hot,” Smith said.

“All they had to do was put a little guard on the front of that thing, and it never would have happened.”

Related Posts:

Burn Cases Turn Up Heat on Fireplace Makers
Toddler Burns from Fireplaces Draw Heat from Senator Franken

But as NPR reports, the soups often send toddlers and other children to hospital emergency rooms with burns. The reason: The soups’ plastic foam cups — often wide at the top, and narrow at the bottom — tip over easily because of their poor design. Children accidentally knock the cups down on themselves.

“I don’t have them in my house,” said Dr. Warren Garner, director of the burn unit at Los Angeles County/USC Medical Center. “I would say that we see at least two to three patients a week who’ve been injured by these products.”

“It pulls down on top of them,” Garner added. “The hot liquid then burns their chest, arms, torso, sometimes their privates, occasionally their legs.” He said there is no other injury that he sees as regularly so directly attributed to a product’s flawed design.

Garner said that about one in five children he sees with the burns need surgery, and they can face permanent scarring and limited mobility in their joints.

The soups typically contain noodles, which aggravate the problem. Noodles cling to the skin, leading to deeper, more severe burns, according to a 2007 study.

The cups, however, don’t have to be so hazardous, according to Dr. David Greenhalgh, a burn expert at Shriners Hospital for Children-Northern California, and the author of a 2006 study titled, “Instant Cup of Soup: Design Flaws Increase Risk of Burns.”

The study looked at 11 brands of soup, and found that Cup Noodles by Nissin was one of the most prone to tip. Greenhalgh calculated that inverting the design of the cup’s container, giving it a wide base and narrow top, would make it almost three times less likely to tip. The company did not  comment to NPR.

STUART SILVERSTEIN