Chemical companies and health groups are battling over a provision in a consumer safety bill that would ban the use of plastic-softening chemicals found in many everyday products such as clothing, shoes and furniture.

The Breast Cancer Fund (BCF) and other health groups have lobbied hard for the measure, arguing the plastic-softening chemicals known as phthalates can cause problems with hormone levels and the human reproductive system.

The chemical ban is arguably the most controversial provision House and Senate negotiators will try to work out in agreeing on a conference report on legislation overhauling the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Democrats had hoped to complete the bill before Christmas last year, and now hope to finish work before the August recess.

The provision was included in the Senate bill as an amendment sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), but it is not in the House version. The amendment passed unanimously in the Senate and Feinstein’s office said that it “will be deeply upset if the amendment is stricken in the night by chemical companies.”

A lobbyist who attended an information-gathering meeting on the legislation last week said that while there is room for compromise, critics and advocates of the amendment are currently deadlocked in their positions.

Some retailers, including Toys “R” Us, Target and Wal-Mart, have announced policies that will limit or prohibit the use of the chemicals in products marketed to minors. State governors in California, Washington and Vermont also have signed bills that prohibit the use of plastic softeners in children’s products, and 12 states have introduced similar legislation in the past year.

Most Democrats favor the amendment, including Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), the second-ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.), however, is undecided, according to lobbyists on both sides of the issue. A spokeswoman for the committee said she would not comment on conference negotiations.
Ranking committee Republican Joe Barton (Texas) has voiced opposition in the past to the amendment, but health groups are hopeful he might change his position.

Chemical manufacturers have continued to favor Republicans in their political contributions, even since Democrats took over the House and Senate in 2006. In the current cycle, chemical manufacturers have given more than $830,000 to Republican candidates compared to more than $644,000 to Democrats.

The ACC said the ban on plastic softeners is unnecessary and the fight over it has held up otherwise useful legislation. “We do not believe the science justifies the actions of the Senate,” said Tiffany Harrington, director of public affairs for the ACC.

She also indicated the ACC would continue to fight against the language. “This is a contentious area of the conference and it remains a priority issue for our members,” she said.

Janet Nudelman of the BCF said that hundreds of studies indicates exposure to phthalates can cause health problems.

“Critics of the amendment are focusing on what we don’t know as opposed to what we do know,” said Nudelman. “We would prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to consumer products, particularly children’s products.”

Other groups aligned with BCF include Moms Rising , which lobbied for paid family leave and child healthcare, and the American Nurses Association .

The Senate version states that children’s products cannot contain more than 0.1 percent of any type of phthalate. Groups like the ACC said this could pose a huge problem for some manufacturers, since toys can be 13 to 39 percent phthalates.

Of the six different types of plastic-softening chemicals, the most contentious is known as DINP.

The CPSC, along with the Scientists of the European Union and Centers for Disease Control, has declared DINP not hazardous.

The CPSC has ruled DINP safe in products targeted to children aged 3 and up, although it did ban DINP from teethers, rattles and pacifiers in 1998. CPSC spokeswoman Julie Vallese said that was done voluntarily and was a result of uncertainties that arose from industry-conducted studies.

Further CPSC studies indicated that because children ages 3 and up did not place toys in their mouths enough to ingest a significant amount of the chemicals, it was not hazardous to include the chemical in children’s products.

While the CPSC is not taking an official stance on any aspect of the CPSC Reform Act, Vallese said “staff research speaks for itself on the agency’s position on the proposed amendment.”

Many consumer advocates point out that there are plastic alternatives available that do not require the addition of softening chemicals. However, most members of the industry prefer to continue using DINP.

“DINP is different from [plastic] alternatives because it has been subjected to much more thorough scientific testing. Some of the common alternatives have very little test data and we don’t really know whether or not they are safe for use in children’s toys,” said Susan Kattelus, media advisor for Exxon Mobil.