Please wait while schedule loads.
Fire retardation policy: A case of reverse diffusion?
Type of Session
Individual Paper Presentation
Abstract
During the 1970s, new chemicals that promised to slow materials from catching fire spread quickly among relevant industries, such as the production of textiles, furniture and home building materials. Policies and practices were adopted at the state-level, from California to Maine, in order to encourage and/or mandate the adoption of new technologies that promised to save lives, including those of potential burn victims and first responders. If not for general use, many states adopted policies that required the addition or application of relevant fire retardant materials and substances in the construction and furnishings of hospitals, schools, and other public buildings. Efforts to regulate fire retardants at the federal level are ongoing in light of the 2013 and 2015 to the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA).
As research on fire retardants progressed in the scientific community, occasionally entering mainstream news, doubts about the safety of fire retardant chemicals for environmental and human health started emerging among relevant epistemic communities and the public. California has been the first state to roll back fire retardant use in recent years, calling for their regulation and labelling on furnishings containing such substances. Other states have followed or are following suit. These state-level efforts have pitted the chemical industry, environmental groups, and affected stakeholders in an effort to regulate the use of relevant chemicals while also allowing for innovation of new substances and practices to progress.
This contribution is based on qualitative empirical research that retraces the policy making process in key states, including Califorina, while examining how stakeholders at various levels of government interact to influence the state-to-state diffusion of fire retardation policies and regulations. The results not only illustrate the difficulties in finding effective regulatory solutions to a complex problem that leave open sufficient room for innovation but also point to the key role the federal government may play in shaping state-level innovation processes.