Letter to Dura Supreme

UPDATE: I've closed comments on this post due to a huge amount of abusive comments from people I can only assume work for or are otherwise affiliated with Dura Supreme. Boy, if the people at Dura Supreme expended just half of the energy on addressing their formaldehyde issues that they spend on angrily responding to my post, we'd be in business!
**
Some of you may remember that I feel I was "greenwashed" by cabinetmaker Dura Supreme some weeks earlier. Instead of getting hardwood cabinets for my bathroom, I received mostly particleboard; that particleboard is not marked formaldehyde-free. The company, which touts itself as a green company, was unwilling to address my issues, and so my husband and I are out about $1400 and can't finish our bathroom remodel. I chose to write a letter to Dura Supreme, and sent it about a week ago. I have posted it here, redacting the names of my contractor and the person and her company who sold me the cabinets on behalf of Dura Supreme to protect their privacy.

April 2, 2008
Mr. Keith Stotts, CEO
Dura Supreme
300 Dura Drive
Howard Lake, MN 55349

Dear Mr. Stotts,

I recently purchased from Dura Supreme a custom made 42-inch bathroom vanity made from “solid hardwood” cherry. I chose Dura Supreme based on the recommendations of my contractor, [redacted], and [redacted]. They recommended your company specifically because I have specified green construction and no formaldehyde-containing particleboard or plywood in my home. They were both under the impression that because you tout your company as a “green” company you wouldn’t utilize these materials in your products.

I am writing because I am profoundly disappointed in the cabinets I received from Dura Supreme. I was astounded to find the cabinets constructed mainly of particleboard, a toxic building material made with formaldehyde resin. In fact, based on the literature on your site, I thought that I was buying hardwood cabinets, especially since I got a quote for complete hardwood cabinets from a cabinetmaker following this incident for less than your asking price. Particleboard is one of the worst contributors to indoor air pollution, causing respiratory problems, and a host of other health issues. There is no “safe” level of emission for formaldehyde in particleboard. The formaldehyde used in particleboard is considered a “known human carcinogen.” This is not my opinion; this is fact, and the information I just cited comes from the notoriously slow-to-act EPA (http://www.epa.gov/iaq/formalde.html), which recommends avoiding all particleboard and plywood, regardless of emission levels. The federal government is currently facing lawsuits from countless Katrina refugees who lived in FEMA trailers constructed of this stuff because they have become violently ill from the effects of formaldehyde off-gassing in particleboard and plywood.

What disturbs me most is that Dura Supreme positions itself as a “green” company. Your company touts its KCMA Environmental Stewardship Program seal; yet the KCMA is the kitchen cabinet industry group, not a disinterested body, and requires only that your building materials have “low formaldehyde emissions.” This “low” emission level is documented nowhere on your site. It’s unfortunate that there is no universal standard for the term green. Any product containing formaldehyde particleboard, at any emission level, is certainly not a green product, and I believe your literature and website are seriously misleading.

One of your representatives spoke at length with [redacted]and told her that Dura Supreme will not take the product back nor will they reassemble the product with formaldehyde-free particleboard or plywood. Because of this experience, and your company’s unwillingness to address these issues in a constructive manner with me or [redacted], I will never buy a product from your company again. My family and friends have been witness to this frustrating and demoralizing experience, and they, too, will not buy from your company. In addition to being a consumer, I also happen to be an environmental and consumer journalist, focusing specifically on products containing toxic components. In addition to my journalistic work, I maintain a blog on these topics, which has many regular readers and also attracts visitors who are in the market for various consumer goods and who come across my site in web searches. I have blogged about this experience on my website and, in good faith, will post any response I receive from you, should you choose to respond. My blog address is www.scienceforsale.com.

There are numerous manufacturers of formaldehyde-free plywood and particleboard. If you and the other members of the KCMA’s Environmental Stewardship Program intend to continue portraying your companies as “green”, I suggest you start using products that don’t cause harm to human health. As for myself, I won’t have to worry about bathroom vanities for a while; since your company refuses to refund the price of the Dura Supreme cabinets we bought, we don’t have enough money to complete our bathroom remodel. My family will have to live with a bathroom without a vanity until we can save enough to recoup our loss.

Regards,


Ashley Shelby

UPDATE: While I can see from Sitemeter that Dura Supreme has been keeping close tabs on my blog and on the comments people have made regarding my Dura Supreme postings, I have yet to receive any response whatsoever to my letter. This doesn't reflect well on any company; what makes the company look worse is not that they're lurking on my blog but that they are now posting anonymous comments on my blog claiming I had my money refunded and that Dura Supreme never claimed to be "green". I was, of course, never refunded my money. To suggest this is the height of idiocy. I am a full-time mom, a working mother (a small business owner), and a busy journalist, writer and editor. As if I would take time out of my day to write a letter, post blog entries, and make such a stink about this if I had my $1400-plus in my pocket. Instead, the retailer who sold me the cabinets worked their asses off to try to get Dura Supreme to address this issue, with no success. The woman I worked with at this small family retailer deserves sainthood. Going above and beyond, the retailer issued me a credit for the amount I spent on the Dura Supreme cabinets but, of course, couldn't refund my money. I can't use the credit--and I would gladly forfeit it if Dura Supreme would refund my money--because the other formaldehyde-free offerings are out of our price range. We'd like our money back so we can pay the cabinetmaker who said he would build our cabinets to our specifications for the same amount of money we paid for Dura Supreme's particleboard cabinets. Regardless, as I mentioned in my counter comment to the poster, it says much about Dura Supreme that they consider a small retailer taking a financial hit for their inferior product a "complete refund", allowing this business to absorb the cost of terrible customer service.

In any case, in regards to the comment that Dura Supreme never presented itself as a green company, I am in the process of compiling the information I found regarding this issue. To start with:

Choosing materials that have lower emissions like plywood and particle board containing reduced levels of formaldehyde is also important to Dura Supreme’s environmental certification, as well as tracking air emissions.

Formaldehyde is used in many building products from carpets to roof sheathing, Michel explained, and limiting the formaldehyde content in cabinets give the consumer and the environment a health benefit.

The retailer with whom I worked was never told by anyone at Dura Supreme about this so called lower-emission particleboard or plywood or whether my cabinets were made with this material. Information or specs on the cabinets containing this material is nowhere to be found, leading the consumer to believe that all Dura Supreme cabinets contain "low-emmission formaldehyde" particleboard. This is not the case, from what I understand. In addition, "low-emission" means next to nothing. What is the PPM? If it "meets" EPA standards, then it is most certainly not low-emission. The EPA is currently being petitioned by more than twenty-five organizations to adjust its emission levels guidelines for this type of product. Typically, particleboard is either made with formaldehyde resin or it is not. There really is no in between, so the term low-emission is seriously misleading. Here is the article from which I am quoting. More information to come once my son goes down for a nap.

Wal-Mart BPA approach--clarification

As many of you probably know by now (apologies: norovirus made its way through my family during the last few days), Wal-Mart USA has not taken the same approach that its Canadian stores have taken in regard to the Canadian government's decision to name BPA a toxin. Instead of removing all BPA-containing baby bottles from its shelves immediately, Wal-Mart has decided to "phase out" the products and replace them with BPA-free offerings by "early next year."

This is disappointing. There is little reason to leave these products on the shelves, particularly if Wal-Mart Canada has already removed them. As I speculated in an earlier post, perhaps this has something to do with supply issues from BPA-free bottle manufacturers; but if this were the case, Wal-Mart Canada would certainly face the same problem, albeit on a smaller scale.

I am still thrilled that a retailer as large as Wal-Mart is taking any step toward removing these products from its shelves. I'm just disappointed that they are choosing to move more slowly than I believe they could.

Thank you, Wal-Mart--and yes, you're reading the right blog

As the editor who brought you The United States of Wal-Mart by John Dicker, a scathing (yet funny) indictment of the retail behemoth, it might sound strange but I'll say it anyway: Thank you, Wal-Mart.

Let me say it again, just to avoid confusion: Thank you, Wal-Mart.

Today, Wal-Mart yanked all--that's right all--BPA-containing baby bottles from its shelves. With more than 90% of all baby bottles containing BPA, this is a very bold move, indeed. And, in my opinion, it ranks up there with some of the most socially responsible corporate deeds in history. Under considerable pressure, I'm sure, from groups like the American Chemistry Council and plastics industry groups, Wal-Mart held firm to its decision to put the health of infants above the interests of the plastics industry. Rather than clinging to "scientific uncertainty" and leaving these products on the shelves, Wal-Mart has been proactive. It'd be nice to see other U.S. retailers, like Target, follow suit.

Now here's the fine print: although there was dramatic video of employees clearing shelves of these BPA-containing products, it seems that Wal-Mart will take about eight months to phase these bottles out completely. I don't know if that's because they want to sell out its remaining stock--which would render its gesture almost moot, as doing such a thing is morally reprehensible--or if it is doing this to secure BPA-free stock, which isn't always to easy to get in large quantities. I know Born Free runs out of stock any time a story about BPA airs or hits the papers. Can the company handle a huge client like Wal-Mart? I doubt it. So we'll see. But for what it's worth, this is a very positive move. Once I find out about the reason behind the 8-month delay in a complete phase-out, I will let you know. It could potentially change my tune.

ABC News reported this story tonight as its lead story. The text of the report can be found here.

Canada to label BPA "toxic"; U.S. government finally acknowledges cancer risk

The New York Times is reporting that Canada is about to declare BPA a toxin. The findings come from the Canadian government and a panel of outside scientists. When this designation is released, it should spell the end for consumer food and drink products containing the toxin--most importantly, baby bottles.

What I'm hearing is that large Canadian retailers are proactively yanking BPA-containing products off their shelves in anticipation of this finding. Keep in mind that the Canadian government isn't necessarily banning these products yet; it is just labeling BPA a "toxin", then opening up the conversation to the public and industry before taking any action in terms of a ban. But retailers are taking it upon themselves to get rid of these products before then, and I think that is a smart business move and a socially responsible one to boot.

Check out the Times article on Canada declaring BPA a toxin.

Incidentally, kudos to the New York Times for noting that a professor they quoted in the story downplaying the harmful effects of BPA was referred to the reporter by the Canadian plastics association. For those of you who are going to read wire and newspaper articles on this story, note these names "Canadian Plastics Assocation" and "American Chemistry Council": representatives will be interviewed in these stories. Know that they are front groups--the American Chemistry Council is perhaps the most pernicious front group in the country.

In this country, the National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program is finally acknowledging that there is, in fact, some concern about BPA in consumer products--specifically that there may be a connection between BPA ingestion and cancer. This comes after another governmental study that claimed no concern about BPA; the study was later canned because the firm hired to analyze the data worked for the chemical industry.

This is a turning point. The sluggish federal behemoth is finally stirring and blinking into the sunlight. A ban is probably a pipe dream, but this acknowledgment is a huge step forward. In the meantime, state and local governments need to regulate the chemical to protect their citizens. California is already set to ban BPA; New Jersey will likely follow. That's why I urge you to write letters to your local representatives, the ones who legislate for your state. Now is the time.

For anyone interested in reading other posts on BPA (I've been writing about BPA for nearly two years on this site), click on the tag "BPA". Click here for the Washington Post article on BPA and the National Toxicology Program's findings.

Good for a (hearty) laugh

My contractor is also having trouble locating an outfit that makes formaldehyde-free doors. (I'm not sure why--I located a number of companies, including VT Industries, that make formaldehyde-free, agrifiber core doors. I got some information back that one company this guy's door man works with offered a formaldehyde-free door with "low emission levels". That's obviously too vague for me. So in researching, just out of curiosity, OSHA's acceptable level of formaldehyde emission, I came across a highly amusing website from a company named Hexion Speciality Chemicals touting its "Ecobind Resin". Actually, as I continued to read, I became less amused and more disturbed. Their little FAQ on formaldehyde is riddled with inaccuracies and bald misstatements.

Here's how it starts (and it gets even better): "Do emissions from modern building products manufactured with formaldehyde-based resins pose a health risk? No."

This is an interesting assertion in itself, considering the thousands of FEMA evacuees who are contemplating or have initiated litigation against FEMA due to the high levels of formaldehyde in the particleboard and plywood the trailers are constructed from. They became violently ill--but I'm sure that all of these folks got ill from something other than the formaldehyde in the resins.

Another ridiculous leap this company makes in defending formaldehyde is contending that all wood contains formaldehyde, even the bark of living trees. And so, they continue, a forest must be even worse for you than particleboard! Right?! Make sure not to live in a forest, folks! It'd be worse than living in a FEMA trailer! This misinformation borders on disgusting. I won't even take the time to talk about the company's ridiculous and vague assertion that "current indoor and air quality studies show" that formaldehyde emissions are not a problem in new construction.

But the copy I find most offensive is the following: "Fact #5: Numerous government agencies, whose missions are to protect people, have put standards in place which today’s wood products meet or exceed." What offends me is the parenthetical "whose missions are to protect people." This creates in an uninformed reader's mind the belief that these government agencies are 1.) fully-staffed and able to test and research every harmful product on the market 2.) able to regulate the sale and use of these products rather than simply make recommendations and 3.) That the agencies cited (OSHA, EPA, and my favorite, the CSPC a.k.a. the Consumer Products Safety Commission who currently has one man testing all toys imported into this country) actually don't protect people. The current fiasco in New Orleans and Mississippi is proof of this.

For anyone interested in reading this bizarre and somewhat ham-handed attempt to defend formaldehyde, the link can be found here.

The Formaldehyde Files: CDC Silences Scientist

Remember the name Christopher De Rosa. A toxicologist for the Centers for Disease Control, he spoke out recently about the CDC's indifference (at best) to the pressing issue of formaldehyde in FEMA trailers and the ill effect this toxin was having on the inhabitants of the trailers. De Rosa was, until recently, one of the CDC's top toxicologists. He spoke before the House Subcommittee on Science and Technology regarding this issue.

He stated in his written testimony that he made the CDC fully aware of the health risks from formaldehyde being present in the government-issued trailers. Instead of doing something about it though, the CDC ignored the warnings. They even went as far as to tell De Rosa to stop writing about these things in e-mails, as they may be taken the wrong way.

De Rosa insists that tens of thousands of families remained in these government-issued trailers, without being notified of the health risks.

De Rosa is speaking before the committee because several members of the committee suspect FEMA has manipulated scientific data in order to downplay the dangers of formaldehyde fumes in these trailers. So far, signs are pointing to the CDC having gone along with this scheme. The CDC got involved in this matter in the middle of 2006, when FEMA came to the agency to help it analyze air-quality tests from trailers.

We're lucky De Rosa decided to speak up, despite any consequences he might face for his testimony. Formaldehyde is a formidable toxin. (I am dealing with it right now with my "green" Dura Supreme particleboard vanity that remains on my porch. The letter is forthcoming.) This is just another example of science manipulated to cover people's asses, while innocent individuals are poisoned in their homes. Science can be so inconvenient.