MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

Should You Ditch Your Chemical Mattress?

Commentary: Good night, sleep tight—don't let the volatile organic compounds bite.

March/April 2008 Issue


TOOLS

EmailE-mail article
PrintPrint article




BACKTALK

E-mail the editor





Google


susan greenfield and her girlfriend Llina Kempner couldn't wait for their new memory-foam mattress top to arrive. For months, they'd heard friends rave about how the high-tech material molds itself to your body. But when they unwrapped the three-inch-thick pad in their Manhattan apartment, they noticed a strong, acrid odor. "My nose and my lungs were miserable," recalls Greenfield. For the two nights Kempner slept on the mattress top, she felt nauseated. After Greenfield, who is chemically sensitive, had an asthma attack in the middle of the night, the couple returned the mattress pad. But its stench lingered in the apartment for weeks.

Reactions like Greenfield's are relatively rare, but you, too, might lose some sleep when you find out what's really inside your mattress—memory foam or not. The place where you spend one-third of your life is chock-full of synthetic materials, some potentially toxic. Since the mid- to late '60s, most mattresses have been made of polyurethane foam, a petroleum-based material that emits volatile organic compounds that can cause respiratory problems and skin irritation. Formaldehyde, which is used to make one of the adhesives that hold mattresses together, has been linked to asthma, allergies, and lung, nose, and throat cancers. And then there are cotton pesticides and flame-retardant chemicals, which can cause cancer and nervous-system disorders. In 2005, Walter Bader, owner of the "green mattress" company Lifekind and author of the book Toxic Bedrooms, sent several mattresses to an Atlanta-based lab. A memory-foam model was found to emit 61 chemicals, including the carcinogens benzene and naphthalene.

There is no proven health risk from the substances in mattresses, however, mostly because tracking their long-term effects is virtually impossible. Heather Stapleton, an environmental chemist at Duke University, says there's simply not enough data to determine whether low levels of these chemicals will eventually make people sick. "It's the dose that makes the poison," she says. "If they're not getting out, maybe it's not a problem—but we don't know. There are plenty of lab studies that show that these compounds are harmful. It's just a question of what levels people are exposed to."

Still, more and more consumers are seeking out mattresses made of natural latex, organic cotton batting, and organic wool. Sales of California-based Vivètique's latex mattresses have increased by 40 percent annually for the past five years—they now comprise 45 percent of the company's total sales. And they are even sold by discounter 1-800-Mattress.

It's hard to say whether you should ditch your conventional bed in favor of a green one, since you'll likely have a tough time figuring out exactly which toxins are lurking under your covers. Take, for example, fireproofing chemicals: Pentabde, a member of the polybrominated diphenyl ether (pbde) family of flame retardants, was used in some mattresses before 2004, when it was phased out. (Pentabde is now known to be toxic to the liver, thyroid, and nervous system.) So let's say that just to be on the safe side you toss your pre-2004 mattress and buy a new one. Problem solved? Maybe not. Last July, the Consumer Product Safety Commission began to require that all mattresses sold in the United States be able to withstand 30 minutes of exposure to an open flame.

Mattress makers aren't using Pentabde anymore—but it's not clear exactly what they are using to meet the new standard. Major manufacturers such as Simmons, Sealy, and Tempur-Pedic won't divulge their flame-retardant formulas, which are considered trade secrets. A Simmons press release touts a "proprietary blend of char-forming, intumescing, flame-resistant components." Tempur-Pedic vaguely states that its products "consistently meet all safety standards." A best guess at what's in today's mattresses comes from Ryan Trainer, executive vice president of the International Sleep Products Association, an industry group. He says most companies use "various types of barrier fabrics" such as cotton treated with boric acid or rayon treated with silica—both relatively benign chemicals—as well as fire-resistant materials such as modacrylic fiber (which contains antimony oxide, a carcinogen) and melamine resin (which contains formaldehyde).

With a doctor's prescription, people who are chemically sensitive and have allergies can order a mattress that doesn't pass a flammability test. But organic-mattress companies have found a simple way to fireproof: wrapping their bedding in a layer of wool. Their prices aren't so warm and cozy—a queen-size latex model from Virginia-based Savvy Rest starts at $1,599. But if you're having nightmares about your mattress, and it's time to trade in your well-worn Posturepedic anyway, it might be worth it.

Susan Greenfield was a fan of organic mattresses even before the smelly memory-foam pad showed up—she's slept on one for 15 years, says she "loves" it, and describes it as "very comfortable but very hard." Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Illustration: Gordon Studer



 

Post a Comment

Your Name: 

Your Comment: 
 
Please press "Submit" only once to avoid double-posting.
All HTML formatting is removed from comments.
Read the Mother Jones community rules here.

Comments:

Hey Lib's,

What is it with people and wanting to blame everything on someone else..? I have NEVER heard of anyone getting sick from there mattress. It seems that everyone wants to find SOMETHING, ANYTHING to be the victim of..? Here is a story fo two Lesbo's with Chemical Sensativity, and you want us to feel SORRY for them..? HAHAHAHA...
Get a man, and maybe he can cure you of all yoru troubles..

BIll
Posted by:BIll NighMarch 27, 2008 10:49:18 AMRespond ^
Re: Bill Nigh
Wow, way to be intolerant. Your statements reek of ignorance. Is everything untrue if you've never heard it before?

Thank you Mother Jones for reporting on issues that don't always make it to mass-media. Sofa's are notorious for carcinogenic fire-retardants too. These days just about everything is awash in harmful chemicals.
Posted by:Robbin BanksMarch 27, 2008 11:29:38 AMRespond ^
Robin,

I am not intolerant, just speak the truth. You qualify intolerant as, anything that differes from your narrow, socialist opinion. And no, i don't think something doesn't exists just because i haven't heard of it, but it just seems strange that MILLIONS of people have been sleeping on mattresses for generations, and now you have "Chemical Sensativity", and you choose to highlight it with Lesbo's and not June And Ward Cleaver... Don't you think you might get more sympathy from the REAL american families if you used a NORMAL couple to highlight your issue..?

BIll
Posted by:Bill NighMarch 27, 2008 12:55:18 PMRespond ^
Wow MJ! Are you tracking more than my mouse clicks? I just bought a mattress on the internet. No we didn't go for memory foam - we went for natural latex, coconut and cotton, though the horsehair and hemp options were tempting. It wasn't cheap but why skrimp on something you rub your nose into 6 to 8 hours a day.
Posted by:o'scrodMarch 27, 2008 3:11:30 PMRespond ^
Go to hell billy and bring your chemical mattress with you
Posted by:JesusMarch 27, 2008 4:41:14 PMRespond ^
Mother Jones staff - why don't you have a button to flag spam and hate speech in your comments section? I am getting tired of adds for that people with herpes dating site and ignorant crap from guys like "Bill Nigh".

Check the statistics, Bill. REAL American families aren't all made up of Ma, Pa, and 2.5 kids anymore. While I do agree that we've developed a culture of victimization, you seem to be playing into it by suggesting that people who are different from you are somehow threatening your "normal" way of life.
Posted by:CarrieMarch 27, 2008 10:16:42 PMRespond ^
As a scientist (and chemist, no less), I hate articles like this. According to the article, mattresses emit 61 chemicals. Which ones? In what quantities? With current gas chromatography / mass spec methods you can take airspace samples and find parts per trillion of chemicals these days. A part per trillion isn't exactly a lot. What I'm saying is, if you want to sensationalize something, at least provide some quantitative data.

Because really, most chemicals aren't evil. You'd be surprised at the sorts of stuff emitted by flowers, fruits, and vegetables, the chemicals that give them their characteristic smells and tastes. Lots of smells are due to benzene derivatives - vanilla (vanillin) and cinnamon (ethyl cinnamate) immediately come to mind. Lots of others are due to a class of compounds called terpenes - lavender, rose, mint, pine, musk, etc. Most of these are relatively poisonous - some are deterents to keep animals or insects from eating them. I could go on but it's late and my flavor chemistry books are in lab. Heck, I once unintentionally made an ester that smelled exactly like green apple - delicious. Anyways, the point is, most of these compounds are, in large quantity, poisonous, and sure, they might make you pretty sick - if you drank a whole glass. But at daily exposure levels, I'm more worried about eating undercooked meat and driving a car.

Walnut trees (genus Juglans) exude a chemical called juglone that inhibit other plants in the vicinity, minimizing competition. Red ant bites hurt so much because they secrete formic acid (hence the ant family name, Formicidae). Speaking of acids, vinegar is just a dilute solution of acetic acid. And capric and caproic acid smell like goats (genus Capra).
Posted by:JMarch 27, 2008 10:17:09 PMRespond ^
Hey J,

Thank You VERY MUCH..!!! I am so tired of people spouting fourth JUNK SCIENCE and so many in the Liberal community beleiveing ANYTHING that sounds like they are victims of the Corporate MAN..!! It is refreshing to hear a REAL chemist...:-) Maybe you can post more often and tamp down all this hysterical crap.

Bill..
Posted by:BIll NighMarch 28, 2008 8:04:28 AMRespond ^
Carrie,

HATE speech...? Are you off your rocker..? Saying Lesbo is not more hate speech than when a gay person calls me a "Breeder"..!! Pointing out someones proclivities is not hate speech.
This is a real problem, you think that saying a word that you don't agree with is hate speech, SORRY..!!! It doesnt work that way, This is still america, and i think the Constitution still gives protections to us Breeders, not just the other group that you think is sooooo special.

BIll
Posted by:Bill NighMarch 28, 2008 8:10:59 AMRespond ^
J - I agree those 61 chemicals seem more like a scare tactic, but that shouldn't stand in the way of being aware of the specifics in this article. The article lists the following chemicals in mattresses: formaldahyde, benzene, naphthalene, PBDE, and antimony oxide. Admittedly, the article doesn't get into how much of any of these is in a mattress and whether those quantities are likely to be harmful, but all are known carcinogens. Sure, maybe we don't know enough to all run out and buy new mattresses, but that doesn't mean that we should dismiss all knowledge of carcinogens in our mattresses as junk science.
Posted by:RMarch 28, 2008 12:47:06 PMRespond ^
Just another way for them to kill us in our sleep....
Posted by:NancyMarch 28, 2008 2:14:23 PMRespond ^
I tend to agree with J the chemist and Mr. Bill. Too often it's all or none thinking. Today it's chemicals in mattresses that are killing you. Tomorrow it's the natural pollens that are doing it. I'm for knowing what's in the products we eat and sleep on, but the minute amounts have more value than not for most of us. Sure, fresh organic food is better than processed food...but Nitrates prevent Botchilism and other nasties, which is the reason why the FDA allowed them in the first place. Some of use don't live close to a slaughter house or organic farm and have to find food where we can get it...and must sleep on mattresses that aren't $1500.
To conclude, I'm glad we're moving toward a more sustainable, cotton and other organics lifestyle as oil prices make these more attractive. In the mean time, lets not try to make people feel like they're going to die if they sleep on a mattress purchased at K-Mart. It's likely there will be some organic fibers that will attract molds that would not be attracted to synthetics.
Posted by:SamMarch 28, 2008 4:01:56 PMRespond ^
Dear Bill,

Please get a dictionary and work on your grammar. It is difficult to not dismiss your ideas when you write or should I say right like an uneducated doofus.
Posted by:Impressed w/GrammarMarch 28, 2008 4:20:10 PMRespond ^
My heart goes out to all conservatives who are sensitive to the chemicals out-gassed by mattresses, carpeting, upholstery, etc: They can't admit to it or seek help for it without being harassed and called "Libs" by fellow conservatives such as Bill Nigh (see below).
Posted by:MsLaurelMarch 28, 2008 4:53:53 PMRespond ^
PS: Remember the water-bed?
Posted by:MsLaurelMarch 28, 2008 5:03:20 PMRespond ^
I don't care what the chemist or Bill Nigh say, I'm going organic next mattress. I work with a Bill Nigh, he's a mean mean guy, but you take one step towards him and he rolls on his back like a puppy!
Posted by:FredMarch 28, 2008 9:21:12 PMRespond ^
I too experienced the putrid smell of "Eau de Tempur-pedic," even waking up with my pjs soaked with it. They say it off-gasses after you break it in, and swear that there's nothing toxic.

Sorry, but I can't just take their word for it if they aren't going to tell me what's in it. We ended up paying a $200 restocking fee that was poorly disclosed upfront (sure, you can bring it back if it doesn't work out for you!)

The fact is that the display models have already off-gassed, so you can't get a good idea of how bad it really smells until you invest a pretty penny. We also bought a $140 pillow that we couldn't return, even though it smelled so bad I couldn't sleep on it.

I dealt with it for 2 weeks thinking I could live with it if it would help my husband's back problems. Well, when he started crawling out of bed in pain after 3 weeks, we decided it wasn't the miracle mattress it purports that it is.
Posted by:LainMarch 28, 2008 10:27:52 PMRespond ^
Evidently your truth-insulation is still performing well, Bill. No need for sunshine here.

Your a troll, Bill. In case you don't know the word, it means someone who posts just to cause trouble. Truth doesn't matter to a troll, nor consistency, nor even logic or sense.

The timer is running on you, Bill. It won't be long, before no one will even bother responding to your rants, because it's becoming more evident by the minute that sense has no sway with you.

My advice to everyone else: cut to the chase. There is no reason to respond to someone who can't see reason.

Bye, Bill.

----
kill your tv.
Posted by:Dan MortensonMarch 29, 2008 1:53:55 AMRespond ^
J:

Yes this article gives incomplete information. It's not an article in a science journal and a long list of chemicals and concentration data would not be appropriate. However the small minority of the audience for whom that level of data would actually be meaningful, can of course do further research if they wish. Or not.

Note however that this article does not come to the conclusion that this is definitely a cause for concern. It makes the point that we don't know, even if you had the list of chemicals and concentrations in front of you, studies don't exist to tell what if any effect long term exposure has.

As to your comments about the off gassing of apples, chestnut trees, vanilla, etc: We don't spend a third of our lives with our faces pressed up against these things breathing their off-gassing. Yes, lots of natural chemicals are harmful in sufficient quantities. Many are harmful in small quantities. We've learned to avoid these. We have thousands of years of experience with natural substances.

The point that pro-chemical types miss when they make their "natural substances are chemicals too" argument is that we don't have anything close to the same historical and cultural experience with the many man-made chemicals that have heedlessly been incorporated into our lives. This is where the natural vs artificial bias is actually very sensible and pragmatic. In fact, our scientific experience with how many substances in the natural world really are harmful, should give us all the more caution with the man made ones.

You're not the first chemist I've come across whose chemicals-are-good bias is downright unscientific.
Posted by:Eric SMarch 29, 2008 1:33:43 PMRespond ^
Eric, your post is excellent! Presenting new ideas and information is a good thing...unless you want to live in a static society. This article, and others like it, are not 'snake oil sales pitch' articles: There are no phone numnbers or hyperlinks to any sites to buy any remedies, books, or subscriptions to magazines or scocieties...just information. The article emphasizes that no studies exist to support any conclusions. I champion the scientific method, but human medical condition cause and effect studies are devilishly difficult...it is next to impossible to account for all the myriad of variables in people's lives (genetics, diet, exercise, smoking, drinking, exposure to chemicals in food, at work, at home, ad infinateum). It is logical to relaize that our bodies have adapted to natural chemical coumpounds over millions of years, and it gives one pause to consider the hundreds of millions of man-made chemicals, compounds, and mixtures that have been placed in our environment. Over the years I have developed reactions to fresh asphalt roofing tar, fresh paint, fresh wallpaper and carpet glues, etc. My sensitivity manifiests itself with varying grades of headaches during and after exposure...and I just retired from 20 years in the USAF...I'm no namby-pamsy crybaby...and I am no longer a brain-dead Republican either...I am an independednt judge of all the evidence before me.
Posted by:Truth SeekerMarch 29, 2008 2:54:19 PMRespond ^
This is unnerving. Why do the solutions to toxicity problems always cost so much? So, thanks Mother Jones for scaring the pants off of me, feeling like I'm poisoning my kids, and then telling me that the solution is out of reach. Just like the prices at Whole Foods.
Posted by:CathyMarch 30, 2008 7:19:41 AMRespond ^
Why not weigh the negatives and compare them with the positives in evaluating Tempurpedic? The chief negatives are a possibility of an allergic reaction or increasing your odds of getting a cancer from three in a thousand to four in a thousand. the chief positive is an extraordinarily comfortable sleep, a sleep that is a delight for people who suffer chronic and severe pain. We choose the mattress because my wife suffers such pain and an organic mattress made from wool and hemp and whatever else cannot offer the possibility for rest that the Tempurpedic can.

Can someone tell me what this discussion has to do with politics? Seems to me a lefty like me can enjoy a foam mattress or not. And the same with a righty. Some folks need to find a hobby...
Posted by:droseraMarch 30, 2008 6:26:38 PMRespond ^
The science can't (and for political and economic reasons) hasn't kept up with the numbers of chemicals we are exposed to in everyday products. We simply can't rely on research that isn't there. The human guinea pigs, that means US, are often the best test. I know a number of people who have had asthma attacks, nausea, dizziness, insomnia, arthritis symptoms, rapid heart rate, etc. from sleeping on a new (synthetic and treated) mattress. Is it so crazy to take such feedback as evidence that we're doing something harmful to ourselves?? It's not just a few people here and there who have had problems. We need to pay attention. Thanks for the article!
Posted by:CWMarch 31, 2008 5:26:40 PMRespond ^
My family in Europe said that all foam (egg cratestyle toppers) mattresses and toppers have been banned for years due to toxic off gassing. Corporate America needs to sell their chemicals that they develop regardless of the effects on the public!
Posted by:TriciaMarch 31, 2008 8:08:09 PMRespond ^
How does one find the contents of mattresses? Would you, or have you, been able to determine the compounds that go into major mattress brands? It would be most helpful if you could put together a comparative chart to indicate the potential level of toxicity these mattresses contain.
Posted by:Linda Gale SampsonApril 2, 2008 11:34:14 AMRespond ^
I find this of some interest. Thank you. It wasn't until this year that I finally realized (having hit puberty some 15 years ago and dealing with odor control off and on since) that it was the content of the fabrics that I wore that strongly affected my body odor! Now, trying to find cotton amidst a world of non-flammable materials is getting more difficult. Personally, I'd rather have a clean-burning cotton on me than a substance that doesn't burn but will messily melt all over a my skin at higher temperatures! And this goes for a matress, too. Feathers, cotton, wool. If it helps, if it was good for 1000's of years, then perhaps...just maybe...it might be just fine for me. I do believe we suffer from temporal arrogance too often as if we are the sole proprietors of knowledge throughout all of history. Seriously, cotton, wool, silk...yeah they've been tested for thousands of years now on human bodies.... polyester, rayon, etc. for what... a hundred years or less? So when it comes to my clothing and sleeping matters (mattress, pillows, blankets), I think I'll take what has 1000s of years of anecdotal and proven safety/comfort/function.
Posted by:MarkApril 3, 2008 4:00:23 AMRespond ^
Cathy, anything toxic-free and sustainable will have a higher price tag, because it is not subsidized by your tax dollar in the same manner as the poisons found in most products we buy. For a new look at the true "cost" of cheap foods and goods, try reading Michael Pollan's book "The Omnivore's Dilema" or Barbara Kingsolver's "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle". After 40 years of shopping for the cheapest prices I could find, these books opened my eyes to the damage we are doing to ourselves and the planet by demanding the "lowest cost" alternatives. I now truly understand that value cannot be measured only in money and have changed my families buying habits. I will continue to seek knowledge (outside of the mainstream media) in this critical aspect of the human condition. P.S. After struggling for several years to get his cholesterol under control wothout drugs, my husband's LDL is 50 points lower and his HDL is higher since we have gone local/organic!
Posted by:ChrisApril 5, 2008 7:31:32 AMRespond ^
If you'd like a full list of chemicals in mattresses visit. www.essentiadirect.com/research/glues-toxic-components

Essentia is the only company in the world who makes a natural memory foam.
Posted by:Jason WrightApril 8, 2008 9:30:47 AMRespond ^
I am an environmental scientist. I thought the article was pretty lousy, but I have personal experience to share on the subject. My wife and I purchased a Simmons Beautyrest in December. It smelled terrible, but we were assured by the Sleepys salesman that the smell would dissipate. It hasn't after four months, and the odor is nauseating. We had to wash our bedding every few days or it would build up to an intolerable level. I have a terrible sense of smell, and I wake up sick to my stomach. It triggers migraines and heart-racing for my wife. I assure you, this is not over-reaction.

There are some who say that the mattress industry pushed for the legislation to require the flame retardants with the goal of driving out smaller firms who cant afford to retool. These FR chemicals have toxic effects at levels which may be achieved by accumulation in the body due to repeated exposure: antimony, boric acid, formaldahyde and other mutagens.

Check out the latest from the "radical" Bush administration Consumer Product Safety Commission on the subject if you don't believe me:

http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/meetings/mtg08/chemicals11_13.pdf

The real problem is that, in order to protect a relatively small number of idiots who smoke in bed (not you Bill, right?), the new legislation really does potentially put millions of people at risk of long-term health problems that will be very difficult to tie to the flame retardants. This lack of common sense is what Bill should be up in arms about.

We are considering organizing a class action lawsuit.


Posted by:MarkApril 12, 2008 3:38:53 PMRespond ^
Mark, last commentor, I am having a similar issue with my mattress. I am having the 2nd one in 2 months picked up for emitting the same horrible odor. I am interested in finding out what these mattresses really contain..both of mine were from the Sealy family. The 2nd one I bought is synthetic latex which is supposed to emit NO fumes and has no flame retardant per se, just a nylon layer that melts..well after all that gibberish, it smells exactly like the Stearns and Foster I ordered and returned in Jan '08. I am totally exhausted and really don't know where to turn to get a mattress that is safe. I have nothing against being involved in a class action suit for misrepresentation and false information reagarding the contents of the mattress.
Then there is also stress, anxiety and insomnia to name a few issues I have had around this humiliating couple of months.
Posted by:GailApril 15, 2008 1:53:21 PMRespond ^
I think that what people are finding objectionable about your comments is that you not only use mildly derogatory terms (lesbo) but you also go on to belittle lesbians by saying that all their problems would be sorted out by a real man (no doubt using yourself as this ideal model). This is both an oversimplification of anyone's life and also laughable since you aren't exactly coming across as a great advertisement for the ideal man. Think about what you write before hitting send. Will it add anything of substance to the discussion or will it simply inflame certain people? Your initial point about people getting into ridiculous frenzies over things that are unlikely to cause any harm was valid - it's just a shame that you then chose to divert everyone's attention in the way that you did.
Posted by:PamApril 15, 2008 4:54:00 PMRespond ^
Dear Mother Jones Staff and the very ignorant Bill Nigh,
I find it utterly disgusting that you would even consider posting Bill's response. It's a shame that in this day and age we still reside amongst these ignorant, ill-informed and prejudiced individuals. Did I forget uneducated? Unfortunately, there are people like him who use a reference tool such as your site as their forum for hatred and some kind of self-serving soapbox. This site is rightfully utilized by people of all backgrounds, regarding a myriad of issues, simply to share their experiences as to assist others. So thanks, Bill, for being the closed minded biggot that you are - I am once again reminded that there is still a lot of change that needs to occur in our society in order to move forward, progress and continue evolving. And, just for the record, I am a married heterosexual who truly hopes that Bill is not a BREEDER, g-d help us all if he is.
Posted by:WhitneyApril 29, 2008 4:25:16 PMRespond ^

Jail.org - Inmate Search
Criminal records, instant public records & people search & current court records. www.jail.org

U.S. Public Records Search
Search County & State Court Records, Criminal records, Vital and Adoption Records www.PublicRecordsInfo.com

Records.com - People Search
Public Records and Background Checks. Instantly Search Criminal Records, Addresses and Court Records www.Records.com

Court Records & County Records
Find Instant Public Records, Criminal Records as Well as County Property Records Search. www.PublicRecordsIndex.com
















bookIN PRINT

CLICK HERE
for more great reading

headphones IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN


This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you.

© 2008 The Foundation for National Progress

About Us   Support Us   Advertise   Ad Policy   Privacy Policy   Contact Us   Subscribe   RSS