Are Chemical Trespass Laws Needed for Household Pets?

Do you think dogs regard humans as "Dog's best friend"?  Somehow, I doubt it, especially in light of a recent report from the Environmental Working Group. EWG calls their report "the most comprehensive investigation of the chemical body burden of companion animals conducted to date, with 23 chemicals reported in pets for the first time."  They say it reinforces "findings from prior studies showing that pets’ unique behaviors may place them at risk for elevated exposures and health risks from chemical pollutants in the home and outdoors, in air, water, food, soil, and consumer products for people and pets."

EWG's study sought to investigate the extent of contaminant exposure pets face in homes and outdoor environments. What it revealed was disturbing:

Dogs and cats were contaminated with 48 of 70 industrial chemicals tested, including 43 chemicals at levels higher than those typically found in people, according to our study of plastics and food packaging chemicals, heavy metals, fire retardants, and stain-proofing chemicals in pooled samples of blood and urine from 20 dogs and 37 cats collected at a Virginia veterinary clinic.

Average levels of many chemicals were substantially higher in pets than is typical for people, with 2.4 times higher levels of stain- and grease-proof coatings (perfluorochemicals) in dogs, 23 times more fire retardants (PBDEs) in cats, and more than 5 times the amounts of mercury, compared to average levels in people found in national studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and EWG.

The problem with these various chemicals is that they are toxins linked to serious health effects -- associated with cancer, reproductive system problems, neurological diseases -- in other studies from laboratory data or human populations. For most of the chemicals included in the current study, the health risks to pets specifically have not been studied. (They're just animals, right?)

About the best you can say from this report is that we don't seem to be treating our household pets any worse than we treat the youngest humans:

Pets face chemical exposures that in some ways are similar to those of infants and toddlers, who have limited diets and play close to the floor and put their hands and household objects in their mouths far more often than adults. For pets as for children, exposures are greater and the resulting health risks are higher (Betts 2007).

But if knowledge gives rise to responsibility, then might such chemical exposure rise to the level of passive abuse, and possibly even civil and criminal liability, if there is a causal connection between the chemicals and illness or injury?  So, who has the knowledge of what potentially toxic chemicals are in your home furniture, upholstery, pillows, mattress pads, comforters, carpets, and drapes -- and even televisions and electronics? The manufacturers, of course. And the manufacturers don't label their products with chemical composition because they are not required to.

So, what are the government regulators doing about this situation, besides not requiring labeling and not requiring health warnings like they do on cigarette packages!?  First, the government is actually requiring flame-retardant household furniture and bedding in the first place!  In California, for example, all furniture is required to meet a flammability standard mandating that foam withstand an open flame for twelve seconds -- a de facto standard in other states also followed by some national manufacturers throughout the US. Second, regulatory agencies appear to be moving forward with stricter flammability standards for pillows, mattress pads, and comforters. (See tv news story.)

Of course, it is easy to defend the government's efforts to make household furnishings less flammable as one way of protecting human life and property in the home, which incidentally includes household pets. But flammability is only one home safety concern; chemical toxicity is another. And one shouldn't be traded against the other, at least not without a very thoughtful and deliberate weighing and mitigating of ALL safety risks.

One model chemical trespass ordinance affirms that citizens "possess a fundamental and inalienable right to the integrity of their bodies, and thus, have a right to be free from unwanted chemical invasions of their bodies" (see Section 6 of CELDF's Corporate Chemical Trespass Ordinance ). Shouldn't that right really extend to all creatures, especially those we invite into our homes and lives as members of our families to be trusted and faithful companions?  We often entrust our pet dogs with the responsibility to guard and protect our families?  Shouldn't they be able to trust us to protect them in return?

In the context of better assessing the health impacts of potentially toxic chemicals in the home, some scientists are regarding pets as "sentinels for human health." "Sentinals"?! That sounds like a euphemism for the domestic version of the laboratory test animal.  Is that being a good steward?  Is that any way to treat a best friend?