[Senate Hearing 109-377]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-377
S. 1110, THE ENGINE COOLANT AND ANTIFREEZE BITTERING AGENT ACT OF 2005
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, PRODUCT SAFETY, AND INSURANCE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 18, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 2006
27-356 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada BARBARA BOXER, California
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BILL NELSON, Florida
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JIM DeMint, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
Lisa J. Sutherland, Republican Staff Director
Christine Drager Kurth, Republican Deputy Staff Director
David Russell, Republican Chief Counsel
Margaret L. Cummisky, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Samuel E. Whitehorn, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General
Counsel
Lila Harper Helms, Democratic Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER AFFAIRS, PRODUCT SAFETY, AND INSURANCE
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska MARK PRYOR, Arkansas, Ranking
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
JIM DeMint, South Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 18, 2005.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Allen....................................... 1
Prepared Statement of Hon. Martin J. Chavez, Mayor,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.................................... 9
Statement of Senator Pryor....................................... 2
Witnesses
Amundson, Sara, Legislative Director, Doris Day Animal League.... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Report, dated July 25-26, 2001, from the California
Integrated Waste Management Board.......................... 20
Bye, Jeffrey, Vice President, Prestone........................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Elder, Jacqueline, Assistant Executive Director, Hazard
Identification and Reduction, Consumer Product Safety
Commission..................................................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
McCoy, Hon. Kathy A., State Representative from New Mexico....... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
S. 1110, THE ENGINE COOLANT AND ANTIFREEZE BITTERING AGENT ACT OF 2005
----------
MONDAY, JULY 18, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Product Safety,
and Insurance,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. George Allen,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE ALLEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Good morning. Good morning to everyone. I
call this hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Consumer
Affairs, Product Safety, and Insurance to order.
We are here to consider S. 1110, a bill entitled Engine
Coolant and Antifreeze Bittering Agent Act of 2005.
First, I want to thank our Ranking Member, Senator Mark
Pryor, from Arkansas, for co-sponsoring this bill with me.
Thank you for your attendance and interest, and your razorback
dogs that you brought here as a part of our well-behaved
audience.
I also thank our witnesses. I'd like to talk to you all
more afterwards. We had the K-9 in there, and everyone was in
such a hubbub, it was hard to get through to you all. But I
want to thank our witnesses, who come from all over the country
to share with this Committee their views on this legislation.
And I also do want to thank the many citizens who have
shown interest in this legislation. And I thank you all for
attending.
They call this the ``dog days of summer,'' and I guess they
really are literally here in this room. And we all want dogs
and animals and children to have many happy summers, and that's
part of the reason for this bill, which is intended to make
antifreeze a less-dangerous product throughout the United
States, with national standards.
When children and animals ingest antifreeze, there is the
potential that they can be seriously harmed, or, killed. Many
poisonings in dogs and cats have already been reported over the
years. This bill envisions a reasonable solution to avoiding
these types of tragedies. By adding a bittering agent to
antifreeze, we hope that antifreeze becomes unpalatable to
animals and to children, and deters them from any further
ingestion.
This legislation is to reduce risk, and it's also important
for commerce and jobs. Radiator fluid manufacturers should be
given an opportunity to comment on this legislation, because
it's obviously going to affect their operations and people who
work for their companies. We need to keep America's businesses
more competitive. And, also, we want to make sure that prices
are reasonable for customers.
I believe this bill takes into consideration all parties
for reasonable government action that appears to have a
consensus of support, from people who are animal owners or
animal lovers, to manufacturers, to customers who would also
support this idea.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, to hear
their perspectives regarding the desirability of this
legislation.
And, with that, Senator Pryor, if you'd like to make any
opening comments before I proceed to introducing our witnesses
and listening to testimony, we'd love to hear from you.
Senator Pryor?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to say I'm so delighted to work with you on
this legislation, and I look forward to working with you to
help shepherd this through the Senate and through the Congress
and onto the President's desk.
This is legislation that's really a win-win situation. I
know the industry, as well as various consumer groups and
animal advocacy groups, et cetera--children's groups--have come
together to try to find a solution that's agreeable to all. We
all know the nature of the problem, and that is to children and
animals, antifreeze can taste good. In fact, I think some
people say it tastes a little bit like soda-pop. And so, as we
all know, what happens is, maybe in the garage, a container is
not tightly sealed, or there's a spill in the driveway or out
on the road, or some carelessly discarded antifreeze, but,
nonetheless, an animal or a child will have some exposure to
it, which can have fatal consequences.
So, I just think that the fact that adding this chemical to
antifreeze, for pennies a gallon, is a common-sense solution,
it's one that we already know will work. This chemical we're
going to talk about today, I think, is the most bitter chemical
in the world, or one of the most. And so, it's already in a
number of other products, and it's already proven to be very
effective.
And so, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this
in helping steward this bill through the Congress.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Senator Pryor. And I thank you.
This needs to be a bipartisan effort, and I thank you for your
leadership. And we're going to work together as a team.
And before we listen to the testimony of our witnesses, let
me introduce each of you briefly so that our audience here in
the room know who you are.
First, I want to introduce a Representative from the State
of New Mexico, Kathy McCoy, a state legislator, who flew in
last night to join us. Representative McCoy was instrumental in
enacting similar legislation in the State of New Mexico. She
also has her own unfortunate personal story to relate.
Representative McCoy, thank you. Thank you for coming. We
look forward to hearing your expert testimony, as legislators
at the Federal level, to learn from what you all have done with
your leadership in New Mexico.
Next, we'll hear from Jacqueline Elder, Assistant Executive
Director for Hazard Identification and Reduction at the
Consumer Product Safety Commission. She was present at the CPSC
when a study was commissioned to study the effectiveness of
bittering agents in consumer products. Her professional
expertise is appreciated.
Thank you, Ms. Elder, for being here this morning.
We'll then hear from Jeff Bye, who's Vice President of
Prestone, which is a subsidiary of Honeywell. Jeff's company is
the largest manufacturer of antifreeze in the world.
Your testimony, Mr. Bye, will be important, because this
legislation will partially and significantly fall upon your
shoulders and that of your company. Thank you for being with
us.
Finally, we'll hear from Sara Amundson, Deputy Director of
the Doris Day Animal League. Sara's organization is a strong,
respected advocate for protecting animals from preventable
harm, which is, we all agree, a very worthy goal, a goal that
is furthered, we believe, by this legislation.
We look forward to hearing your understanding of the way
that bittering legislation has developed in the goal of making
antifreeze a safer product throughout the United States.
Thank you all for being here. We'd first like to hear from
Representative McCoy.
Ms. McCoy?
STATEMENT OF HON. KATHY A. McCOY,
STATE REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO
Ms. McCoy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
testify on a topic that will resonate with anyone who holds
their family pets dear to them. And I also appreciate you
considering this important legislation in such a thoughtful
manner.
For many of us, losing a beloved family pet is like losing
a member of the family. I'm here today because I lost Cujo, my
golden retriever, who is pictured here, to a painful and
prolonged death due to antifreeze poisoning. You have a chance
today to spare other families by approving this legislation
before you.
As a member of the New Mexico House of Representatives, I
sponsored legislation that requires that a bittering agent,
denatonium benzoate, be added to antifreeze. My own experience
is what motivated me being here today. It's been over 20 years
since I lost Cujo, but I've not forgotten the devastating
experience. The costs are extremely high, not only financially,
but emotionally. And anyone who believes that the cost to
families is low on a tragedy like this would be wrong. Even
that long ago, my veterinarian bill was in the hundreds of
dollars, and it was money I could ill afford at the time. My
dog was aggressively treated for over a week, while I lost
several days of work keeping vigil by his side. And the attempt
to save him did fail.
Today, the cost of treating antifreeze poisoning begins at
$500, and can go well over a thousand dollars. And, even with
treatment, more often than not the pet will not survive the
lethal toxins in antifreeze, which is deadly to kidney tissue.
Some of the external symptoms that I saw were seizures,
hypothermia, head tremors, vomiting, and coma. Ultimately,
kidney failure results in death. Animals that do survive
after--often have permanent kidney and brain damage.
Unfortunately, families who do not have the resources to pay
for treatment are forced to euthanize their pet.
Compare the cost to the pennies that it is estimated to
cost manufacturers to add the denatonium benzoate to----
Senator Allen. Let's do this. From henceforth--let's call
denatonium benzoate--
Ms. McCoy. DB.
Senator Allen. DB. Can we?
Ms. McCoy. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allen. Are you agreed? All right.
Ms. McCoy. That's fine with me. I always get tongue-twisted
on that.
We'd obviously prefer not to burden the manufacturers at
all, but the high cost of adding this bittering agent can only
be measured by a family's pain.
Sadly, most of the poisonings are accidental. One of the
most common ways for a dog to come in contact is if a family
car leaks. Its sweet flavor is irresistible to most animals,
and it is lethal in as little as a quarter of an ounce. For
example, if a cat just walks through a puddle of it and then
licks its paws, unless it has immediate veterinary care, that
cat will likely die.
And since it tastes good to animals, it is also a method
commonly used by some to deliberately and cruelly poison
animals. Because pet owners typically don't report pet deaths
due to antifreeze poisoning, I can't accurately cite any
numbers of animal deaths, but I worked with our local shelter
for 8 years, and I know--there's enough anecdotal evidence to
know that this is a common occurrence.
I introduced this legislation in New Mexico, not only
because of my personal experience, but also because of another
dog, named Scooby. Scooby was also a golden retriever, and he
made news in New Mexico when he was shot in the face. He
managed to survive that ordeal, only to be poisoned while he
was recovering. Had he not been drawn to the antifreeze, he'd
still be alive, and the little girl who owned Scooby would be a
happier child.
Too often, we discount animal suffering, and rationalize
that ``they're just animals.'' But they do feel pain, and they
do deserve to be treated humanely. And their families deserve
to enjoy their company for as long as possible.
This legislation before you is a step in eliminating one
form of suffering. It's been said that the way we treat our
animals is a measure of our society. Today, we have an
opportunity to raise the bar of compassion a little bit higher.
In my opinion, this is win-win legislation. After getting
this passed in the New Mexico House, I received an incredible
amount of positive feedback. I got phone calls, letters from
schools, letters from other people, and people still stop me on
the street and thank me. It has no downside. It makes
economical sense, and it's also the right thing to do.
So, I hope you will move this legislation forward, for
those of us who have been exposed to the lethal effects of
antifreeze poisoning and for those who may be exposed in the
future.
Mr. Chairman and Senator, that concludes my testimony, and
I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Representative McCoy, for your
testimony and your experience. We'll hear from all the
witnesses, and then we'll pose questions afterwards.
[The prepared statement of Representative McCoy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kathy A. McCoy,
State Representative from New Mexico
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you and testify on a
topic that will resonate with anyone who holds dear their family pets.
And thank you for also considering this important legislation in a
thoughtful manner.
For many of us, losing a beloved pet is like losing a member of the
family. I'm here today because I lost my Golden Retriever, Cujo, to a
painful and prolonged death due to antifreeze poisoning.
You have a chance to spare other families that tragedy by approving
the legislation before you.
As a Member of the New Mexico House of Representatives, I sponsored
legislation that requires that a bittering agent--denatonium benzoate--
be added to antifreeze. (While the bill I sponsored passed both
chambers, it was actually an identical Senate bill that was signed into
law by the governor.) The experience I had with my own dog was the
motivating force.
It's been over 20 years since I lost Cujo, but I've not forgotten
the devastating experience. The costs are extremely high, both
emotional and financial. Anyone who believes there is little cost to
families who experience this tragedy is flat wrong. Even that long ago,
my vet bill was hundreds of dollars, money I could ill afford at the
time. My dog was aggressively treated for over a week while I lost
several days of work keeping a vigil at his side. The attempt to save
him failed.
Today, the cost of treating a poisoning such as this starts at
$500. Even with treatment, more often than not, the pet will not
survive the effects of the lethal toxins in antifreeze. Some external
symptoms are seizures, hypothermia, head tremors, and vomiting.
Ultimately, kidney failure results in death. Animals that do survive
may suffer permanent kidney and brain damage.
And unfortunately, families who don't have the financial resources
have no real choice other than euthanasia for their pet.
Compare the cost to the pennies it is estimated to cost
manufacturers to add denatonium benzoate to a $7 gallon of antifreeze.
We'd prefer not to burden the manufacturers at all, but the high cost
of not adding this bittering agent can only be measured by a family's
pain.
Sadly, most of these poisonings are accidental--one of the most
common ways for animals to come in contact with antifreeze is from a
family car that's leaking it. Antifreeze's sweet flavor is irresistible
to most animals, and it is lethal in as little as a quarter of an
ounce. For example, a cat that walks through a puddle and then licks
its paws will likely die without immediate veterinary care.
And, since antifreeze tastes good to animals, it is also a method
used by some to deliberately and cruelly poison animals.
Because pet owners don't typically report pet deaths due to
antifreeze poisoning, I can't accurately cite the quantity of animals
deaths, but having volunteered at our local shelter for eight years,
I've heard enough anecdotal evidence to know that it is a common
occurrence.
I introduced this legislation in New Mexico not only because of my
personal experience, but also because of another dog named Scooby.
Scooby, who was also a Golden Retriever, made news in New Mexico when
he was shot in the face. He managed to survive that ordeal, only to be
poisoned while he was recovering. Had he not been drawn to the
antifreeze, he'd still be alive and the little girl who owned Scooby
would be a happier child.
Too often, we discount animal suffering and rationalize that
``they're just animals.'' But they do feel pain. They do deserve to be
treated humanely. And their families deserve to enjoy their company for
as long as possible. This legislation before you is a step toward
eliminating one form of suffering.
It's been said that the way we treat our animals is a measure of
our society; today we have an opportunity to raise the bar of
compassion a little higher.
In my opinion, this is win-win legislation. After getting this
passed in the House, I received an incredible amount of positive
feedback--phone calls, letters, and people even now stop me on the
street to thank me. This legislation has no downside--it not only makes
economical sense, but it is also the right thing to do. I hope you will
move this legislation forward for those of us who have already
experienced the lethal effects of antifreeze poisoning and for those
who may be exposed in the future.
Senator Allen. Now we would like to hear from Ms. Elder.
STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE ELDER, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND REDUCTION, CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION
Ms. Elder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I'm
pleased to have this opportunity to come before your
Subcommittee today.
I am the Assistant Executive Director for Hazard
Identification and Reduction at the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission, or CPSC. The CPSC is a bipartisan
independent agency charged with protecting the public from
unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than
15,000 types of consumer products under the agency's
jurisdiction. The CPSC has delivered critical safety benefits
to America's families and has made a significant contribution
to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries
related to hazardous consumer products. We are proud of our
mission and our achievements, and we appreciate the support
that Congress has extended to the agency and to its goals over
the years.
In my role at the CPSC, I oversee the technical work of the
agency within the directorates for epidemiology, engineering
sciences, economic analysis, health sciences, and laboratory
sciences. My office is responsible for the collection and
analysis of death and injury data related to consumer products
that can lead to the development of voluntary and mandatory
product-safety standards.
Today's hearing is on S. 1110, the Engine Coolant and
Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005. This legislation amends the
Federal Hazardous Substances Act, which is administered by the
CPSC. The legislation would require engine coolant and
antifreeze to contain a bittering agent to render those
products unpalatable.
On that subject, the CPSC was directed by Congress, in the
Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990, to conduct a
study of aversive agents. CPSC completed that study and issued
a final report on aversive agents in 1992. I will direct my
comments today specifically to the findings of that 1992
report.
The CPSC defined the term ``aversive,'' for the purpose of
that study, as a substance added to a product with the intent
of deterring or limiting its ingestion. In 1991, the agency
conducted a literature review and requested information on
aversive agents, including bittering and pungent agents, from
the public in a Federal Register notice. At that time, the
response to the request for information and the results of the
review showed that there was a general lack of information
available on aversive agents, other than one bittering agent,
DB. The study found that the possible acute toxicity of DB does
not appear to be a significant issue at the low levels used for
aversion, such as the 30-to-50 parts-per-million range
identified in the legislation. DB has been present in many
household products for years. It has been required to be added
to ethylene glycol-containing antifreeze by several states
without documented problems.
Data concerning the effectiveness of DB to decrease the
amount of a substance ingested was, and continues to be,
limited. A child will likely drink some of the product in
question before he or she can detect the bitter taste. For this
reason, aversive agents are not recommended for use with highly
toxic substances that can seriously injure or kill after one or
two swallows. However, the study noted that nondrug products
that required child-resistant packaging and have moderate
toxicity may benefit from the addition of an aversive. Products
that will not kill or severely injure in the one-to-three
mouthful range, but are associated with toxicity at higher
levels, were cited as the most appropriate products for
aversion addition.
In this regard, the American Association of Poison Control
Centers, the AAPCC, evaluated 3.8 million pediatric poisoning
incidents, and subsequently recommended that aversives be added
to a few selected products, including ethylene glycol, which is
referred to in the legislation. The 1992 study concluded that
aversives, including DB, may be an additional protective
measure if found to be effective.
CPSC continues to underscore the importance of child-
resistant packaging and consumer awareness of the proper
handling and storage of hazardous and toxic substances in the
home. The 1992 report concludes that aversives alone are not a
substitute for these measures. However, aversives can be part
of a comprehensive safety protocol that includes these other
important components.
Each year, accidental ingestion of toxic household
substances is associated with almost 30 deaths to children
under age five. There are about one million calls to Poison
Control Centers annually involving children under 5 years of
age. The CPSC will continue to work aggressively to reduce
these deaths and injuries.
We are pleased that the Committee is calling attention to
these dangerous hazards, and I am pleased to answer any
questions that the Senators may have regarding this important
subject.
Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Elder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jacqueline Elder, Assistant Executive Director,
Hazard Identification and Reduction, Consumer Product Safety Commission
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I am pleased to have
this opportunity to come before your Subcommittee today. I am the
Assistant Executive Director for Hazard Identification and Reduction at
the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission or CPSC. The CPSC is a
bipartisan, independent agency charged with protecting the public from
unreasonable risks of serious injury or death from more than 15,000
types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction.
The CPSC has delivered critical safety benefits to America's
families and has made a significant contribution to the 30 percent
decline in the rate of deaths and injuries related to hazardous
consumer products. We are proud of our mission and our achievements,
and we appreciate the support that Congress has extended to the agency
and to its goals over the years.
In my role at the CPSC, I oversee the technical work of the agency
within the directorates for Epidemiology, Engineering Sciences,
Economic Analysis, Health Sciences and Laboratory Sciences. My office
is responsible for the collection and analysis of death and injury data
related to consumer products that can lead to the development of
voluntary and mandatory product safety standards.
Today's hearing is on S. 1110, the Engine Coolant and Antifreeze
Bittering Act of 2005. This legislation amends the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act which is administered by the CPSC. The legislation would
require engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a bittering agent to
render those products unpalatable.
On that subject, the CPSC was directed by Congress in the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of 1990 to conduct a study of aversive
agents. CPSC completed that study and issued a final report on aversive
agents in 1992, and I will direct my comments today specifically to the
findings of that 1992 report.
The CPSC defined the term aversive for the purpose of that study as
a substance added to a product with the intent of deterring or limiting
its ingestion. In 1991, the agency conducted a literature review and
requested information on aversive agents, including bittering and
pungent agents, from the public in a Federal Register notice. At that
time, the response to the request for information and the results of
the review showed that there was a general lack of information
available on aversive agents other than one bittering agent, denatonium
benzoate or DB.
The study found that possible acute toxicity of DB does not appear
to be a significant issue at the low levels used for aversion, such as
the 30 to 50 parts per million range identified in the legislation. DB
has been present in many household products for years. It has been
required to be added to ethylene glycol-containing antifreeze by
several states without documented problems.
Data concerning the effectiveness of DB to decrease the amount of a
substance ingested was and continues to be limited. A child will likely
drink some of the product in question before he or she can detect the
bitter taste. For this reason aversive agents are not recommended for
use with highly toxic substances that can seriously injure or kill
after one or two swallows.
However, the study noted that non-drug products that require child-
resistant packaging and have moderate toxicity may benefit from the
addition of an aversive. Products that will not kill or severely injure
in the one to three mouthful range, but are associated with toxicity at
higher levels, were cited as the most appropriate products for aversion
addition.
In this regard the American Association of Poison Control Centers,
the AAPCC, evaluated 3.8 million pediatric poisoning incidents and
subsequently recommended that aversives be added to a few selected
products, including ethylene glycol, which is referenced in the
legislation.
The 1992 study concluded that aversives, including DB, may be an
additional protective measure if found to be effective. CPSC continues
to underscore the importance of child-resistant packaging and consumer
awareness of the proper handling and storage of hazardous and toxic
substances in the home. The 1992 report concludes that aversives alone
are not a substitute for these measures. However, aversives can be a
part of a comprehensive safety protocol that includes these other
important components.
Each year, accidental ingestion of toxic household substances is
associated with almost thirty deaths to children under age five. There
are about one million calls to Poison Control Centers annually
involving children under five years of age.
The CPSC will continue to work aggressively to reduce these deaths
and injuries. We are pleased that the Committee is calling attention to
these dangerous hazards, and I am pleased to answer any questions that
the Senators may have regarding this important subject. Thank you.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Ms. Elder, for your comments and
your testimony.
I'm going to offer into the record this 1992 study that you
referenced in your testimony. *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information referred to has been retained in Committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Allen. I would also say, to Representative McCoy,
I'm going to also enter into the record a statement of support
from a mayor in your fair state, your Land of Enchantment,
Mayor Chavez, who's the Mayor of Albuquerque. And that'll be
made a part of the record, as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chaves follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Martin J. Chavez, Mayor, Albuquerque,
New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, Honorable Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
this opportunity to testify on behalf of S. 1110 and the question of a
bittering agent for automobile coolant.
The key ingredient in most cars' antifreeze or coolant, ethylene
glycol, is deceptively sweet. So there will invariably be occasions
when puddles or containers of this deadly poison are left out and
accessible. Very small quantities are toxic, and sometimes lethal.
So it should come as no surprise that the American Association of
Poison Control Centers reports thousands of human ethylene glycol
poisonings per year, some of them fatal. According to their Annual
Report for 2001, there were 4,938 human exposures to ethylene glycol,
with 713 of them occurring in children under the age of 6.
The Washington State University Veterinary Medical School estimates
that 10,000 dogs alone are poisoned each year. In New Mexico, the
deaths of 3 children in recent years are also attributed to this
poison.
Following the fatal poisoning of a local dog a couple years ago, we
introduced ``Scooby's Law'' in Albuquerque to require that all ethylene
glycol based coolant sold within the municipality include the bittering
agent denatonium benzoate--also known as an ``aversive'' agent--to make
the poison unpalatable.
Many tragedies, both locally and nationwide, could be prevented by
a few drops of this bittering agent.
Denatonium benzoate has no ill effects on engine performance or
cooling system life, but it can help prevent the next tragedy for a
child, a pet or for nearby wildlife. It is the bitterest substance
known.
After gaining feedback from the relevant business community, we
passed the legislation with a phase-in timeline for vendors to comply
with the new requirement. This allowed gas stations and auto parts
stores to transition their shelves from existing inventory and to begin
stocking the modified coolant without serious disruption or financial
hardship.
The actual cost for addition of the bittering agent is estimated at
about two or three cents per gallon. In the eyes of our community, it
is a cost well worth bearing for the safety of our children, wildlife
and pets. The feedback has been surprisingly good, and I believe even
the directly involved business community has seen the virtue of the
initiative.
``Scooby,'' the Golden Retriever who gained statewide fame by
surviving a gunshot wound in the face, only to later die an
excruciating death by antifreeze poisoning, highlighted the need for
this common sense ounce of prevention.
California and Oregon have already passed statewide laws requiring
the addition of bittering agents. And likewise we have done so in
Albuquerque, as have some of our neighboring jurisdictions. But it
would make much more sense to have a national standard, and that is why
I am respectfully requesting that you consider making what we in
Albuquerque call ``Scooby's Law'' the law of the land.
Thank you again for this opportunity to bring this important issue
before you and thank you for your consideration.
Senator Allen. Mr. Bye, we'd now like to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BYE, VICE PRESIDENT, PRESTONE
Mr. Bye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Pryor.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you about why, from
the industry side, we support Federal legislation that is both
effective and efficient in getting us all where we want to be
on this issue. I'd like to give you a little bit of background
as to where we come from, as an industry.
I work for Prestone Products, which is part of Honeywell
International. As you well know, that's a large multinational
corporation, over 100,000 employees worldwide, over 50,000
employees here in the United States. We are in the
transportation products group. We also manufacture and sell
Fram filters, and Autolite spark plugs.
Prestone, as a brand--as a product, is the largest-selling
brand of antifreeze in the United States. We produce both
branded product and store-branded product for our major retail
partners. We produce that product in three states--New Jersey,
Illinois, and California--as well as in Mexico City, Mexico.
And we distribute it through major retailers, mass merchants
like Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart, automotive retailers like Advance
Auto Parts, Autozone, Pep Boys, in all 50 states, as well as
Canada and Mexico.
Antifreeze itself has been around since the late 1920s.
Prestone started producing the product in 1927. Back then, it
was purely ethylene glycol. It replaced water as a coolant/
freeze protector because it has tremendous properties in heat
dissipation and freeze protection. Over the years since then,
Prestone has taken a leadership role, from an R&D standpoint,
in putting additives into that ethylene glycol, but still
maintaining ethylene glycol as the primary component of
antifreeze. Those additives that we put in provide corrosion
protection for cooling systems and improve the heat-and-freeze
protection characteristics of the product.
To that end, although ethylene glycol is a tremendous
chemical for use in a car's cooling system, it does have the
downside that we're all well aware of, in that it is toxic to
both people and pets. Prestone has always taken the position of
doing whatever we can to provide added measures of safety. I
mean, we put childproof caps on products. We put a secondary
level of sealant on the product, with a foil wrap. On the
animal front, we fund veterinary poison hotlines. We fund
research libraries in the veterinarian community for data to
get out to the community.
But, in spite of all of that, over the past X period of
time there has been a movement afoot to add this bittering
agent to the product, because, as Senator Pryor points out,
although I can't speak from experience, it is a very sweet-
tasting product, ethylene glycol, in its natural state. Back in
1992, a state bill, the first state bill, was passed in Oregon
to require manufacturers to add bittering agent to deter
animals from accidentally coming across or consuming the
product. That was followed with another state bill, in
California in 2002, requiring manufacturers to add the
component. Most recently, New Mexico, as we have heard, passed
legislation last year.
Our position, up until recently, had been to oppose those
bills on a state level. And the reason was really twofold.
Picture, if you will, that we distribute through all of those
retailers I described, to 50 states. We ship product to Wal-
Mart, who has 37 distribution centers, that then distributes
out to over 3,000 stores. We have no way of tightly controlling
that on a state-by-state basis. And our concern was, as
individual states, and even municipalities, started passing
legislation that were not all similar, that we could end up
with, down the road, state-by-state requirements on our product
that were different from other states. And that becomes very,
very unworkable, and a logistical nightmare, not only for us,
but for our retail partners. And, ultimately, it becomes very
expensive to the end consumer, as they would end up paying a
lot of those retailers' bills to redistribute that product on a
state-by-state basis.
The other issue we had is the bittering agent itself. We
are experts in automotive cooling systems, we are experts in
the chemicals we put in to address the needs of those cooling
systems that the car manufacturers produce. We are not experts
in bitterants, we are not experts in the toxicity of
bitterants, we are not experts in the efficacy of bitterants,
and we are not experts in the long-term effects of those
bitterants. So, we also opposed it on those levels. We just are
not experts in that area. We don't know the impact of it.
In spite of all of that, these bills continue to gain
support. There are now eight more states that are looking at
legislation, all slightly different from one another. And, last
year, the Conference of Mayors supported legislation, or
supported a movement to pass legislation, on a municipal level.
It's our position now--and late last year, we partnered
with the Doris Day group--to support this legislation, because
we cannot handle state-by-state differences. Whereas, if we
could get an overarching Federal bill that would allow a
uniform direction to us, as manufacturers, for what we need to
do, and let us assume liability and get assigned liability for
our products that we are experts at, and let the manufacturers
and the providers of DB have assigned liability for whatever
their products may do, or not do, it's a win for all of us. The
people that are concerned about animals and their protection
win; and we win, as manufacturers, because we have uniform
direction on what to do; the retailers win, because they get a
unified product; and the end-consumer wins, because their
animals will get better protection, and they will not have to
pay any additional cost for a resulting myriad of products that
could result without this legislation.
So, that's our position. Again, like everyone else, we look
forward to answering questions at the end.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bye follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey Bye, Vice President, Prestone
Good Morning. I am Jeff Bye, Vice President for Prestone, a
Honeywell business. Prestone has been a leader in the manufacture,
marketing and sale of antifreeze products for over 75 years. I am here
representing Honeywell as well as the domestic antifreeze industry,
which has been organized by the Consumer Specialty Products
Association. We appear before the Committee in support of Senate bill
1110.
Honeywell is a diversified technology and manufacturing leader,
serving customers with aerospace products and services; control,
sensing and security technologies; automotive products; specialty
chemicals; fibers; and electronic materials. Based in Morris Township,
New Jersey, Honeywell's shares are traded on the New York Stock
Exchange as well as on the London, Chicago and Pacific Stock Exchanges.
We are one of the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial
Average and we are also a component of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index.
The company employs over 100,000 employees, with approximately 55,000
in the United States, and is comprised of four business units:
Aerospace, Automation and Control Systems; Specialty Materials, and
Transportation Systems. Prestone is part of the Consumer Products Group
within the Transportation Systems business unit.
Honeywell is the largest manufacturer and supplier of automotive
antifreeze in the United States, Canada and Mexico. Its Prestone brand
is the most widely recognized and distributed brand of antifreeze in
North America. In the United States, our Prestone antifreeze is sold in
all 50 states and through virtually all major mass retailers, such as
Wal-Mart, and auto retailers, such as Autozone and Advance. In
addition, we supply private label antifreeze to most major retailers in
the United States. We also supply automakers, such as General Motors,
Ford and Toyota, for the factory fill of their automobiles in North
America.
It may be helpful to understand the origin of antifreeze use in the
automotive industry. Originally, motorists drove cars, such as the Ford
Model T, without heaters or side and rear windows and, not
surprisingly, winter driving was very unpleasant. Later, with the
development of car heaters, installation of side and rear windows, and
improvements in engines and engine lubricants, motorists drove more
comfortably and frequently in winter and demand for engine antifreeze
arose. At that time, many compounds were used with water as a form of
antifreeze, including honey, sugar, molasses and, the most popular,
methyl alcohol. Even methyl alcohol, however, had significant drawbacks
including odor and flammability. Motorists were often uncertain about
freezing protection afforded by these fluids.
The antifreeze/coolant business as we know it today began with
Prestone brand ethylene glycol antifreeze in 1927. It was pure ethylene
glycol in cans and was packaged with charts showing the protection
afforded by specific dilutions. The fluid would not evaporate or burn,
was relatively odorless and offered many advantages over the substances
used earlier by motorists. A few years later, Prestone developed and
marketed the first inhibitor in its antifreeze to offer additional
protection for the cooling system and to retard rust. In the early
1960s, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler began filling their new cars
with a 50 percent ethylene glycol and 50 percent water antifreeze/
coolant solution, which led to the emergence of antifreeze/coolant as a
year-round functional fluid in the automotive industry. Since then,
Prestone and other producers of antifreeze/coolant have developed their
formulations to provide even better corrosion protection and extend the
life of a car's cooling system.
Ethylene glycol, which is a major ingredient of antifreeze, is
toxic. For several decades, manufacturers of antifreeze have used foil
safety seals and childproof caps to guard against the accidental
ingestion of antifreeze. Prestone provides prominent label warnings
about proper use, storage and disposal of antifreeze. We fully comply
with all child protection requirements established by the Consumer
Products Safety Commission and we are dedicated to continual
improvement. In addition, manufacturers have participated in public
education and outreach promoting the safe use and storage of
antifreeze. During the past 10 years, antifreeze manufacturers have
supported the American Association of Poison Control Centers in a
series of public service announcements entitled ``Take Care: Car
Fluids, Children and Pets.'' These public service announcements also
help to educate consumers about proper use and storage of antifreeze
and other automobile fluids.
Although it is rare that children are accidentally exposed to
antifreeze, there are occasions where household pets and other animals
are exposed to ethylene glycol products and are injured by ingesting
the product. Some animal deaths are likely caused by intentional
poisoning, such as a disgruntled person targeting a neighborhood dog
that has been barking at night or causing other problems. Other animal
fatalities are accidentally caused by antifreeze that has spilled or
been carelessly left in improperly secured containers. We and other
antifreeze manufacturers sponsor the Animal Poison Control Center of
the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals as a
resource and service for veterinarians and pet owners. The Animal
Poison Control Center is the leading animal-oriented poison control
center in North America, with a staff of specially trained veterinary
toxicologists available to handle any animal poison-related emergency,
24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
For several years, the animal rights community has encouraged
local, State and Federal lawmakers to pass legislation requiring
antifreeze manufacturers to add denatonium benzoate (``DB''), a widely
known bittering agent, to their product. The animal rights community
has argued that adding DB to antifreeze would make the product taste
bitter, discouraging animals from ingesting the liquid. Their
legislative efforts have met with some success, with laws passed in
Oregon, California and New Mexico in 1991, 2002 and 2005, respectively.
Late last year, the antifreeze industry reached out to the Doris
Day Animal League to develop consensus Federal legislation that would
address the safety concerns of the animal rights community. The
consensus Federal legislation--S.1110--would require the addition of DB
in antifreeze with the goal of rendering the product unpalatable and
deterring children, pets and other animals from accidental poisoning.
This Federal legislation would create a national standard. Although
California, Oregon and New Mexico have passed similar or identical
laws, the legislation's preemption would avoid the potential
inconsistency and practical difficulty of manufacturers complying with
what could become a patchwork of various state and local mandates. At
least eight other states have been actively considering similar
requirements, including Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, Maine, New
York, New Jersey, Tennessee and Washington. Now is the appropriate time
for Congress to establish a national standard before other states or
localities pass inconsistent mandates.
S.1110 shares many of the essential components of the state laws as
well as legislation introduced in the House of Representatives in 2004.
The three state laws and H.R. 1560, sponsored in the 108th Congress by
Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), all provide
liability protection to antifreeze manufacturers for DB. The New Mexico
law requires antifreeze manufacturers to specifically add DB as the
bittering agent to their products. The laws in Oregon and California
and H.R. 1560, which was cosponsored by 110 House Democrats and 23
House Republicans last year, allow alternatives to DB as the bittering
additive, but DB is the only chemical that satisfies the legislations'
bitterness standard at the specified concentration--thereby
establishing an effective mandate requiring manufacturers to use DB to
fulfill the state law requirements. H.R. 1560 was re-introduced by
Reps. Ackerman and Rohrabacher this year as H.R. 2567 as the companion
bill to S. 1110 and is attracting bipartisan cosponsors.
The difficulty of managing compliance with a patchwork of
inconsistent state mandates could be significant and may hinder
distribution of an adequate supply of antifreeze to some states. The
effects of state-specific mandates could therefore be felt by
individual consumers who may pay a higher cost for antifreeze and may
not be able to buy enough for their needs. A national standard would
ensure that the mandates are both uniform and cost effective.
The Federal legislation would also provide fair responsibility for
the antifreeze and DB products by assigning liability between the
respective manufacturers. Prestone scientists have developed antifreeze
products that we stand behind and are willing to defend. Antifreeze
manufacturers, however, do not manufacture or distribute DB. While
antifreeze manufacturers are willing to add DB in compliance with a
national standard, antifreeze manufacturers should not be exposed to
liability for complying with that mandate. The proposed Federal
legislation would not change the liability of antifreeze manufacturers
for their products. Under the legislation, antifreeze manufacturers
continue to be liable for the ethylene glycol antifreeze itself and DB
manufacturers and distributors are liable for their bittering agent.
Honeywell, Prestone and the U.S. antifreeze industry appreciate the
deliberative approach that Chairman George Allen and Ranking Member
Mark Pryor have taken in regard to development of S. 1110, The Engine
Coolant and Antifreeze Bittering Agent Act of 2005. We are ready to
assist the Committee as it considers the legislation, and we will be
happy to answer any of the Committee's questions.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Bye, for your testimony.
Now we'd like to hear from Ms. Amundson.
STATEMENT OF SARA AMUNDSON, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DORIS DAY
ANIMAL LEAGUE
Ms. Amundson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Pryor, for not only holding this hearing on S. 1110, but
also demonstrating leadership on this particular issue that
will ultimately save the lives of animals and help to prevent
ingestion by children.
I'm Sara Amundson, Legislative Director for the Doris Day
Animal League. We have 350,000 members nationwide who strongly
support rapid movement of this bill into law. Obviously, you've
heard from the panel members today that this bill enjoys broad
support from a variety of animal-advocacy, public-health
organizations, and also the antifreeze industry. We've
traditionally been at loggerheads, as Jeff Bye just mentioned,
on the state level on this issue, but enjoy the privilege of
working with them to pass this bill into law.
Obviously, Honeywell is a supporter, the Consumer Specialty
Products Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and
the Pet Food Institute, in addition to our organization.
Clearly, you've heard other testimony today as to the nature of
the toxic antifreeze that our pets are ingesting. In addition
to that, you've had a clear sense for why DB, as the most
aversive bittering agent known to humankind, is really the
choice of chemical to place in this particular product, so I
won't repeat that particular information.
We have been tracking ingestions of antifreeze by pets and
wildlife, and what we've found is that, in one survey, two out
of three veterinarians see at least one ethylene glycol
poisoning every single year. The Veterinary School at the
Washington State University estimates the annual number of dog
and cat antifreeze poisonings at as many as 10,000. And do keep
in mind, with those 10,000 poisonings, the preponderance of
those animals actually do die.
Fortunately, it's a little bit different situation with
children. According to the statistics compiled by the American
Association of Poison Control Centers, approximately 1,400
children actually ingest antifreeze each year.
These statistics are alarming, and they're certainly enough
for us to want to move forward in taking action on the issue.
DB is clearly the answer for antifreeze, to ensure that, at
pennies per gallon, we are doing everything we can to use the
tools available to us to ensure that children and pets are not
ingesting antifreeze.
Jeff mentioned a little bit of information with regard to
what's transpired on the state level, and I do think it's
important for us to note that there are three states that
currently have this law in effect. New Mexico's bill, sponsored
by Representative McCoy, is exactly the same language as we're
seeing on the Federal level. They've really created a high
threshold for us to cross. We strongly support the pursuit of
progressive policy in the states, but, because of the nature of
interstate commerce, and because these poisonings occur
regardless of state lines, we must pass a Federal bill to
ensure that the goal of reducing antifreeze poisonings is
actually realized. We must extend to each child and every
animal the extra layer of protection that these states have so
wisely adopted. And this is only going to be accomplished in a
timely, sensible, and cost-effective manner by passing a
Federal bill into law.
A product that's marketed on a national basis should have a
national standard to meet, and that's why we, at the Doris Day
Animal League, feel very strongly that we've got to have the
Federal mandate on this issue.
Please do keep in mind that the absence of Federal law
undermines the effectiveness of the existing state laws. How do
we prevent antifreeze spills in California from cars driving in
from the 47 other states that don't require the addition of DB
to antifreeze? And the lack of uniformity, frankly, is making
it very difficult to judge just how effective some of these
newer state laws are.
Jeff also mentioned that the U.S. Conference of Mayors
passed a resolution. That resolution was very strongly worded.
They asked that Congress help protect children and animals in
cities by enacting Federal legislation. I think that's a very
powerful testament for why it is that we need to move forward
with this Federal bill.
Representative McCoy specifically discussed an incident
where her own companion animal ingested antifreeze through an
accident. Oftentimes, these are accidents. But what we've found
through a variety of case studies is, antifreeze, because it is
toxic, it's easily available, and it's quite inexpensive, is
being used, in some cases, as the tool of choice to be able to
still that barking neighbor's dog that someone is gravely
concerned about having to contend with. One database recently
reported on cases in Iowa, Michigan, Montana, Mississippi,
Texas, Florida, Missouri, and Pennsylvania as all having
situations where dogs were deliberately poisoned through
antifreeze.
We've also been working with a family in Georgia who very
recently had two dogs deliberately killed by antifreeze
ingestion from a belligerent neighbor, and we're attempting to
assist them in seeking justice for these two lovely faces.
These two dogs were deliberately killed by antifreeze
ingestion.
More than half of all American homes actually have at least
one pet. We owe it to these families to ensure we provide every
available protection from antifreeze poisonings. Your
legislation creates an additional tool to assist in preventing
these tragedies. We respectfully request your support for
passing S. 1110 into law.
And this concludes my oral testimony, but I am certainly
willing to entertain any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Amundson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sara Amundson, Legislative Director, Doris Day
Animal League
Good morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify today in support of the
Engine Coolant and Antifreeze Bittering Agent Act. I am Sara Amundson,
Legislative Director for the Doris Day Animal League or (DDAL). DDAL
has 350,000 members and supporters nationwide who strongly support S.
1110. The organization was founded in 1987 to promote the protection of
animals through legislative advocacy in the states and on the Federal
level. DDAL is grateful to Chairman Allen and Ranking Member Pryor for
their leadership on S. 1110, with the ultimate goal of protecting
animals and children.
This bill enjoys broad support from an unlikely coalition of animal
advocacy organizations, public health organizations, and the antifreeze
industry. In addition to DDAL, these supporters include the American
Humane Association, the Humane Society of the United States, and the
Society for Animal Protective Legislation, Honeywell and the Consumer
Specialties Products Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
and the Pet Food Institute.
Animals and Children are Exposed to Antifreeze
For the past fifteen years, the DDAL has been tracking ingestions
of antifreeze by pets and wildlife. Poisoning occurs with this product
because it is often inadvertently spilled in our driveways or left in
open containers in our garages by automotive ``do-it-yourselfers.''
Because it is colorful and has a sweet taste, animals and children are
drawn to it and may quickly ingest a lethal amount. In addition, a
neighbor wishing to rid himself of a bothersome barking dog or
wandering cat may purposefully bait a pet, instigating a cruel solution
to a neighborhood squabble. One teaspoon of ethylene glycol antifreeze
can kill a cat. Two tablespoons can kill a small, 10-pound dog. One
survey found that two out of three veterinarians see at least one
accidental ethylene glycol poisoning each year. The vet school at
Washington State University estimates the annual number of dog and cat
antifreeze poisonings at as many as 10,000. And unfortunately, the
symptoms of poisoning can be misleading, causing the pet lover to think
the animal is merely sleepy until renal failure causes death.
According to statistics compiled by the American Association of
Poison Control Centers, as many as 1,400 children ingest antifreeze
each year. The U.S. National Library of Medicine Toxicology Data
Network states that the minimum lethal dose for a 150-pound male is 4
ounces, which means it takes far less to kill a child. Fortunately, in
the vast majority of cases, ingestion by children is caught early
enough to ensure the antidote prevents lethal consequences.
Ethylene glycol antifreeze has been manufactured for decades by the
antifreeze industry and due to the ready availability of the chemical,
we fully expect its continued dominance in the marketplace.
Denatonium benzoate
The good news is that, unlike many of the issues we grapple with,
this one has a ready solution. DDAL certainly considers safety caps,
seals and public education necessary. However, three states and several
other countries have chosen to add another tool, which is requiring the
addition of denatonium benzoate to antifreeze available in the consumer
market. Denatonium benzoate (DB) is one of the bitterest substances
known and available to us. In 1963, the Food and Drug Administration
approved the addition of DB to cosmetic and toiletry products including
nail polish, hair spray and cleaners as a safety mechanism to deter
children from ingesting them. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (27 CFR 21.76) requires that all industrial
alcohol-based products contain a bittering agent and specifically
requires the use of DB in certain products as a denaturant, making the
product unpalatable. The addition of the bitterant has not compromised
the usefulness of the products.
The required addition of denatonium benzoate to consumer-packaged
antifreeze will save thousands of animal lives and prevent hundreds of
children from being sent to emergency rooms each year. DDAL strongly
urges your support of this small measure, literally costing pennies per
gallon, to achieve significant, beneficial consequences.
California State Law
The Doris Day Animal League has a long history of lobbying in
support of state legislation to require the addition of denatonium
benzoate to make antifreeze unpalatable to both animals and children.
In 1993, in response to concerns from veterinary emergency rooms, DDAL
members who had lost a beloved pet, the death of a California condor,
and the startling statistics on children gathered annually by the
American Association of Poison Control Centers, we successfully lobbied
the California Legislature to require the addition of denatonium
benzoate to antifreeze and coolant products. In spite of significant
opposition mounted by the manufacturers of antifreeze, the bills passed
with overwhelming votes in both the California Assembly and Senate.
Unfortunately, the governor vetoed the bill.
Then in 2000, after losing her family's beloved dog Angus to
antifreeze poisoning, Californian Lauren Ward began researching the
solution to her family's tragedy. She contacted her state legislators
to demand to know why the simple addition of DB to antifreeze to help
prevent these unnecessary deaths wasn't required by the state.
Fortunately, her assemblyman agreed to introduce a bill to require the
bitterant be added.
Our research in support of the California bill demonstrated that in
the 10 years that had passed, despite the voluntary efforts by the
antifreeze industry to educate the public, there was little progress in
reducing the numbers of animals and children poisoned by ingesting
antifreeze. In 2001, 13 California veterinary clinics reported 136
cases of antifreeze poisoning with 107 deaths. Working with Lauren Ward
and Members of the California State Senate and Assembly, we lobbied
again for passage of an antifreeze bittering bill. The California
Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, California
Veterinary Medical Association and the California Integrated Waste
Management Board all supported the legislation. Over the objections of
the antifreeze industry, the bill passed and was signed into law in
2002.
Subsequently, we have worked with legislators in New Mexico,
Nevada, and several other states to support bills to require the
addition of denatonium benzoate to antifreeze. This year, New Mexico
became the third state to pass this bill into law. And the language is
identical to the Federal bill before you today.
While DDAL certainly supports the pursuit of progressive policy by
states, because of the nature of commerce in this country and because
these poisonings occur regardless of state lines, it is imperative to
pass a Federal bill to ensure that the goal of reducing antifreeze
poisonings is realized. It is important to extend to each child and
every animal the extra layer of protection that these states have so
wisely adopted. This can be accomplished in a timely and sensible
manner only through Federal action. A product marketed on a national
basis should have a national standard to meet. Moreover, the absence of
a Federal law undermines the effectiveness of existing state laws: The
ease of interstate transportation necessitates a uniform policy to
prevent antifreeze spills in California from cars driving into the
state from Nevada. It is impossible to judge the effectiveness of these
new state laws based on the interstate nature of the problem. In fact,
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, at its 2004 annual meeting, passed a
resolution urging Congress to ``help cities protect children and
animals by enacting legislation'' to require the addition of DB to
antifreeze.
Conclusion
Antifreeze poisoning causes animals great suffering, and often
death. In addition to the accidents that happen, DDAL knows of numerous
cases where individuals have deliberately given antifreeze to animals
because they wanted to kill them. One database recently reported on
cases in Iowa (where authorities at the time were investigating 8
cases), Michigan, Montana, Mississippi, Texas, Florida, Missouri and
Pennsylvania. We have been working with a family in Georgia that is
trying to get justice for their two dogs killed by a belligerent
neighbor. And of course, Representative McCoy, who successfully carried
the bill in New Mexico, lost her own companion animal in the same way.
Where the perpetrator is known, it often is a neighbor;
occasionally it is an adolescent just starting down the path of
antisocial behavior. They use antifreeze because it is easy to get,
easy to give, and almost guaranteed to kill.
Accidents can happen despite the best prevention and precautions,
and sadly there are always those who seek an easy way to harm animals.
This legislation will do much to prevent both kinds of tragedies from
happening.
Please support S. 1110, the Engine Coolant and Antifreeze Bittering
Agent Act.
Senator Allen. Your statements will be made part of the
record.
Let me start with Representative McCoy, since your
legislation is the model, as far as Senator Pryor and I are
concerned, for the Nation. Do you know if there are any
environmental concerns associated with DB? It's important for
us to understand, from your experiences, if you've heard of any
environmental problems due to this additive.
Ms. McCoy. Mr. Chairman and Senator, DB was approved in
1963, and is currently used in all types of products. It's used
in paints, nail polish, household cleaners, windshield-washing
fluids, deer repellent, and many others. I'm, too, very
concerned about any detrimental effects to the environment. I
happen to be a charter member of Republicans for Environmental
Protection, so I care about these things.
But if--with your permission, I would like to share a short
exchange between Nevada Senator Carlton and Vern Rossi, who is
Deputy Administrator of Federal Facilities and Waste Management
Programs, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of
Conservation and Natural Resources.
Senator Allen. Boy, that's a mouthful.
Ms. McCoy. It's a mouthful. The title is long.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. That's Federal, not Nevada, right?
Ms. McCoy. Yes. I believe so, yes, sir. I'm just going to
read the Q&A, if that's all right with you, Senator.
``Senator Carlton. I would like Mr. Rossi to come forward
with information on the environmental effects of DB.
``Mr. Rossi. We regulate antifreeze as hazardous waste if
it is not going to be recycled. If it is to be recycled, we are
not concerned, because it is not going into the environment.
Adding a bittering agent to antifreeze will not change
regulations of those materials. The disposing or handling of
antifreeze is a great concern.
``Senator Carlton. There is some confusion about the
environmental impact of DB. One group is saying there will be
no impact on the environment, and the other group is saying
there's a risk. If antifreeze enters a water source, it will
contaminate it immediately.
``Mr. Rossi. That is a concern. It does not matter if an
additional chemical is added to antifreeze. It still has the
potential to pollute a water source. Improper disposing of
antifreeze is not acceptable.
``Senator Carlton. Has there been any research on the long-
term environmental effects of DB?
``Mr. Rossi. I've not seen any data that causes me to
believe that a bittering agent will add to the environmental
issue.
``Senator Carlton. Would it still be a problem with
antifreeze entering groundwater, whether or not DB was added?
``Mr. Rossi. Yes. The proper disposal of antifreeze is
always a concern.''
So, that--I think that exchange, coming from what I would
consider a--expert testimony, speaks to the issue of
environmental concerns.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Representative McCoy. That makes
a great deal of sense.
Ms. Elder, you mentioned that DB has been in household
products for, really, decades now. Is there any evidence that
DB has caused any harm by being added to products like paint to
keep children from eating that, or nail polish or other
products?
Ms. Elder. Are you speaking specifically of environmental
types of issues?
Senator Allen. Right. Environmental or any other added
hazard or risk by having that bittering agent in a household
product.
Ms. Elder. We did note, in the study that we did, that we
weren't able to identify any instances of environmental damage.
We did note, also, that DB does not completely biodegrade and
that the effects on groundwater were unknown. But those
environmental issues are probably best handled by the
Environmental Protection Agency, who would have much more
expertise in that area.
Senator Allen. Well, you mentioned there's no documented
problems in the states that have required the addition of DB to
their antifreeze. Is there any reason to suspect that that
would change if we had Federal national legislation?
Ms. Elder. No. The data that we have is limited, and we
just don't know that.
Senator Allen. All right, thank you.
Mr. Bye, you all have changed your positions on this issue,
from years ago. Let me ask you this. It's good to know
Honeywell, or Prestone, is in favor of this legislation. Is the
entire retail antifreeze industry in support of this
legislation?
Mr. Bye. Yes, they are, in fact. The domestic producers are
all in favor of this, primarily for the reason I said, just
from a pure logistics and operational standpoint. If we were to
get to the point where different states required different
products--either with a different bittering agent, with
different amounts of bittering agents--it would become a very,
very difficult situation in the way that we do business. So, to
that end, we are all in favor of it.
Senator Allen. Does Honeywell or Prestone have a concern
about additional cost since they do not manufacture DB. You're
talking about this costing, what, pennies per gallon?
Mr. Bye. Correct.
Senator Allen. Could you give us the exact range, so we
know? What does a gallon of antifreeze cost, presently?
Mr. Bye. There's a long----
Senator Allen. Not subject to----
Mr. Bye.--answer and a short answer.
Senator Allen.--sales taxes and all the other things that
get added on, but----
Mr. Bye. It costs, plus or minus, four to six dollars,
depending upon the price of ethylene glycol, which is a
commodity. The DB, as we use it today, because we do put it in
for the states required, is less than three cents a gallon.
Senator Allen. Three cents a gallon.
Mr. Bye. Correct.
Senator Allen. Less than.
Mr. Bye. Yes.
Senator Allen. All right. Are you concerned that the cost
for this product will go up? Could there be a monopoly for
those who manufacture DB?
Mr. Bye. I don't think so, only because--and I'll speak,
again, to our source from it--we buy it from a domestic source
who also supplies a number of those other inhibitors that I
mentioned that go into antifreeze for corrosion protection and
what have you. And the DB that we purchase is, far and away,
the smallest component that we buy from this company, and would
buy from the other companies. So, I think if there were
included across the board, (a) you're still talking about a
very small amount. It would still be considerably less than the
other products we buy from them, so we would have that
leverage. And you would create competition, I would think,
among the other suppliers of DB, because there are other
suppliers. So, I think, in general, we wouldn't see any issue
with that.
Senator Allen. Also, let me ask you this. In three states
that require this DB--and New Mexico is the model state law--
has there been any harm caused to car engines, like corrosion,
due to the addition of DB to the antifreeze?
Mr. Bye. No, none that we're aware of. And we've tested DB
in cooling systems to understand its performance in a cooling
system--again, not to its performance as a bitterant--and that
is another area of concern for us, because if we were to get
into other bittering agents that may be out there, they have
not been tested for their performance in automotive cooling
systems. So, we're very comfortable with DB, on that front.
Senator Allen. All right. So, there are other bittering
agents. And so, DB, at least has been tested out, proven not to
be any additional risk to the environment or added health risk
to it, and also not harming the engine--or the radiator
cooling----
Mr. Bye. Our concern is harming the engines, and we see no
effects of it.
Senator Allen. Ms. Amundson, are you aware of any problems
with respect to human health or the environment related to DB,
since you all have been such strong advocates for a long while
on this?
Ms. Amundson. No, we certainly are not, and would be
gravely concerned if there were issues related to environmental
degradation.
I'm going to read, if I may, into the record from a report
that was commissioned by the California Integrated Waste
Management Board in 2001, when they took a very careful look at
the potential for adding DB into antifreeze in the State of
California. And they did, in fact, support that particular
bill.
They state, through a staff study, that DB, ``readily
biodegrades. Its transport is attenuated by soil, and it is
easily treated in sewage-treatment systems and drinking-water
systems. Staff has determined that the addition of DB to
antifreeze would not lead to any adverse health or
environmental effects.''
Senator Allen. What was that report, again, Ms. Amundson?
Ms. Amundson. That is the 2001 California Integrated Waste
Management Board, the entity for really ascertaining how to
dispose of waste, and that would include chemical waste.
Senator Allen. Thank you. If you could provide that to the
Committee, I'd like to make that report a part of the record.
Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
California Integrated Waste Management Board,
Board Meeting, July 25-26, 2001.
Agenda Item 2
Item
Consideration Of Staff Recommendations For Addressing The Impacts
Of Antifreeze On Public Health And Safety In California
I. Summary
This item presents staff's recommendations to reduce the impact on
health and safety that occurs from the use of antifreeze coolant in
California. The most commonly used antifreeze in California is
formulated with ethylene glycol, which is poisonous. Antifreeze
products have a sweet taste and appealing color that may be attractive
to animals and children. Drinking as little as one or two ounces can
lead to death in a small child. A cat can receive a lethal dose from
licking its paws after walking through spilled antifreeze. Improper
storage or handling of antifreeze contributes to hundreds of human
exposures in the state annually. Leaks from improperly maintained motor
vehicles and improper storage and disposal leads to thousands of animal
exposures each year. In addition, this product is effective and easy to
use for intentional poisoning of domestic animals and wildlife.
Two methods are available to reduce or eliminate the hazards of
ethylene glycol based antifreeze to humans, while providing comparable
product performance. One is to add an aversive agent to ethylene glycol
antifreeze to deter ingestion. The state of Oregon requires the
addition of the aversive agent denatonium benzoate to ethylene glycol
based antifreeze sold at the retail level. Other countries also require
the addition of this bittering agent to ethylene glycol based
antifreeze. California legislation was introduced in 1993 to require
the addition of a bittering agent to ethylene glycol antifreeze
products. The governor vetoed the bill.
Another method to reduce poisoning from antifreeze exposures is to
eliminate the use of ethylene glycol based antifreeze and replace it
with the much less toxic propylene glycol formulated antifreeze. The
chemical propylene glycol is used in numerous prepared foods and
medicines and is a common food additive. Propylene glycol based
antifreeze was introduced to the California market in 1994 and is
readily available, currently constituting about 5 percent of the
market. Propylene glycol based antifreeze provides comparable product
performance as the ethylene glycol based antifreeze. The leading
antifreeze manufacturer, Prestone, offers a propylene glycol based
antifreeze marketed under the brand name LowTox, and Old World
Industries produces the Sierra brand. Both are sold throughout the
state at competitive prices to ethylene glycol antifreeze. At least two
other countries require the retail sale of propylene glycol based
antifreeze as a safer substitute.
Antifreeze manufacturers oppose replacing ethylene glycol based
antifreeze with propylene glycol based antifreeze or to adding an
aversive agent to ethylene glycol based antifreeze. The requirement of
the child resistant caps is cited as having reduced poisonings.
Industry does support public education efforts to prevent exposures and
poisonings. The greater chemical industry produced a video on safe use,
storage and disposal of antifreeze several years ago, and may develop a
new video in the next few months. Significant public education may
reduce the number of exposures. The incidence of poisonings to children
and adults, domestic animals and wildlife would be further diminished
if reformulation or the addition of an aversive agent is required.
Staff recognize that there are significant barriers to the
conversion from ethylene glycol to propylene glycol based antifreeze.
While propylene glycol would provide the greatest protection, staff
recommend that the addition of aversive agents be required for all
ethylene glycol antifreeze products. No significant barriers to the
immediate addition of the aversive agent, denatonium benzoate were
identified.
II. Previous Board Action
At the January 2000 meeting, the California Integrated Waste
Management Board (Board) directed staff to review methods to
significantly reduce the number of human and animal poisonings from
antifreeze exposures. Then at the August 2000 Board meeting, staff
presented background information and findings from research and
discussions with antifreeze industry representatives. Numerous options
to address the antifreeze poisoning problem were presented to the
Board. The Board directed staff to continue researching the highest
options presented for reducing poisonings from antifreeze use and to
return with recommended actions.
III. Options for the Board
Board Members may consider one or more of the following actions:
1. Direct staff to develop a legislative proposal to phase in a
ban on the sale of ethylene glycol formulated antifreeze and
promote the use of propylene glycol formulated antifreeze or
other significantly less toxic alternatives.
2. Direct staff to develop a legislative proposal to require
the addition of an aversive agent, such as denatonium benzoate,
to ethylene glycol based antifreeze.
3. Direct staff to study the issues further and bring back
recommendations for consideration in the future.
IV. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board approve Option 2 as the most
prudent way to protect human health and safety and reduce animal
poisonings in California.
V. Analysis
Background
The Board directed staff to review methods to significantly reduce
the number of human and animal poisonings from antifreeze exposures at
the January 2000, meeting. Staff proceeded to interview chemical and
antifreeze manufacturers, recyclers, local and state government,
automotive manufacturers and service representatives and veterinary and
other medical professionals. A task force meeting was held September
28, 2000. Staff researched issues raised by all parties. The goal was
to investigate changes that could be made to reduce the effects caused
by ethylene glycol based antifreeze exposures.
The antifreeze manufacturing industry is opposed to mandating
propylene glycol based antifreeze to replace ethylene glycol antifreeze
or adding an aversive agent to ethylene glycol antifreeze. In addition
to child resistant caps, which has reduced poisoning incidences,
industry advocates public education as the most appropriate mechanism
to further decrease poisoning exposures. Industry produced a public
service announcement several years ago, and has played it through
television station and cable systems throughout the country including
California. They are now planning to produce a new California specific
video, which will replace the original video. Industry would like the
Board to endorse the video. Staff has recommended that the 1-800-
CLEANUP number be included in the video; however, further support and/
or involvement would be at the Board's discretion.
Staff produced an in-house fact sheet on antifreeze about five
years ago. Staff is revising the fact sheet to provide stronger
messages to reduce accidental child and pet exposures. The fact sheet
will provide additional information on the safe storage and use of
antifreeze and a description of the safer propylene glycol based
alternative. Staff will also work with household hazardous waste
coordinators to encourage them to increase promotion of the safer
antifreeze (e.g., signs placed at the point of purchase indicating that
a product is an alternative to a more hazardous product).
Staff is working with the California Poison Control System (CPCS)
to obtain information on the circumstances surrounding childrens'
exposures. By examining exposures, staff can provide better outreach to
local government household hazardous waste program coordinators and to
residents. In addition, staff will provide local household hazardous
waste program managers information about the services provided by CPCS.
Key Issues:
Ethylene Glycol Toxicity and Antifreeze Exposures
Ethylene glycol is an odorless, sweet tasting poisonous chemical
used in the production of antifreeze and many other products. Ethylene
glycol can adversely affect humans through ingestion, inhalation or
contact with the eyes and/or skin. Exposures and poisonings from
ethylene glycol based antifreeze are regularly reported to poison
control centers. In 2000, 564 calls were made to the California Poison
Control System hotline regarding ethylene glycol based antifreeze. Past
statistics in California have not been comprehensively available so a
trend of exposures is not available. Nationally, there were 5,376 human
exposures with nine deaths in 1998 caused by ethylene glycol
antifreeze. Unintentional exposures accounted for 4,932 of the cases.
According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine's Toxicology
Data Network, for a 150 pound adult the minimum lethal dose of ethylene
glycol is 100 ml or 4 ounces, while propylene glycol's minimum fatal
dose level is probably over 32 ounces. There is an antidote for
ethylene glycol antifreeze poisoning called Antizol. However, an
antidote treated patient still may have to be managed for other life
threatening conditions that may arise.
A much lower dose of ethylene glycol based antifreeze can kill
animals with as little as one teaspoon for a cat and two tablespoons
for a 10-pound dog. Animal exposures are more difficult to quantify
because veterinarians are not required to report these poisoning
occurrences. Reported poisonings include wild and domesticated animals,
with some documented intentional poisonings. Some wild animals such as
marmots have been known to chew through vehicle coolant hoses, while
dogs have been known to chew the necks of antifreeze containers and
ingest the antifreeze. In 1993, a California condor, an endangered
species, died from ingestion of ethylene glycol.
In 1996 the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals conducted a phone survey of animal care professionals and
concluded that 118,000 domestic animals were poisoned in the U.S. by
spilled or discarded antifreeze. The National Animal Poison Control
Center believes that this figure is greatly exaggerated. A more
conservative estimate of animal poisoning exposures is from Washington
State University Veterinary Medicine School with at least 10,000 dog
poisonings annually. Diagnosis and treatment of a pet ingestion of
ethylene glycol based antifreeze can be delayed due to misleading
symptoms. For example, a dog would get sick after ingesting antifreeze,
and then appear to improve. Meanwhile, renal failure occurs and it is
too late to save the dog.
Leaks from improperly maintained motor vehicles and improper
storage of antifreeze as well as illegal disposal leads to thousands of
animals' exposures each year. A national survey found that two out of
three veterinarians see at least one accidental ethylene glycol animal
poisoning each year. This would amount to over 7,000 poisoning
exposures in California alone. This may be a conservative estimate
because there certainly are animals that do not survive to return home
and wildlife that will not have a chance to receive medical treatment.
(And though the California Poison Control System hotline is not for
animal emergencies, 53 calls were made regarding pets with one death
documented in 2000.)
Appearing like common beverages, the attractiveness of antifreeze
is a significant concern. Antifreeze comes in bright colors, similar to
beverages such as Kool-Aid and Gatorade that are recognized by
children. Industry indicated that the colors used in antifreeze
products are market driven, so that service providers can quickly
identify the types of antifreeze or other fluids they are installing.
Because of worldwide distribution, changing the color or appearance of
antifreeze does not appear to be a reasonable undertaking at this time.
Environmentally, both types of antifreeze biodegrade fairly
rapidly--in as few as several days depending upon conditions. (Heavy
metals from vehicle engines do, however, remain in the environment
after the antifreeze breaks down.)
Option 1--Propylene Glycol Alternative
Propylene glycol based antifreeze is an alternative to ethylene
glycol based antifreeze, and has a significantly lower degree of
toxicity to humans and animals. Used in a variety of consumer products,
propylene glycol is also added to food products and is listed by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration as either approved as a food additive
or listed or affirmed as Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS). Taken
internally, a small amount of propylene glycol is harmless to humans.
Though not considered GRAS for cats, the degree of toxicity to this
species is significantly reduced compared to ethylene glycol ingestion.
There is no language on either Low Tox or the Sierra brands of
propylene glycol based antifreeze container labels to indicate that
consumers need restrict its use for any vehicle type. There is also no
language (such as special formulations required by some auto
manufacturers) for restrictive use for any vehicle type on the ethylene
glycol based antifreeze product containers either. Propylene glycol
based antifreeze is commonly used in marine vessels as well as
recreational vehicles throughout the country. Some auto manufacturers,
however, do caution the consumer in the owner's manual to use the
manufacturer's own brand of antifreeze because of special additives and
formulations. Though one auto manufacturer indicated in the owner's
manual that it is necessary to use their brand of antifreeze, and non-
use could void its warranty, the same manufacturer stated that it is
rare to void a warranty by use of a fluid. Another manufacturer does
not promote propylene glycol based antifreeze but has accepted it, and
along with other automotive manufacturers state its use would not void
their warranties. And although no auto dealership surveyed installed
propylene glycol based antifreeze, some of them will, upon owner
request, put it in vehicles.
Propylene glycol based antifreeze is used extensively in Austria
and Switzerland, where it is the only antifreeze sold at the retail
level. In France and Italy, only propylene glycol based antifreeze is
sold in those stores that also sell food.
Industry concerns not addressed above are outlined below in bold,
followed by information gathered by staff in response:
1. The performance capabilities of propylene glycol based
antifreeze in automotive vehicles are not adequate. The propylene
glycol based antifreeze on the market currently meets the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards for cars and light
duty trucks as well as for heavy-duty vehicles.
2. There are no ``extended life'' propylene glycol antifreeze
formulations available. Extended life antifreeze has only been
available for several years and is a small but growing segment of the
market. Propylene glycol manufacturers say the market for these
formulas has not been large enough to warrant manufacturing such
products, however, a propylene glycol based antifreeze extended life
package can be made.
3. Replacing all ethylene glycol based antifreeze with propylene
glycol based antifreeze in California would create market problems. The
California market for antifreeze is about 20 million gallons per year.
That amount constitutes about 40 percent of the total propylene glycol
produced in the U.S. annually. A phased approach would be necessary to
maintain supply and market stability as well as to allow time to test
and approve special formulations.
4. A rapid market swing from ethylene glycol based to propylene
based antifreeze would impact the market for recycled ethylene glycol.
Auto manufacturers recommend that antifreeze be changed every few years
depending on vehicle use. Because of the time between full market
availability of propylene based antifreeze and the years between
change-outs, the waste stream will contain significant amounts of
ethylene glycol for many years. A ``phased in mandate'' approach would
maintain a stable market for ethylene glycol as the proportion of
propylene glycol to ethylene glycol increases in the antifreeze waste
stream.
5. Recycled ethylene glycol can not contain more than 15 percent
propylene glycol and meet the market standard. Currently, the
antifreeze waste stream contains about 5 percent propylene glycol based
antifreeze. However, recycling propylene glycol based antifreeze only
allows 1 percent of other glycols to be added to it. Following a
mandate to reformulate with propylene glycol, the antifreeze waste
stream will contain increasing amounts of propylene glycol. Generators
may need to segregate the two types of waste antifreezes with separate
storage tanks needed for recyclers. Alternatively, recyclers would need
to install systems to separate propylene glycol and ethylene glycol. In
any case there would be significant cost involved.
6. Topping off autos running on ethylene glycol based antifreeze
with propylene glycol based antifreeze will lead to compatibility
problems. Antifreeze manufacturers and auto manufacturers are concerned
that mixing two types of formulations in a vehicle may lead to reduced
performance or even failure of cooling systems because of possible
incompatibility of additives.
7. Propylene glycol costs significantly more than ethylene glycol
and industry profit margins are already slim. The retail cost of the
two types of antifreeze overlap. Retail ethylene glycol based
antifreeze costs $4.00-$6.00 per gallon while propylene glycol based
antifreeze costs $4.50-$7.00 per gallon. Any increase in costs would be
passed onto the consumers resulting in a level playing field for
manufacturers.
Option 2--Aversive Agent Alternative
The other alternative to reduce poisonings from the ingestion of
ethylene glycol is to add an aversive agent. Denatonium benzoate is
considered the most bitter substance known. From studies reviewed, it
is highly effective for humans; and dogs have exhibited symptoms of
grimacing, gagging and even vomiting upon ingestion of products
containing denatonium benzoate. The taste of the agent may not repel
all animals, but the American Association of Poison Control Centers has
recommended that aversive agents be added to ethylene glycol products.
Aversive agents are currently used in other household products
including pesticides to deter ingestion. Industry is concerned that if
an aversive agent were added to ethylene glycol based antifreeze,
consumers would be less vigilant in storing and managing the product.
Staff does not necessarily agree. However, even if the number of
exposures does not decrease, the amount of product ingested will
decrease.
Addition of denatonium benzoate is very inexpensive, costing $0.02-
$0.03 per gallon of a $5 per gallon product. Addition of denatonium
benzoate to the approximately 20 million gallons of antifreeze used in
California would cost about $500,000 a year. This cost is relatively
small compared to the $100 million dollar market and the cost would be
passed on to consumers. This amount is also small compared to the
medical costs and work time lost as well as suffering that occurs from
exposures to this product
Denatonium benzoate readily biodegrades, its transport is
attenuated by soil, and it is easily treated in sewage treatment
systems and drinking water systems. Staff has determined that the
addition of denatonium benzoate to antifreeze would not lead to any
adverse health or environmental effects.
The State of Oregon passed a bill in 1993 that requires the
addition of a bittering agent in ethylene glycol antifreeze sold at the
retail level. A similar bill was vetoed by the Governor in California
in 1993. His veto message said denatonium benzoate would not decrease
the number of exposures to the product and it had not been proven
effective as an animal deterrent. He also said that it was premature
for the state to require manufacturers add bittering agents to products
before these substances are fully evaluated and determined to be
effective. In response, staff note that the addition of denatonium
benzoate may not prevent exposures, but it would significantly reduce
the amount ingested, hence the severity of exposures. Numerous studies
have shown that it does repel animals, though until it is used
extensively in antifreeze, the magnitude of its effectiveness for
animals in ethylene glycol based antifreeze will be difficult to
verify. (Comparatively, it took 17 years to conclusively prove that
child-resistant caps were effective in reducing child exposures in
general.)
Denatonium benzoate is required to be added to ethylene glycol
based antifreeze in the United Kingdom, Japan, and Australia. There is
also currently one ethylene glycol antifreeze manufacturer in this
country that voluntarily adds denatonium benzoate to their aftermarket
antifreeze products (5 percent of all antifreeze currently used in the
United States). Lastly, Massachusetts has introduced a bill to require
the addition of denatonium benzoate to all ethylene glycol based
antifreeze in their state.
Fiscal Impacts--N/A.
Findings
The lethal oral dose of ethylene glycol is a factor of over eight
smaller than propylene glycol for humans, making this a compelling
argument for its use. And though wide use of propylene glycol based
antifreeze could prevent a majority of unintentional animal and human
poisonings, mandating a change at this time to propylene glycol based
formulations will cause significant industry hardship.
Addition of an aversive bittering agent, such as denatonium
benzoate, would reduce human poisonings and likely prevent a
significant number of animal poisonings. The addition of denatonium
benzoate is relatively inexpensive and would be simple for industry to
implement. There appear to be no compelling reasons not to mandate the
addition of denatonium benzoate to all ethylene glycol based products.
The health and safety of all residents and pets and wildlife of the
state can benefit from this endeavor.
VI. Funding Information--N/A.
Senator Allen. Senator Pryor?
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One thing I want to do today--you all know I support the
legislation, but I want to ask some hard questions, because
Senator Allen and I know that our colleagues will ask us these
hard questions, and I'd like to get your answers on these. He's
already asked some of them.
But, Mr. Bye, if I can start with you, I know that one
option in framing this legislation would be that you could use
either DB or some other bittering agent. And I think you
mentioned, a few moments ago, that other bittering agents have
not been approved, or have not been tested in automotive--in an
automotive system like what you have with DB. But are there
other reasons why we shouldn't expand this to DB and other
agents?
Mr. Bye. All I can speak to--again, we are far from being
experts in the world of bitterants. Maybe one of the other
panelists would have a deeper point of view on this, but we've
really just been trying to work with them in the bitterants
that they feel are the most effective and most--strongest
bittering agent there is, as you pointed out earlier. So,
that's really all we've done, is follow their lead that that is
the one to use, and, therefore, that is the one we've tested,
because we produce it, in a cooling system. But, beyond that,
we haven't really looked at any other bittering agents, just
been doing what they've been asking us to do.
Senator Pryor. OK, great. Let me followup on another one of
Senator Allen's questions. A few moments ago he asked about DB
and other sources of it. And, just to be clear, as I understand
it, DB is not proprietary. In other words, it's out there in
the public domain. Is that your understanding?
Mr. Bye. That's my understanding.
Senator Pryor. And there either are now, or could be,
multiple sources for DB.
Mr. Bye. I know of at least three today.
Senator Pryor. That exist today? OK, great.
Ms. Amundson, let me ask you a question. And it's just a
concern that some people might have that if you add this
bittering agent, somehow maybe the industry or the word might
get out that suddenly antifreeze is safe--so-called ``safe''--
and people might get complacent about the storage of it or the
disposal of it. Do you have any comments on that?
Ms. Amundson. I greatly appreciate the question. It's
certainly the position of the Doris Day Animal League that we
bear a responsibility to consumers to provide the information
that's necessary to them to take a careful look at this issue.
And, in doing so, we have never positioned ourselves as
supporting the addition of DB to antifreeze as the panacea to
the problem.
That said, I think we need to be careful when we're
assessing these sorts of mandates, or even enforcing these
sorts of mandates, on the regulated industries. Let's keep in
mind the simple fact that seatbelts certainly save lives, but
they don't save every life. And, unfortunately, childproof
safety caps have been very successful in saving children's
lives, but, if improperly used, clearly there may still be some
difficulties there.
Our position has been, we need to use all the tools
available to us--and that is foil seals, childproof safety
caps, the addition of DB, and good, solid public education--to
ensure that people still recognize that ethylene glycol
antifreeze is a toxic chemical.
Senator Pryor. OK, great.
Let me ask, too, we mentioned--Senator Allen mentioned
these two different reports. There's one in 1992 from the
Consumer Products Safety Commission, and there's also one in
2001 from California. I'd just like to ask the panel
generally--all of you all can answer this, if you want--what is
the difference in those reports? It seems to me that, if you
look at them, the 2001 report is a much better, much stronger
report for the position that DB is OK and this actually is a
good idea. Can I--whoever----
Yes?
Ms. McCoy. Mr. Chairman, Senator, I guess I would just
simplify it by stating that antifreeze has to be properly
disposed of, already. If it's--even with the bittering agent,
it's--which is, I believe, 30-to-one-million parts, it's a very
minute amount, so--I'm not diminishing the fact that there
could be some environmental issue, but I personally did a lot
of research, and had our legislature look for me, and no one
could find anything definitive about it.
So, given the fact that it has to be properly disposed of
without the bittering agent, I think that that's the answer.
So--Thank you, Senator.
Senator Pryor. OK. Anybody else want to comment on the two
reports?
Ms. Amundson. If I may, thank you.
I will say that my comprehension of the CPSC's report is
that they were asked to take a very careful, narrow look at a
couple of different potentials for bittering agents, and the
conclusions in that report clearly stated that their
recommendation was that DB be added to some consumer products,
and antifreeze was one of them. While there may be information
that is not necessarily collated in that report, I think the
reflection of the 2001 report from the California Integrated
Waste Management Board provides us with more comprehensive
information on some of the questions that you're raising today,
and that is because it is their job to take a careful look at
what environmental consequences are going to be. And they were
taking a look at this issue specifically by raising the
question, What can we do with antifreeze to try to ensure that
kids and animals are not ingesting it? And their conclusion
clearly was to support the California bill.
Senator Pryor. As part of these studies, have they studied
whether, when you add DB, actually you see child deaths go
down? Has anyone done that detail of study? Do you know? My
sense is, that may be beyond the scope of any study that's been
done.
Ms. Amundson. Senator, I would say it's probably beyond the
scope of existing studies. But I think it's a careful point
that we need to make here, and that is, fortunately there are
not a lot of children who do actually die from ingesting
antifreeze. It is much more on the animal side.
Senator Pryor. And I know--as I understand it, DB has been
used in antifreeze for some time in the United Kingdom, Japan,
and Australia. Do we know--do we have studies from those
countries? And do we have data and information from those
countries? Does anybody know?
[No response.]
Senator Pryor. I'm not aware of any. I think our staff was
looking for some, but I'm not aware of any.
Senator Allen. Mr. Bye, do you all sell--excuse me.
Senator Pryor. Go ahead.
Senator Allen. Do you all sell in these countries? Japan?
Australia has a lot of animals.
Mr. Bye. We sell almost no antifreeze outside of the United
States. We sell mostly to retail, and outside of the United
States it's not a big retail market, so we sell less than 1
percent of our sales outside the United States.
Senator Pryor. OK. And, Mr. Bye, let me ask you, I've heard
the figure ``30 parts per million.'' What is that, about a drop
per gallon?
Mr. Bye. It's a minuscule amount. I'm not a chemist, but
it's a tiny amount, and--but that tiny amount is highly
effective, as one who tasted bitterant the other day in a
minuscule amount. And you don't ever want to do that again.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. Let me ask you----
Mr. Bye. I just wanted to be prepared.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. Yeah, great. You didn't bring any for us to
drink today.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bye. Be careful.
[Laughter.]
Senator Pryor. Let me ask you, Mr. Bye, while we have you
here, part of your company's support for this legislation is
some--there's a provision that you will not be held liable
under the law. Could you explain your company's rationale, what
you accomplish by that?
Mr. Bye. Sure. It's, I think, pretty straightforward. We
are, again, experts at the product we make, prior to bitterant,
and the inhibitors and chemicals therein, in the antifreeze,
and their effect and what they're designed to do in a car's
cooling system. And, to that end, we're more than happy, and
always have taken full--and assumed full responsibility for any
liability of those products.
But we are not experts, and have had no reason to be
experts in the world of bitterants, much like any other
chemical. In this case, no pun intended, we become the
``vehicle'' for delivering that and what it does, but we've
never had a reason to understand its properties, in any great
detail.
And so, for that end, I think just to make this whole thing
work we would be happy to assume liability for our end of the
product line, and hope that the people that provide that--
because it is not part of a car's cooling system--would assume
liability for their end and achieve what these people are
looking for.
Senator Pryor. OK. Would your company, or would the
industry, be comfortable with a sunset on that liability
provision in 10 or 15 years, or not?
Mr. Bye. To be honest with you, we haven't talked about
that, because we've always assumed that it would be something
that would be separated from us. We could get back to you on
that and look at that, but we have no position on that,
currently.
Senator Pryor. OK. And, also in terms of the industry, you
maybe heard my question a few moments ago about--maybe the
industry, or at least maybe the public perceiving--if the
industry doesn't market it this way--but the public perceiving
that somehow--by adding this chemical, that suddenly antifreeze
becomes ``safe.'' Do you--has the industry thought about that,
and thought about how they market it in such a way that the
public will not be misled and will understand this is still a
very dangerous product, just that it is--you've added a safety
feature to it? What's your--how are you going to handle that?
Mr. Bye. Sure. I would take the same position we've taken
right along. And, as I mentioned in my earlier testimony, we've
been supporters of the veterinary poison hotlines, and they
would not want us to promote the fact that there is bitterant
in the product, because it could lead to, sort of, a lax'd
attitude, in their opinion. And we would fully support that. We
would have no intentions of promoting the fact that their
product was bittered. We would have no intentions of marketing
it as a ``safer'' product. We would be doing it just for the
case, as stated, that accidental spillages came in contact with
an animal, and hope to deter them. But we wouldn't make any
more point of it than that.
Senator Pryor. And my last question--and maybe, Mr. Bye,
you're the best, but whoever wants to try to answer this--is
DB, itself, a toxin? Is it, in and of itself, poisonous or
harmful to humans, do we know?
Mr. Bye. I don't know.
Ms. McCoy. Mr. Chairman, Senator, I just read something
recently, that a diluted form of DB is actually used as a
deterrent for thumb-sucking, so, it's--I don't think it is
toxic. So----
Senator Pryor. Does anybody else have any comments on that?
Ms. Elder. Our data shows that--at the levels that would be
used for an aversive or bittering agent, that it would not have
acute toxicity.
Senator Pryor. OK. Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Senator Allen. Through? Well, all right. Well, thank you,
Senator Pryor, for those questions.
And I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing
today.
From this hearing--the value of hearings is to adduce
testimony and information and evidence that bolster or possibly
modify legislation. It strikes me that what we have here is a
consensus--consensus that adding DB to antifreeze would cost
less than three cents a gallon--since I'm very frugal and
always look at what the cost of things are. But for less than
three cents a gallon, it is not going to eliminate risk, but it
is going to reduce risk. That's a key thing from Senator
Pryor's questions. And some of the testimony here is, you can
add a bitterant to antifreeze, but it doesn't mean that you
don't have to have the same cautions, as far as caps and
warnings, and, obviously, also disposal. Representative McCoy's
logic was just plain old common sense, you're still going to
have to dispose of itssafely. It doesn't matter whether there's
a bitterant or not in it. And by reducing this risk, we clearly
are going to lessen and prevent harm somewhat to humans. But
the greatest risk is to animals. The references to pets--people
pay attention to when their dog or cat's gone, but there are
also a lot of other animals out there. There's birds, fox,
deer, other--that might lap some of that up in a driveway or
somewhere else, and those don't get, necessarily, reported.
The added point is, for less than three cents a gallon,
reducing risk and harm to animals and humans, there's also no
evidence that this will cause any environmental harm.
Its seems to me, Senator Pryor, that we need to be moving
on this. We've heard some very reasoned, logical analysis here
today. Thank you all, all of our witnesses, for coming from all
across the country and sharing your insight and also your
passion, your passion for this. And we want to thank our
friends from the Land of Enchantment for showing us the way
here in Washington, D.C.
Ms. McCoy. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Allen. With that, I wish you all safe travels home.
Hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]