H.R. 2567, THE ANTIFREEZE 

BITTERING ACT OF 2005 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 23, 2006 

Serial No. 109-89 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 2006 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

28-658PDF 
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

 Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES W. “CHIP” PICKERING, Mississippi 

 Vice Chairman

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 Ranking Member 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JIM DAVIS, Florida 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BUD ALBRIGHT, Staff Director 

DAVID CAVICKE, General Counsel

REID P. F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

PAUL GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

C.L. “BUTCH” OTTER, Idaho 

SUE MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

 (EX OFFICIO) 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

 Ranking Member 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

 (EX OFFICIO)

(II)
CONTENTS 

Page 

Testimony of: 

Ackerman, Hon. Gary L., Member, U.S. House of Representatives................................. 23 

Willis, Jim, Division Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency................. 27 

Bye, Jeffrey, Vice President, Prestone, Honeywell International, Inc., on behalf of 

Consumer Specialty Products Association .................................................................... 75 

Simms, Patrice L., Senior Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council ............ 81 

Eyrich, Dr. Melinda, Co-owner, Urgent Care Veterinarian Hospital................................. 84 

Bonacquisti, Tom, Director of Water Quality and Production, Fairfax County Water 

Authority, on behalf of America Water Works Association ......................................... 

87 

Amundson, Sarah, Deputy and Legislative Director, Doris Day Animal League ............. 92 

Additional material submitted for the record: 

Eyrich, Dr. Melinda, Co-owner, Urgent Care Veterinarian Hospital, response for the 

record.............................................................................................................................. 115 

Amundson, Sarah, Deputy and Legislative Director, Doris Day Animal League, 

response for the record ................................................................................................... 117 

Simms, Patrice L., Senior Project Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council, 

response for the record ................................................................................................... 125 

Bye, Jeffrey, Vice President, Prestone, Honeywell International, Inc., on behalf of 

Consumer Specialty Products Association, response for the record ............................. 127 

Bonacquisti, Tom, Director of Water Quality and Production, Fairfax County Water 

Authority, on behalf of America Water Works Association, response for the record .. 140 

Willis, Jim, Division Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, response 

for the record .................................................................................................................. 146 

(III) 

(1) 

H.R. 2567, THE ANTIFREEZE 

BITTERING ACT OF 2005 

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

Washington, DC. 

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m., in Room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gillmor 

(chairman) presiding. 

 Members present: Representatives Wilson, Bass, Sullivan, Barton 

(ex officio), Solis, Stupak, Capps, Doyle, Schakowsky, Inslee, Baldwin, 

and Gillmor. 

 Staff present: David McCarthy, Chief Counsel for Energy and 

Environment; Tom Hassenboehler, Counsel; Jerry Couri, Policy 

Coordinator; Billy Harvard, Legislative Clerk; Dick Frandsen, Minority 

Senior Counsel; Lorie Schmidt, Minority Counsel; and Alec Gerlach, 

Minority Research Assistant. 

MR. GILLMOR. The committee will come to order and before the 

Chair recognizes himself, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 

have five legislative days to submit opening statements for the record, 

and hearing no objection, that is so ordered. 

The Chair recognizes himself for the purpose of delivering an 

opening statement. Normally, the hearings we have in this committee 

deal with issues that directly effect human health and the environment. 

Today’s subject matter is geared more toward the questions involved in 

safeguarding animal health and the environment, and whether it is 

appropriate for the Federal government to create a national standard to 

help ease the impacts to interstate commerce by doing so. 

 News reports of pets being poisoned by drinking antifreeze have 

horrified many people and according to the Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry, one of the main constituents of antifreeze, ethylene 

glycol, can significantly damage the kidneys, heart, and nervous system 

of humans, potentially resulting in fatalities, if not immediately treated. 

Concerns that pets or small children could be at such a risk to 

accidentally drinking spilled antifreeze have spurred three States into 

enacting legislation that requires a bittering agent be added to antifreeze 

to discourage both human and pet ingestion. 
2

 In fact, 10 more States are considering requiring bittering agents. 

The nexus between interstate distribution of antifreeze products and 

multiple differing antifreeze recipe requirements in each State gives rise 

to the question of whether Congress should act. The bill that our 

subcommittee will consider today requires engine coolant, or antifreeze, 

that contains more than 10 percent ethylene glycol to include a bittering 

agent known as denatonium benzoate at a minimum, at a level that would 

make the coolant or antifreeze unpalatable to pets or small children. 

 In addition, and of interest to our subcommittee, the bill provides 

environmental liability protection for anyone who was not directly 

responsible for producing the bittering agent and was not grossly 

negligent concerning any environmental damage that may have been 

caused by its release. Some people argue that it is unfair to hold them 

liable for complying to law by adding a bittering agent that they did not 

make. And while I am inclined to be sympathetic to the antifreeze 

makers in this case, I also note that there is nothing in the bill that would 

deflect any liability for the other constituents of antifreeze that may be 

released into the environment and may of themselves cause 

contamination. 

 So I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today, 

and I want to thank them for their time and effort in being with us. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Paul Gillmor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL GILLMOR, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

The Subcommittee will come to order. Before the Chair recognizes himself, the 

Chair would like to ask Unanimous Consent that all members have 5 legislative days to 

submit opening statements for the record. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

In addition, the Chair would like to remind members that under the Standard 

Practices of the Committee, opening statements for the Chairman and Ranking Member 

will be five (5) minutes each and other members of the committee who is seated and 

recognized will be given three (3) minutes. Any member you wishes to waive their right 

to delivering an opening statement will be granted another three (3) minutes during their 

allotted time to ask questions. 

The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the purposes of delivering an 

opening statement. 

Normally, the hearings we have in this committee deal with issues that directly 

affect human health and the environment, today’s subject matter is geared more towards 

the questions involved in safeguarding animal health and the environment and whether it 

is appropriate for the Federal government to create a national standard to help ease the 

impacts to interstate commerce by doing so. 

News reports of pets being poisoned by drinking antifreeze have horrified many 

people. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), 

one of the main constituents of antifreeze, ethylene glycol, can significantly damage the 

kidneys, heart and, nervous systems of humans; potentially resulting, if not immediately 

treated, in fatalities. 
3

Concern that either pets or small children could be at such a risk to accidentally 

drinking spilled antifreeze has spurred three states into enacting legislation requiring that 

a bittering agent be added to antifreeze to discourage any human or pet ingestion. In fact, 

10 states are considering requiring bittering agents in the antifreeze marketed and sold in 

their states. The nexus between interstate distribution of antifreeze products and 

multiple, differing antifreeze recipe requirements in each state begs the questions of 

whether Congress should act. 

 The bill that our committee will consider today requires engine coolant or antifreeze 

that contains more than 10 percent ethylene glycol, to include a bittering agent -- known 

as denatonium benzoate, at a minimum at a level that would make the coolant or 

antifreeze unpalatable to pets or small children. This requirement is closest to New 

Mexico’s state law, but is similar to others. 

In addition, and of most interest to our subcommittee, the bill provides 

environmental liability protection for anyone who was not directly responsible for 

producing the bittering agent. Some people argue that it is unfair to expose antifreeze 

makers to liability for complying. 

Although I have not made up my mind fully about this bill, I am inclined to be 

sympathetic to the antifreeze makers in this case. I note that nothing in the bill would 

deflect any liability for other constituents of antifreeze that may be released into the 

environment and, of themselves, cause contamination. In addition, with the current 

liability scheme in most environmental laws, I would be surprised if an environmental 

regulatory or enforcement agent could not get a regulated release remediated and paid for 

with the full panoply of authorities now available to Federal and state officials. I am 

open, though, to being convinced otherwise. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony from our witnesses today and thank them for 

their time and effort to be with us. 

I now yield back the balance of my time and recognize the Gentlelady from 

California and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mrs. Solis. For 5 minutes for 

the purposes of delivering an opening statement. 

 MR. GILLMOR. And I yield back the balance of my time and I 

recognize the Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Mrs. Solis. 

 MS. SOLIS. The yanking member? 

 MR. GILLMOR. The yanking member. 

 MS. SOLIS. Thank you. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Not in California, right? 

 MS. SOLIS. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to 

you all and thank you, Congressman Ackerman, for being here, as well. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses that are going to be joining us and 

providing testimony. But before I address the legislation, I would like to 

comment on a trend which concerns me regarding our subcommittee and 

our committee; specifically, legislation considered in this subcommittee 

over the last six months has consistently preempted the rights of our 

States, particularly when large corporate interests find more protective 

State laws inconvenient. The same legislation has often shielded actors 

from liabilities for environmental contamination, much of which risks 

public health and transfers the burden of cleanup onto our communities. 

 For example, on November 16, 2005, this subcommittee held a 

hearing on concentrated animal feeding operations and superfund laws. 
4

Legislation addressing this issue exempts large corporations like Tyson 

Food from the superfund law. On March 2, 2006, the subcommittee held 

a hearing on H.R. 4591, legislation to implement the Stockholm 

Convention. Just last week the legislation included State preemption 

passed this subcommittee on a party line vote. And today we are 

discussing H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005 which both 

preempts State law and provides liability shield to manufacturers of 

antifreeze, such as Honeywell, from public health and environmental 

damages. 

 I have been a staunch supporter of strong laws to protect our health 

and the wellbeing of our public and animals, and I regularly support 

efforts to achieve goals such as promoting animal welfare and believe the 

intent behind the bill is good; that is why I find the legislative text even 

more troublesome and I am concerned that the solution provided in the 

legislation does not appropriately or adequately address the problem. 

First, I question the ability of DB, that is the denatonium benzoate, to 

protect animals. While I understand the California Integrated Waste 

Management Board concluded that dogs have exhibited some symptoms 

indicating a dislike for DB upon its ingestion, the Animal Poison Control 

Center has reached other conclusions. 

 Back on March 30 of 2004, the Animal Poison Control Center 

concluded that, and I quote, “We are not aware of any well-controlled, 

published scientific research demonstrating that dogs can be consistently 

protected from poisoning through the addition of taste adversive agents 

such as DB.” The Animal Poison Control Center went on to express 

concern that pet owners will have a false sense of security if products 

containing taste adversive substances were marketed as being safer. I 

share their concern. The Consumer Product Safety Commission also 

questions the effectiveness of the bittering agent and wrote that there is 

no evidence that DB or any other possible adversive agent is actually 

effective at limiting the ingestion of consumer products. 

 I believe we need to study the effectiveness of DB, the bittering 

agent which is mandated by the bill. As the Consumer Product Safety 

Commission wrote, “The use of adversives should not be considered for 

regulation until the effectiveness of these substances are actually limiting 

ingestion is demonstrated.” Second, and I am concerned by conflicting 

reports about the impact that this will also have on our environment. 

While the California Integrated Waste Management Board has stated that 

DB readily degrades, several other studies indicate that it is not 

biodegradable. The Environmental Defense includes DB on its list of 

suspected neuro-toxicants and the Congressional Research Service 

concluded that data on toxicity and exposure are too sparse to provide 

sound, scientific basis for assessing the environmental risk of DB. 
5

 Finally, the EPA included in its written testimony that it has not 

conducted a full risk assessment nor is there an available extensive 

database of toxicity or environmental information on this product. Yet, 

even without this information, the bill includes a liability shield to 

protect the manufacturers of antifreeze from cleanup costs, leaving again 

our communities to hold the cost or the bag. Ultimately, I refuse to 

believe that the only viable solution to the problem is one that preempts 

our States, broadly undermines our environmental and public health 

protections, establishes a false sense of security for pet owners, and 

transfers a burden of possible cleanup onto our communities and water 

providers. It is only prudent to have a thorough understanding of the 

effectiveness of the product we will be mandating before requiring its 

inclusion. 

 I encourage my colleagues to look for solutions beyond the 

legislation and I am willing to work with you on that. I would also 

request unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter by Governor 

Bill Richardson of New Mexico wherein on May 22nd he states his 

opposition to this bill. I yield back the balance of my time. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Hilda Solis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Good afternoon. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for joining us today and recognize our colleague, 

the Honorable Gary Ackerman, who will be joining us. 

Before I address this legislation, I would like to comment on a trend which concerns 

me. 

Specifically, legislation considered in this Subcommittee over the last six months 

has consistently preempted the rights of our states, particularly when large corporate 

interests find more protective State laws inconvenient. 

The same legislation has often shielded actors from liability for environmental 

contamination, much of which risks public health and transfers the burden of cleanup 

onto our communities. 

For example, on November 16, 2005, this Subcommittee held a hearing on 

concentrated animal feeding operations and Superfund laws. 

The legislation addressing this issue exempts large corporations like Tysons Food 

from the Superfund law. 

On March 2, 2006, this Subcommittee held a hearing on H.R. 4591, legislation to 

implement the Stockholm Convention. 

Just last week this legislation – including state preemption – passed this 

Subcommittee on a party line vote. 

And today, we discussing H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005, which 

both preempts states laws AND provides a liability shield to manufacturers of antifreeze 

– such as Honeywell – from public health and environmental damages. 

I have long been a staunch supporter of strong laws to protect the health and wellbeing of people and animals. 

I regularly support efforts to achieve goals such as promoting animal welfare and 

believe the intent behind this bill is good. 
6

That is why I find the legislative text even more troublesome. 

I am concerned that the solution provided in this legislation does not appropriately 

or adequately address the problem. 

First, I question the ability of denatonium benzoate [DB] to protect animals. 

While I understand the California Integrate Waste Management Board concluded 

that dogs have exhibited some symptoms indicating dislike of DB upon its ingestion, the 

Animal Poison Control Center has reached other conclusions. 

On March 30, 2004, the Animal Poison Control Center concluded that “we are not 

aware of any well-controlled published scientific research demonstrating that dogs can be 

consistently protected from poisoning through the addition of taste aversive agents 

including DB.” 

The Animal Poison Control Center went on to express concern that “pet owners will 

have a false sense of security if products containing taste aversive substances were 

marketed as ‘safer’.” 

I share their concern. 

The Consumer Product Safety Commission also questions the effectiveness of this 

bittering agent and wrote that “there is no evidence that denatonium benzoate or any 

other possible aversive agent is actually effective at limiting ingestions of consumer 

products.” 

I believe we need a study the effectiveness of denatonium benzoate, the bittering 

agent which is mandated by this bill. 

As the Consumer Product Safety Commission wrote “the use of aversives should not 

be considered for regulation until the effectiveness of these substances to limit ingestion 

is demonstrated.” 

Second, I am concerned by conflicting reports about the impact of DB on the 

environment. 

While the California Integrate Waste Management Board has stated that DB readily 

degrades, several other studies indicate that it does not biodegrade like ethylene glycol. 

Environmental Defense includes DB on its list of suspected neurotoxicants and the 

Congressional Research Service concluded that data on toxicity and exposure are too 

sparse to provide a sound scientific basis for assessing the environment risk of DB. 

Finally, the EPA included in its written testimony that it has “not conducted a full 

risk assessment, nor is there available an extensive database of toxicity or environmental 

fate information on DB.” 

Yet, even without this information, H.R. 2567 includes a liability shield to protect 

the manufacturers of antifreeze from cleanup costs – leaving our communities holding the 

bag. 

Ultimately, I refuse to believe that the only viable solution to this problem is one 

that preempts our states, broadly undermines our environmental and public health 

protections, establishes a false sense of security for pet owners, and transfers burden of 

possible cleanup to our communities and water providers. 

It is only prudent to have a thorough understanding of the effectiveness of the 

product we would be mandating before requiring its inclusion broadly. 

I encourage my colleagues to look for solutions beyond this legislation and am 

willing to work with them to achieve that. 

Thank you again for being here. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Is there objection to including the letter from 

Governor Richardson? The gentlelady from New Mexico. 
7

 MRS. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I would 

also like to include the Governor’s letter of April 17th supporting this bill 

in the record. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Did he support it before or after he opposed it? 

 MRS. WILSON. I think he opposed it after he supported it. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Oh. 

 MRS. WILSON. With the consent of the gentlewoman from 

California, why don’t we just put both letters into the record and let the 

public decide what the Governor of New Mexico supports? 

 MS. SOLIS. That would be fine. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Without objection, hearing none, both letters from 

the Governor from New Mexico will be included in the record. 

 [The information follows:] 
8
9

MR. GILLMOR. Are there further opening statements? The 

gentlelady, Mrs. Wilson. Well, let me first go to--I didn’t notice that our 

Chairman of the full committee had come in. We will go to Mr. Barton 

first. 

 CHAIRMAN BARTON. I am happy to defer to the sponsor of the bill, I 

think. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. Thank 

you, Mr. Ackerman, for being here. I am interested to see what you are 
10

going to do with the props in front of you; which of those you are going 

to drink and which you are not going to drink. 

We are here to discuss H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 

2005. This bill would amend the Federal Hazardous Substance Control 

Act to require engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a bittering agent 

to protect from the accidental poisoning of children and animals. I 

understand that the Consumer Product Safety Commission believes that 

adversive agents can help prevent accidental poisoning in the home. I 

am also told that denatonium benzoate, or DB, the agent that is the 

subject of this legislation, has been present in many household products 

for years. Several States, including New Mexico, California, and Oregon 

require it or something like it to be in antifreeze and engine coolants. 

 As we think about whether the Federal government should create a 

national standard to ease the impact on interstate commerce and to mirror 

the success that States have had in preventing poisoning, I am interested 

in learning more about how these State programs really work to protect 

children and animals. I hope our witnesses today can also shed some 

light on the concerns of the others over the inclusion of limited liability 

protection for the manufacturers and distributors of engine coolant and 

antifreeze, who would be subject to this mandate. I want to thank the 

subcommittee Chairman for holding this hearing and look forward to it. 

Hopefully, we can get a consensus that would enable us to have a 

markup and move the bill. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Joe Barton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOE BARTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY 

AND COMMERCE

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on HR 2567, the Antifreeze 

Bittering Act of 2005, a bill that amends the Federal Hazardous Substances Control Act 

to require engine coolant and antifreeze to contain a bittering agent to protect from the 

accidental poisoning of children and animals. 

I understand that the Consumer Product Safety Commission believes that “aversive” 

agents can help prevent accidental poisoning in the home. I am also told that denatonium 

benzoate, or DB, the agent that is the subject of this legislation, has been present in many 

household products for years. Several states, including New Mexico, California, and 

Oregon, require it, or something like it, to be in antifreeze and engine coolants. 

However, as we think about whether the Federal government should create a 

national standard to ease the impact on interstate commerce and to mirror the success 

states have had in preventing poisoning, I am interested in learning more about how these 

state programs really work to protect children and animals. I hope the witnesses today 

can also shed some light on the concerns of others over the inclusion of limited liability 

protection for the manufacturers and distributors of engine coolant and antifreeze who 

would be subject to this mandate. I thank all the witnesses before the Subcommittee 

today and return the balance of my time. 
11

 MR. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak; he is not 

here. The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps. 

 MS. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this 

subcommittee’s effort to protect children and animals from the dangers 

of ingesting antifreeze, a goal, I believe, we all support wholeheartedly 

and I appreciate the honorable colleague of ours, Gary Ackerman, for 

being here as our first panelist. I commend him and the bill supporters 

for trying to find a solution to a tragic problem. 

 I now have three principal concerns with H.R. 2567 as it is currently 

written. These have been stated in part already, so I will be brief, but I 

believe first we need to learn more about the possible impact of 

denatonium benzoate or DB on human health and the environment before 

its widespread use is mandated. The scientific evidence on the effects of 

DB is limited and what is known suggests that more study is warranted. 

For example, some studies have shown DB persists in the environment 

and can spread throughout the water and the Congressional Research 

Service has reported, and I quote, “Few studies have been conducted to 

assess the effectiveness of denatonium benzoate in discouraging tasting, 

swallowing or otherwise repelling wildlife, pets or children.” And the 

Consumer Product Safety Commission has concluded, and I quote, 

“There is no evidence that DB or any other possible adversive agent is 

actually effective at limiting ingestion of consumer products.” 

 Second, the bill provides, and this is the difficult one for my State, 

which has its own provisions, this bill provides a provision that preempts 

States from regulating antifreeze bitterants unless they are identical to 

H.R. 2657. I don’t think we should make it harder for States to protect 

the health and safety of their residents. And finally, the bill waives all 

forms of liability for companies making or handling DB, even if the use 

of this chemical causes environmental damage, personal injury or even 

death. This waiver would apply even if children or animals are injured 

or killed by DB, jeopardizing the very people or pets the bill purports to 

protect. 

 We shouldn’t limit liability for any product that could cause health or 

environmental harm, eliminate manufacturers’ incentives to create safer 

products, or shift cleanup costs away from responsible parties. Mr. 

Chairman, the implications of the use of DB and the future effects of a 

liability waiver must be the subject of many more hearings, in my 

opinion, before this bill moves further. That doesn’t mean it is not a 

worthwhile goal, and I do look forward to working with you, to working 

with Gary Ackerman, to working with the sponsors of the bill to make, 

as well as the many supporters, to pass as strong a bill as we can that 

makes antifreeze a safer product. I yield back. 

 MR. GILLMOR. The gentlelady from New Mexico. 
12

 MRS. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding 

this hearing. I particularly wanted to thank Gary Ackerman from New 

York for your leadership on this issue, along with Mr. Rohrabacher from 

California. You have been real supporters and advocates for changing 

some of the rules to take what is a very hazardous substance and make it 

less attractive to both children and to animals. I also wanted to thank and 

to introduce Dr. Melinda Eyrich, who is here from Albuquerque. She is 

a veterinarian and has been a veterinarian for 15 years in practice in New 

Mexico and 7 years as an emergency veterinarian and we thank you for 

being here, Dr. Eyrich. 

 This is a bipartisan bill and over the last 2 Congresses, 19 Democrats 

have, at one time or another, sponsored this piece of legislation for a very 

good reason. In the last year alone, 74 poisonings have happened in the 

State of New Mexico of children from drinking antifreeze and thousands 

of animals have been injured or killed from drinking antifreeze. The 

State of New Mexico passed a law in March of 2005; it was enacted in 

July of 2005 and this legislation is identical to the law that was passed in 

New Mexico. So what is this bitterest substance known to man that this 

legislation will require be put into antifreeze? It is a substance called 

DB. I am not even going to try to correctly pronounce its chemical 

name. 

 But it was approved by the FDA in 1963. We have 40 years of 

experience with this particular compound being added to consumer 

products to make them bitter, mostly so that children won’t eat them; nail 

polish, hair spray, crayons, bubble bath, shampoo, eye shadow, ink, hand 

sanitizer, windshield wash, laundry detergent, fabric softener, perfume 

all have DB in it so that children won’t eat it because it is too bitter. That 

is what we are asking this legislation to add to antifreeze. 

 The United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, and France all have similar 

laws and it would cost three cents on the gallon. There is an unusually 

broad group of supporters of this legislation; the Humane Society, the 

antifreeze manufacturers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the 

American Veterinary Medical Association, and others, and for very good 

reason. This is a product that is very attractive to children and to animals 

and we need to require that enhanced safety be put in place. 

 I would all also note, with respect to safety, it took 17 years to be 

able to scientifically prove that putting safety caps on medicines and 

household chemicals helped keep children safe. We don’t need to wait 

17 years to see if this will work for antifreeze. We need to take safety 

precautions so that children are less likely to drink antifreeze and animals 

aren’t, either. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Heather Wilson follows:] 
13

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. HEATHER WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this hearing today on the 

Antifreeze Bitterant Act, H.R. 2567. I would also like to introduce one of the witnesses 

today on the third panel, Dr. Melinda Eyrich. Dr. Eyrich is from Albuquerque, New 

Mexico, and has been a veterinarian for 15 years. I would like to welcome Dr. Eyrich 

and I look forward to her testimony and the testimony of all the witnesses. 

Antifreeze poisoning is a real danger. Because antifreeze tastes and smells sweet, it 

is ingested by children and pets. Last year 74 people in New Mexico were poisoned by 

antifreeze, and many more animals were poisoned, with several animal deaths. Losing a 

pet is not an easy thing. Just ask anyone who has lost their pet. Lisa Hecker of New 

Mexico lost her dog when someone put dog food swimming in antifreeze out in the 

arroyo next to the road where they live in September 2004. Nine dogs and 2 cats were 

killed by antifreeze poisoning in her neighborhood within a two week period. But we can 

do something to stop these poisonings, whether they are intentional or accidental. 

The City of Albuquerque passed a law in 2004 to include the bittering agent 

denatonium benzoate in antifreeze, and the State of New Mexico followed suit in 2005. 

Denatonium benzoate is also a required additive to make antifreeze bitter in the UK, 

Japan, Australia, and France. The United States should follow suit. 

Making antifreeze bitter only costs about 3 cents per gallon. This seems like a small 

price to pay to keep our children and our pets safe. Frankly, I don’t see how anyone 

could oppose this legislation. 

MR. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Michigan. 

 MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be in and out of this 

hearing, so I am going to pass on my opening statement. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Mr. Doyle. 

 MR. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

holding this hearing so that this committee can fully investigate the effect 

that H.R. 2567 will have on our families, our environment and the 

antifreeze industry itself. At a time when far too many bills skip all or 

part of this committee’s legislative process, Mr. Chairman, I want to 

applaud you for allowing us to fully vet this bill through normal order. I 

am a cosponsor of this bill, and I am a long-time supporter of efforts to 

protect our pets from harm, be it from physical abuse or accidental 

means, such as which result from their consumption of antifreeze. 

Consequently, I fully support adding a bittering agent to antifreeze and 

think it is long overdue. However, I have some concerns with the 

mandate that one specific bittering agent must be used in order to make 

antifreeze less appealing to our pets and small children. 

 I believe we can achieve our goal of making antifreeze distasteful to 

our pets without potentially creating a new threat to the environment. As 

many of our witnesses will testify today, we simply do not know what 

effects Bitrex may have if released into our environment through a spill. 

Since its been described as the most bitter substance we could possibly 

add to antifreeze, the danger of a spill and a contamination of any local 

drinking water is a real concern and something that needs further 
14

examination. Because we don’t know what dangers this bittering agent 

may or may not pose to our environment and our health, I support the 

liability protection waivers of this legislation because I find it a bit 

irresponsible that this committee and this Congress would mandate that a 

company must include it in their product without giving that company 

some protections against being sued if the bittering agent does, in fact, 

end up causing widespread damage. 

 Don’t get me wrong. I generally do not support blanket liability 

waivers for any industry and believe strongly that if you are the one who 

pollutes, you are the one who should pay for the cleanup. However, in 

this particular circumstance, industry is being ordered to include a 

specific substance in their product when neither I nor you nor any of the 

experts in this room can tell for certain that the substance is safe. That 

would sort of be like ordering a shower maker to add an electrical unit to 

its product in the name of making it more energy efficient without any 

testing whether the electrical unit posed any risk of electrocution. 

 Simply put, Mr. Chairman, until we know for certain what risk 

Bitrex poses, I must support the waiver of liability provisions contained 

in this legislation. In conclusion, I fully support the intention of this 

legislation. I hope that we can work together to answer the questions that 

Bitrex poses. I know that we can find a way to make antifreeze less 

appealing to children and pets while simultaneously protecting our 

environment and I look forward to working with you to achieve this goal. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

 MR. GILLMOR. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from 

Illinois. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Chairman Gillmor and Ranking 

Member Solis, for holding today’s hearing on antifreeze products. I am 

concerned that what was a bill that would protect both children and pets 

from consuming deadly antifreeze is now a bill that will shield the 

chemical industry from willful misconduct and preempt strong State 

laws. I want to say from the outset that I have been a strong supporter of 

this legislation. I was a cosponsor in the last Congress of the Antifreeze 

Bittering Act along with 132 others. I wouldn’t cede ground to anyone 

in my support for animals and the Humane Society and the Doris Day 

Animal League and the veterinarian that we will hear from. I am sure I 

am going to agree with you on everything, but we need to, in my view, 

collect more evidence to analyze the environmental impact and adverse 

effects of DB before legislating on this issue. 

 The problem before the subcommittee is clear. Ethylene glycol, in 

which the antifreeze most commonly used in the United States, is 

registered by the EPA as a toxic substance and is ingested by thousands 

of children and pets each year. That is indisputable. The solution, 
15

however, is somewhat less clear. Ethylene glycol isn’t the only type of 

antifreeze on the market in the United States. We should consider 

whether promoting a safer version of antifreeze based on propylene 

glycol is a viable option. And while a number of studies indicate that 

DB has a bittering effect that deters both pets and humans from 

consuming it, its environmental impact remains unclear. We may 

discover alternative bittering agents that would both have a taste 

adversive effect and have no demonstrable impact on the environment. 

 The problem with this bill, first it expands the liability waiver to 

include environmental damage, even though some research suggests that 

DB is not biodegradable and could contaminate drinking water, 

eliminates the willful misconduct exception that was included in the 

previous versions of the legislation, mandates the use of DB as the 

bittering agent. It preempts stronger State laws like those in California 

and Oregon, which would allow the use of adversive agents other than 

DB, allowing science not speculation to dictate the best option. 

 I know that the chemical industry has reversed its position on this 

issue since it was considered in 2004. At that time, the Consumer 

Specialty Products Association argued “There is no credible scientific 

evidence showing that the inclusion of bitterants in antifreeze has 

resulted in a reduction in incidents of accidental poison.” The CPSA 

submitted a number of studies to the Library of Congress to document 

the inconclusiveness of that science. But now that the liability waiver 

has been broadened to include environmental damage and eliminated the 

exception for willful misconduct, the industry is here today testifying in 

support of the legislation. 

 My view is that before passing a bill that wipes out some consumer 

and environmental protections and preempts State laws, that we have to 

ensure that we are acting based on conclusive science in support of a 

solution that will protect our children, our pets, and the environment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. GILLMOR. The gentlelady from Wisconsin. 

 MS. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today’s hearing is an 

important one. I share the concerns raised by my colleagues about the 

dangers of ingesting engine coolant and antifreeze products. Last 

Congress I was pleased to cosponsor the antifreeze bittering legislation. 

Last session’s bill provided a balanced approach to protect our children, 

animals, and our environment. It would have held liable those parties 

responsible for environmental damage or those liable for willful 

misconduct. And it would also have allowed States to protect the safety 

of their citizens by establishing their own standards for the use of 

antifreeze. But this Congress, the bill is different. 
16

 Mr. Chairman, I thought long and hard about this measure and my 

co-sponsorship of it and despite supporting last session’s bill and 

certainly the intent behind the bill before us this session, I concluded that 

the language in this version would simply cause more harm than good. 

Specifically, I am concerned about the strict requirement that denatonium 

benzoate be used as the bittering agent, despite the lack of sufficient 

evidence providing that DB is safe for the environment. In studies 

sponsored by antifreeze manufacturers, evidence shows that DB does not 

biodegrade, resulting in its being passed through to our water treatment 

plants. Further, studies show that DB can accumulate in the groundwater 

resulting in the contamination of area wells. 

 In all, the science is just not behind DB, at least it is not behind DB 

to the extent that we should mandate its use, exempt manufacturers from 

liability, and cross our fingers and hope that our environment will not 

suffer. Valid concerns about the State preemption provision were also 

brought to my attention. States should have the ability to determine the 

appropriate means for protecting their citizens, just as our longstanding 

environmental laws explicitly allow them to do. 

 Finally, I am troubled that antifreeze manufacturers get a free pass 

from any damages their products cause to the environment. It seems like 

just yesterday when we refused to exempt MTBE manufacturers from 

liability during the Energy Policy Act debate, that we should apply the 

same logic here today. Antifreeze manufacturers, producers and 

distributors should be held liable for spills or other damages caused by 

their ordinary use, negligence or willful misconduct. Broad legal 

immunity fails to protect our citizens and our environment. 

 Mr. Chairman, in all there are better ways for us to make antifreeze 

into a safer product for children and animals. No one wants to see them 

harmed from ingested antifreeze. But we are setting a bad precedent by 

closing the courthouse doors, preventing States from taking action, and 

mandating the use of the product when we are not quite sure about all the 

risks. I look forward to hearing about how we can find a more balanced 

approach to protecting the safety of our children and animals while also 

protecting our environment and the rights of the citizens and our States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Are there further opening statements? If not, we will 

turn the chair to Mr. Ackerman. 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLES F. BASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you Chairman Gillmor for holding this hearing today about the proposed 

legislation to federally mandate the addition of an aversive agent in antifreeze. Sadly, 
17

every year children and animals become ill from the unintentional -and sometimes 

intentional poisoning - from drinking this commonly available toxic substance. 

Especially coming from the Northeast, it is not uncommon for households to have a 

gallon of antifreeze stored in their garage. Over the years, the industry has taken 

significant steps in preventing unintentional poisoning by including foil seals and safety 

caps on their products to prevent children and animals from getting a hold of this highly 

toxic product. Unfortunately, human error and just the simple nature of the substance 

being in the environment, there are still a significant number of cases of children and 

animals becoming extremely ill and in some extreme circumstances dying from kidney 

failure each year. 

Several states have passed legislation to require the inclusion of bittering agents to 

antifreeze. Bittering agents has been found to be successful in preventing the 

consumption of toxic but sweet tasting chemicals. Currently, there are several additional 

states considering implementing similar legislation. However, due to our increasing 

mobile society which carries this substance daily across state lines and that the 

distribution of antifreeze is an interstate commerce issue, it is clear that Congress needs 

to consider federal regulations on the inclusion of bittering agent -denatonium benzoate

(DP) - in antifreeze. It is impractical to have a patchwork of 50 different regulations on 

antifreeze. Additionally, it is important to note that DP has been used for years in other 

products as a bittering agent. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms 

requires that industrial alcohol products contain a bittering agent and is specifically used 

in deodorants, shampoos, soaps, room deodorizers, and disinfectants. 

In testimony submitted by Mr. Tom Bonazquisti, the Director of Water Quality and 

Production, the water treatment industry expresses concerns over the use of DB in antifreeze and its possible environmental and health impact it would have if the substance 

escapes into the environment and possibly into our water systems. However, I hope Mr. 

Bonzaquisti will take a moment to comment on what type of impact DB has had since it 

is found in many common household products since 1963 and is regularly released into 

our water sewer systems. If DB does cause a potential environmental hazard, I think then 

the issue should be addressed by this Committee is whether we continual use bittering 

agent in household products. 

Currently, H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act is pending before this Committee. 

This legislation is a bipartisan effort that has been part of ongoing discussions between 

chemical industry and environmental groups. The Senate has recently marked up the 

companion bill and added language regarding a study to ensure that DB or alternative 

bittering agents have no adverse affect on the environment. Due to its long use in 

common household products and its use in three states, there should be significant 

amount of data that can be looked at to make a determination. I hope that the witnesses 

will discuss their take of the changes made in the Senate. 

The addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze will assist in preventing the 

unnecessary death of wildlife and family pets. This legislation appears to be a 

commonsense strategy toward this goal and has developed out of discussions between the 

various stakeholders. I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses and thank them 

for coming before the Subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. Chairman, today the Subcommittee is holding a hearing on H.R. 2567, the 

Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005, a bill that amends the Federal Hazardous Substances 

Act to require that a bittering agent, denatonium benzoate, be added to antifreeze sold 

commercially. The hearing today provides the opportunity to begin the process of 
18

answering some very necessary questions about this legislation. Let me highlight a few 

of them: 

• Why have the manufacturers of denatonium benzoate declined to provide scientific 

data on the environmental fate and environmental toxicology of denatonium 

benzoate? 

• Do we have full toxicological, exposure, and risk evaluations on the bitterant 

denatonium benzoate or other bittering agents before us and available for Congress 

and the public to review? 

• Should the Congress be mandating a market for a product, denatonium benzoate, 

that is manufactured almost exclusively in other countries? 

• What scientific evidence shows that the inclusion of bitterants in automotive 

products has resulted in a reduction in incidents of accidental poisoning? 

• Has the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviewed the numerous scientific 

studies about denatonium benzoate? Has the EPA rendered a conclusion as to 

whether it is safe if released in the environment? 

• Should Congress provide broad legal immunity for the use of denatonium benzoate, 

including a liability exemption from the Superfund statute? 

• Should we consider other options, such as the use of propylene glycol, as an 

alternative to ethylene glycol? 

• Should we reverse 30 years of precedent in our pollution statutes by preempting 

State laws that may adopt more effective aversive agents or allow the use of 

aversive agents that are less harmful to the environment, or by preempting laws that 

maintain liability for environmentally harmful releases? 

Mr. Chairman, while the goal of this legislation is worthy, we need answers to these 

questions before we proceed, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

As a strong supporter of animal rights, I recognize the need to protect our children, 

pets, and wild animals from the accidental ingestion of ethylene glycol, the main 

ingredient in automobile antifreeze. 

Still, I have serious concerns about whether H.R. 2567 as written will actually 

prevent unnecessary ingestion. I also have concerns about changes in this bill from its 

original form in the 108th Congress, when it was introduced as H.R. 1563 and had 

widespread support from members including myself. 

First is the requirement in the new bill to mandate the use of denatonium benzoate, 

or DB, as the bittering agent -- and not allow the use of other agents. Scientific evidence 

at this point is inconclusive as to whether DB will prevent or inhibit ingestion and on 

whether the widespread use of DB is environmentally safe. 

Furthermore, mandating the specific levels of DB to be used appears to me to be 

micromanagement of the worse kind. The result would likely be that we effectively 

prevent the development and use of other, possibly safer, antifreeze solutions or bittering 

agents. 

I am also concerned that the bill selects a bittering agent made by only four 

manufacturers, none of which are in the United States. 

These manufacturers have not released full data on the composition of their DB 

products despite being requested to do so. While this may be their right, our obligation as 

policymakers is to ensure that DB is safe and effective before mandating its use in the 

United States. 
19

EPA will testify today that there is just not enough information to make a decision 

on the safety of releasing DB into the environment. We need additional time to gain the 

information necessary to understand what we are potentially going to release into our 

environment and could harm the same people and pets that we are seeking to protect. 

I also cannot support legislation that would require the use of an agent of unknown 

composition and then release the companies who use it from any liability. Dating back to 

the debate over MTBE and other substances, there is a disturbing trend in Congress 

towards giving companies a free pass from pollution. Ultimately, the American people 

end up paying the bill when a liability waiver covers a chemical that turns out to have 

serious environmental impacts. 

Finally, I am concerned about the state preemption language in this bill. I strongly 

support the ability of individual states to go beyond federal regulations. New Jersey 

frequently leads the nation in progressive environmental protections, and I cannot support 

any effort to infringe on their right to do so. The bill before us explicitly prohibits states 

from implementing more stringent protections or substituting safer and more effective 

bittering agents. I fail to see how such a restriction is a benefit to the people and pets we 

are seeking to protect. 

I am interested in hearing from the witnesses on these matters, and I hope that we 

are able to fashion some sort of solution to all of the concerns surrounding this 

legislation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NEW YORK 

MR. ACKERMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Gillmor and 

Ranking Member Solis. I listened to everybody’s opening statement. 

Everybody is right. Welcome to the happy hour. Let me tell you a 

couple of things before we talk about accidental poisonings. Orlando, 

Florida; Lake Mary woman faces a charge of attempted murder after 

authorities accused her of giving her husband a glass of antifreeze. 

Marietta, Georgia; Lynn Turner convicted of poisoning her husband with 

antifreeze, sentenced to life in prison. She is also scheduled to go on trial 

for the antifreeze poisoning, subsequently, of her firefighter boyfriend. 

Cambridge, Massachusetts; Kevin Keown, a talk show host, arrested and 

accused of murdering his wife by spiking her Gatorade with antifreeze. 

Belton, Missouri; Michelle Hollis, arrested and charged with first degree 

murder, allegedly killing her husband by poisoning him with antifreeze. 

Albridge, New Jersey; Maryann Neabor, charged with killing her 

brother-in-law, spiking his fruit drink with antifreeze. Kansas City, 

Kansas; Ralph Trout and Donna Ozuna Trout charged with attempted 

murder for trying to kill the mayor and the mayor’s family by sending 

them cupcakes and root beer laced with antifreeze. Omaha, Nebraska; 

Maureen Clamback sentenced to up to 26 years in prison for spiking a 

bottle of strawberry margarita mix with antifreeze, trying to kill her 

sister-in-law. 
20

All this is what we have discovered during the past two years and I 

am sure there is a lot more that we will never know of. And why is this 

becoming the weapon of choice for murder? It is because it tastes so 

sweet. Children taste it, they want more; pets taste it, they lap it up. This 

is what the antifreeze looks like. It looks very much like all of these soft 

drinks and if you want, I will taste each and every one of them. They are 

soft drinks and they taste sweet. I am not going to taste this one. 

 This is that substance that we are all having such great difficulty 

pronouncing. This is DB and it is, we are told, the bitterest agent known 

on earth, worse than sucking a thousand lemons. And two drops of this, 

costing maybe two pennies for the cost plus the manufacture plus the 

mixing it in, two drops of this in the antifreeze per gallon, there you go, 

will now make the antifreeze bitter, very bitter. You may not think its 

bitter; I am not going to taste it. But if you would allow me to just move 

these things out of the way and do what some people would call New 

York’s three card Monty thing, and ask you which one you would prefer 

to drink, I don’t think anybody would play Russian Roulette with these 

stakes. 

 And although maybe one is a little darker than the other, I assure 

you, if we spilled them on your table or in your garage or in your 

driveway, they would all look exactly the same. With one exception; 

that if you tasted any one of them, nothing would happen to you. With 

one exception; if you tasted the one with DB, you would not taste 

anymore, not because of it being unhealthy, the unhealthy part is from 

this; but because of the bitter, extremely bitter taste that it has. 

 Now, the question is this dangerous? This can kill you. It has, and I 

am not even addressing the deliberate killings. We don’t know what that 

amounts to and evidently, there is a spate of them now that people have 

discovered how to do it and how to slip your friend a mickey at a party 

and you know, whatever and them enjoying it. You put this in it, they 

can tell the difference. I am worried more about the 1,400 kids that have 

been poisoned last year. If we wait the 10 years that it takes for other 

things to be decided, that is 14,000 kids are going to be poisoned. Why? 

Because of inaction, because of uncertainty. 

 Well, you may ask and you have in the opening statements of some, 

how do we know about this stuff? How do we know about DB? And 

that concerns me, also. But if you do a little research and see what our 

society is doing right now, those of us who get our nails manicured; yes, 

I am one of them. We just got this down in CVS down the block, at CVS 

drugs, right off the shelf. So you are putting this product, this nail polish 

remover on your nails and then you wash it off and then it goes into the 

water supply. Nobody seems concerned about it. Why? Nobody is 
21

regulating it. Why? Because nobody real, in the scientific industry, 

thinks it is a problem. 

 And if you are grown up and you are saying well, you know, I am 

taking good care of my nails; I probably don’t bite them if I am--another 

product, and I didn’t want to bore you by filling the shelf with household 

items here, but you could just go down and read the labels and find out 

what you have in every store that you go into. This is something that we 

put on the nails of our children and our grandchildren to prevent them 

from biting their nails. Why? Because it has a bittering agent. What is 

the bittering agent? Why, it is DB. 

 Now, why would you put this on the nails of a child that you love if 

you are going to be poisoning him? And the answer is he doesn’t get 

poisoned. He is putting it in his mouth. Well, if he is playing in the 

driveway or in the garage and he puts his hand on the floor, it is not the 

DB that we are worried about, because we are already using it in just 

about half the things that we use, but it is the antifreeze. That is the 

problem. 

 Let me address the two issues that I have heard people express as 

concerns, and the answers really are in the bill, if you read the bill 

carefully and it is not a very long bill. Liability. I don’t want anybody to 

be off the hook. If you are responsible for something dangerous, then 

you are responsible to the fullest extent of the law. But the gentleman is 

right. If you are going to require somebody to put their product in your 

product, you should be responsible for your product; they should be 

responsible for their product. The bill specifically says that. The 

antifreeze manufacturers are answerable in every single way under the 

bill; it is on page 3 under Limitation of Liability, that if you are required 

to put the DB in your antifreeze, you are responsible for everything that 

you voluntarily put in the antifreeze, environmentally and health-wise. 

 And right, that is on line one. If you go down to line two, it says you 

are not being left off the hook. If you go to paragraph three, it says that 

nothing in this bill is construed to keep the manufacturer of DB on that 

slippery slope we are worried about. If you made the DB and there is a 

problem with DB to the environment or to somebody’s health, you are 

responsible for that. Manufacturer A is responsible for A; Manufacturer 

B is responsible for B. If we require A to be inserted in B, that is our 

demand. And the people who are making these things are responsible. 

Nobody gets off the hook. 

 Preemption. And by the way, I didn’t mention it, the issue of 

effectiveness arose. This is the stuff that they put, those of you who are 

fortunate enough to live in areas where there are deer and animals, et 

cetera, this is the stuff that we put DB in the spray on the trunks of our 

trees and on our foliage to keep the deer from eating it. Seems to me that 
22

washes into our soil pretty quick, as soon as it rains and into our aquifers 

and water supplies. We don’t worry about that. Why? Because 

evidently, there is nothing to worry about. 

 The second issue that people brought up as a concern was 

preemption, and I am as interested in preemption as anybody else. But 

States are beginning to act because they are ahead of us in understanding 

the danger both to animals that we all profess to love and our children 

that I know we all love, and the environment that everybody talks so 

much about. States are beginning to act. Three States have done it, eight 

more States are considering it. If every State had different regulations 

you are not going to have manufacturers of anything making 50 different 

products in 50 different States. 

 And besides, even if they did, or even if those three States did, what 

is to prevent this mean New Yorker from driving my mean New York 

car with my terrible antifreeze in it, without a bittering agent into your 

State in California? Are we going to stop every car from every State 

from coming into the three States or whatever amount of States it 

amounts to and make you sign an affidavit that there is no DB because 

your car is going to leak if it is going to leak. And if you think they 

don’t, walk through the parking garage in any of our buildings or the 

parking lots outside where all the staff cars are and just look at the 

ground and see all these liquids there. 

 It is a problem and it is a mobile problem and being that mobile in 

every way. And if we are talking about motor vehicles that go around 

the country, maybe less because of the price of gas, but how do you stop 

this, in one State there is no protection? And the real answer is there 

should be one standard. And if there is one standard that everybody 

sticks to, as long as we can agree on it, and by the way, this isn’t a boon 

to any one company. You know the amount of this that it would take 

annually, is 7,000 gallons, total. This isn’t MTBE where you are talking 

about 82 billion gallons of gasoline stored in cans that are underground 

that are going to leak. This isn’t that material. This is something 

completely different. 

 So I just urge my colleagues, and this has been very confusing and it 

has to do with chemistry and I was never good at chemistry, but I am 

starting to learn a little bit now that I am watching it a little bit more 

closely with respect to this. This is easy to figure out. This is cheap. It 

is a heck of a lot cheaper than the pain and anguish to 14,000 mothers 

and 14,000 fathers and 56,000 grandparents mourning over the poisoning 

of a child. And if we are talking about up to 90,000 dogs and cats, some 

are strangers, some are family members to a lot of people, over 10 years, 

that is 900,000 pets. This is something that we can do something about. 
23

And if we are worried, let us rush to ban all of these household items that 

everybody uses. I thank you for your attention. 

 [The prepared statement of Hon. Gary L. Ackerman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY L. ACKERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Good afternoon. I want to thank Chairman Gillmor and Ranking Member Solis for 

holding this important hearing and allowing me to testify before the subcommittee. 

I’m here for one simple reason: 1,400 children are poisoned by antifreeze every 

year. In addition between 10,000 and 90,000 dogs and cats are poisoned by antifreeze 

ingestion each year. A mere sip or lick of antifreeze can result in agonizing kidney 

failure, respiratory arrest, comas, and death. 

That is why this bill is so important. Unless Congress acts, thousands more children 

and tens of thousands more household pets will unnecessarily suffer horribly, or even die. 

We can prevent all of this suffering for no more than 3 pennies per gallon. 

We all know that cars sometimes leak fluids, including antifreeze, which can puddle 

up in driveways, along curbsides, and in parking lots. Animals are all too eager to lap up 

these sweet-tasting puddles, and children playing outdoors can easily come into contact 

with these puddles and then place their hands in their mouths. In fact, the sweet taste of 

antifreeze may cause these unsuspecting children to return for more of the deadly 

substance. Moreover, dogs have been known to chew the necks of antifreeze containers, 

and curious children may come across the bright colored, sweet tasting substance in a 

garage and mistake it for a juice-drink or other safe beverage. I ask all of you, can you 

tell me which of these glasses contain the safe drinks and which one is filled with toxic 

antifreeze? 

Antifreeze has also become the weapon of choice for intentionally poisoning people 

as well as pets. Its sweet taste makes it all too easy to mix into a deadly cocktail for an 

unsuspecting guest or neighborhood pet. 

The Antifreeze Bittering Act would prevent all of these tragedies by requiring the 

world’s bitterest known substance, denatonium benzoate – which, for ease of use, I will 

refer to as DB from now on – to be added to antifreeze in order to make it unpalatable. 

According to antifreeze producers, the process would be simple to implement and cost 

only two to three pennies per gallon. 

For once, we have a simple solution for a very grave problem, and it has a lot of 

support. The Antifreeze Bittering Act has 61 bipartisan cosponsors and has been 

endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Veterinary Medical 

Association, Doris Day Animal League, The Humane Society of the United States, Pfizer 

Animal Health, the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, the American Humane 

Association, the Pet Food Institute, the Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Consumer 

Specialty Products Association (who represent the antifreeze industry), and Honeywell 

(the leading manufacturer of antifreeze). 

Moreover, the American Medical Association, the American Association of Poison 

Control Centers, the National Safety Council, and the American Journal of Public Health 

all publicly urged the addition of an aversive agent to antifreeze. The U.S. Conference of 

Mayors passed a resolution in 2004 urging Congress to “help cities protect children and 

animals” by passing a bill to require the addition of DB to antifreeze. And, three states – 

Oregon, California, and New Mexico – have already adopted their own laws requiring the 

addition of a bittering agent to antifreeze, while eight others – Maine, Massachusetts, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Washington – currently have 

legislation pending. 
24

Given this unique combination of supporters – animal activists agreeing with the 

industry, pediatricians and veterinarians are on the same page as drug manufacturers, 

republicans standing with democrats – this bill should be headed for the suspension 

calendar. Nevertheless, I do understand that there are some concerns about the bill’s 

language, and I am hopeful that we can work through these differences together. 

There is a misunderstanding that the Antifreeze Bittering Act would set a dangerous 

precedent regarding environmental liability waivers because they think the bill contains 

broad liability waivers that could undermine the “polluter pays” principle. This is simply 

not the case – there are no blanket liability exemptions. Instead, the bill contains a tightly 

drafted provision that establishes assigned liability for the antifreeze and DB industries. 

Since the legislation would require the antifreeze industry to add a substance to their 

product, a substance that they do not produce, the language makes it clear that each 

industry is to be held liable for their own product: the antifreeze industry will be liable for 

antifreeze and the DB industry will be liable for DB. No one gets off the hook. There is 

absolutely no gap in corporate liability and there are no loopholes. 

I also understand that some of you are concerned about the environmental fate of 

DB. DB was first approved for use in the United States in the 1960s, and has been used 

for decades as a bittering agent in hundreds of household cleaning products, cosmetics 

and personal care products, detergents, drain cleaners, paint, pesticides, and even outdoor 

garden sprays. 

To date, DB has demonstrated no significant environmental hazards, whether 

disposed of properly or not, and will not enter the drinking water supply. An analysis by 

the California Integrated Waste Management Board found that DB “readily biodegrades, 

its transport is attenuated [or withheld] by soil, and it is easily treated in sewage treatment 

systems and drinking water systems. The analysis also “determined that the addition of 

[DB] to antifreeze would not lead to any adverse health or environmental effects.” And, 

even if all of the DB analysis turns out to be inaccurate or incomplete, the DB industry 

remains liable for their product. 

We must also remember that ethylene glycol antifreeze is already considered a 

hazardous substance. The EPA warns that dumping antifreeze can cause serious water 

quality problems, as used antifreeze contains lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals. As 

a result, the industry urges consumers to properly dispose of used antifreeze, and the 

addition of DB to antifreeze will certainly not change this fact. 

It’s also important to keep in mind that we are talking about minute amounts of DB. 

It is estimated that only 7,000 gallons of DB can bitter all of the approximately 157 

million gallons of antifreeze covered by the legislation. Let me repeat that – 7,000 

gallons of DB for 158 million gallons of antifreeze. To help put that into perspective, we 

are talking about 1-2 droplets of DB for this 1 gallon container of antifreeze. 

There is also a growing need for Congress to address this issue. As I mentioned 

earlier, states, cities, and even municipalities have already begun the process of enacting 

their own antifreeze bittering laws. Since antifreeze is sold throughout the entire country, 

there is an obvious need for one single federal standard. 

It is my sincere hope that this hearing will help to clear up some of the 

misunderstandings surrounding the Antifreeze Bittering Act, and that we can act quickly 

to prevent further poisonings of children, household pets, and other unsuspecting victims 

who suffer needlessly because they have unintentionally ingested antifreeze. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you, Mr. Ackerman. Questions? Any 

questions for Mr. Ackerman? If not, thank you very much for being 

here. 

 MR. ACKERMAN. I will take this from the table and if anybody 

wants, the drinks are on me later. 
25

 MR. GILLMOR. I call our second panelist. Just don’t drink anything 

that was left there. I ask Jim Willis, the Division Director of the 

Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic 

Substances of U.S. EPA to come forward. Mr. Willis, whenever you are 

ready. 

STATEMENT OF JIM WILLIS, DIVISION DIRECTOR, 

CHEMICAL CONTROL DIVISION, OFFICE OF 

POLLUTION PREVENTION AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

 MR. WILLIS. Thank you. Chairman Gillmor, Ranking Member 

Solis, members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to appear 

before you today. I am Jim Willis. I am director of EPA’s Chemical 

Control Division and it is my division that is responsible for managing 

EPA’s processes for reviewing new and existing chemicals and taking 

action, if appropriate, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA. 

With your kind permission, I would be grateful if my written testimony 

could be included in the record of today’s meeting. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Without objection. 

 MR. WILLIS. Thank you. It is my privilege to represent EPA during 

this discussion on the bittering agent denatonium benzoate or DB for 

short. The bill under consideration, H.R. 2567, would mandate the 

addition of this bittering agent to engine coolant or antifreeze that 

contains more than 10 percent ethylene glycol. At the present time, the 

Administration does not have a position on this bill. I would like to give 

the subcommittee a summary of our findings concerning the risks of DB. 

This is, of course, preliminary in nature and we are pleased to update this 

as new data become available. The agency has collected information and 

performed a screening level analysis of DB. We have not conducted a 

full risk assessment. 

 There is not an extensive database of toxicity or environmental fate 

information on DB, although there is a 2 year oral toxicity study in rats 

and several other oral studies in rats of shorter duration. Using the 

available information, the agency has applied screening level toxicity and 

environmental exposure estimation techniques that are often used in 

assessments of industrial chemicals prior to entry into commerce 

pursuant to TSCA. These analyses typically employ techniques where 

toxicity and exposure values are estimated from structurally similar 

compounds. We use computer-based models or expert judgment where 

toxicity or environmental exposure values are predicted based on a 

chemical structure. 
26

 I am pleased to share with the committee an overview of this 

analysis, although I would like to repeat my earlier caveat that this is not 

exhaustive. Concerning possible environmental exposure, based on the 

chemical structure, DB is predicted to be water soluble. We also predict 

that the chemical may readily move from water and adhere to soil or 

sediment. It is not predicted to bio-accumulate in living organisms. In 

addition, the chemical is not predicted to be volatile, so it would not be 

expected to move from water into the atmosphere. 

 The chemical is predicted to be resistant to biodegradation. So for 

example, if DB were released into a sanitary sewer system, it most likely 

would be removed in a sewage treatment plant through absorption to 

sludge and not through appreciable biodegradation. If DB were released 

directly to surface waters, we would expect it to accumulate in sediments 

due to its predicted tendency to move from water and adhere to soil and 

its resistance to biodegradation. The chemical would not be predicted to 

readily migrate to groundwater because of this same tendency. With 

sandy soils, however, potential movement to groundwater would be 

greater than for soil-rich organic matter. 

 Concerning possible human and wildlife exposure, we would note 

that DB is one of the most bitter and bad tasting chemicals known. 

Consequently, it is at times used as a minor ingredient in a number of 

consumer products, which was amply demonstrated earlier, to deter 

human ingestion. Because of this human aversion to DB, oral exposure 

potential for humans is therefore expected to be low. Other mammals 

are likely also adverse to DB. If orally consumed, data on these 

structurally similar chemicals leads us to believe DB would not be 

readily absorbed into the gastrointestinal tract and not likely to be 

efficiently absorbed through the skin. 

 With regards to toxicity, our evaluation indicates that there were no 

appreciable concerns identified for mutagenicity, carcinogenicity or 

developmental toxicity from this chemical. Overall, given the limited 

database and the uncertainties thereby presented, it is predicted that there 

is low to moderate concern for toxicity to humans and mammalian 

wildlife. Please note that this low to moderate ranking is, indeed, the 

lowest ranking of health concern that we give during our screening level 

analyses. 

 We also predict that DB is not likely to be highly toxic to birds. We 

predict that DB is likely to be, at most, moderately toxic to aquatic 

organisms and plants, with fish, aquatic invertebrates, and algae being 

least to most sensitive, respectively. The toxicity to aquatic species is 

predicted to be reduced, again, to the extent that soils or sediments are 

present in the water and the DB adheres to them. 
27

 In summary, on the basis of our screening level analysis, DB would 

not be expected to pose a significant risk to human health or the 

environment. While the information presented is limited and should not 

be construed as an exhaustive assessment, I hope it is nonetheless useful 

to the committee as you consider this issue. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

 [The prepared statement of Jim Willis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JIM WILLIS, DIVISION DIRECTOR, CHEMICAL CONTROL DIVISION,

OFFICE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY

I. Introduction

 Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to 

appear before you today. It is my privilege to represent the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency during this discussion on the bittering agent denatonium benzoate. 

The bill under consideration, H.R.2567, would mandate the addition of this bittering 

agent to engine coolant or antifreeze that contains more than 10 percent ethylene glycol. 

At the present time, the Administration does not have a position on this bill. 

II.Background

 The Agency has collected limited information and performed some screening-level 

analyses on denatonium benzoate; however, we have not conducted a full risk 

assessment, nor is there available an extensive database of toxicity or environmental fate 

information on denatonium benzoate. Using the available information, the Agency has 

applied screening-level toxicity and environmental exposure estimation techniques that 

are often used in assessments of industrial chemicals prior to entry into commerce 

pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). 

These analyses typically employ techniques where toxicity and exposure values are 

estimated from structurally similar compounds, using computer-based models or expert 

judgment, where toxicity or environmental exposure values are predicted based on a 

chemical’s structure. These analyses do not currently provide enough information for the 

Agency to conduct a thorough human health or environmental assessment on this 

chemical. As such, the Agency’s analyses on denatonium benzoate should not be 

construed to be an Agency position on the health and safety of denatonium benzoate. 

There simply is not enough information available at this time to make such a finding. 

Nonetheless, I am pleased to share with the Committee the results of the Agency’s 

screening-level analyses on the exposure and toxicity information that we have developed 

by employing the modeling techniques mentioned above. 

III. Environmental Exposure 

 Based on the chemical’s structure, denatonium benzoate is predicted to be water 

soluble; however, it is predicted that the chemical may readily move from water and 

adhere to soil or sediment. It is not predicted to bioaccumulate in living organisms. In 

addition, the chemical is not predicted to be volatile, so it would not be expected to move 

from water to the atmosphere. The chemical is predicted to be resistant to 

biodegradation. For example, if denatonium benzoate were to be released into a sanitary 

sewer system, it most likely would be removed in a sewage treatment plant through 

adsorption to sludge and not through appreciable biodegradation. If denatonium benzoate 

were released directly to surface waters, it would be expected to accumulate in sediments 

due to its predicted propensity to move from water and adhere to soil, and its resistance 
28

to biodegradation. The chemical would not be predicted to readily migrate to 

groundwater because of its propensity to adsorb to soil; however, with sandy soils, 

potential movement to groundwater would be greater than if applied to soil rich in 

organic matter. 

IV. Human/Wildlife Exposure

 Denatonium benzoate is one of the most bitter and bad tasting chemical substances 

known. Consequently, it is at times used as a minor ingredient in consumer products, 

such as denatured alcohol, to deter human ingestion. Because of human aversion to 

denatonium benzoate, oral exposure potential for humans is expected to be low. Other 

mammals are likely also averse to denatonium benzoate. If orally consumed, data on 

structurally similar chemicals leads us to believe it would not be readily absorbed in the 

gastrointestinal tract and not likely to be efficiently absorbed across the skin. 

V. Human/Wildlife Toxicity 

Our preliminary evaluation indicated there were no appreciable concerns identified 

for mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, or developmental toxicity from this chemical. Overall, 

given the limited data base, and the uncertainties thereby presented, it is predicted that 

there is low to moderate concern for toxicity to humans and mammalian wildlife and that 

the chemical is not likely to be highly toxic to birds. 

VI. Aquatic Toxicity

 Again, based on the models and the Agency’s screening-level analyses, the 

compound is predicted to be moderately toxic to aquatic organisms and plants, with fish, 

aquatic invertebrates, and algae being least to most sensitive, respectively. The toxicity 

to fish, aquatic invertebrates, algae and aquatic plants in the water column is predicted to 

be reduced to the extent that soils or sediments are present in the water, again, because of 

the chemical’s propensity to adhere to these materials. 

V. Conclusion

 Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this information. While the 

information presented is limited and should not be construed as an Agency position on 

the health and safety of denatonium benzoate, I hope the information nonetheless is 

useful to the Committee as you consider this issue. I will be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Willis. The testimony of 

our first witness, Congressman Ackerman, talked about DB being in a 

myriad of products commonly used, everything from Q-tips to being 

sprayed on trees. Would you agree with that, that it is a very common 

substance in a number of products? 

 MR. WILLIS. Yes, I would agree that it is commonly found. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Are you aware of any problems as a result of that 

widespread use? 

 MR. WILLIS. Well, we have not done an exhaustive search of 

whether there are reported problems, but in the areas where we have 

looked, we have not heard any reports of problems. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Title II of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 1990 mandates a study of the effectiveness of 

adversive agents in deterring ingestion of hazardous products. Are you 

familiar with that study? 
29

 MR. WILLIS. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with 

that study. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Okay. Let me ask you about the environmental 

effects of plain antifreeze, forget bittering agents, plain antifreeze being 

released into soil and water. Would it be possible to have a bittered 

antifreeze released into the environment and then have the only 

environmental damage come from the antifreeze and not from the 

bitterant? 

 MR. WILLIS. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. The 

environmental effects of plain antifreeze being released into the 

environment are low. Plain antifreeze has a very low toxicity and is 

easily biodegradable, so it is not persistent in the environment. The 

environmental damage caused by the bittering agent, if added to 

antifreeze and released with antifreeze, is also expected to be low. It has 

a low toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates. It does have moderate 

toxicity to green algae, but green algae recovers relatively quickly to 

threats and so this is not anticipated to be a serious problem. And once 

the part of the chemical of concern is absorbed to soil, that toxicity 

would also be reduced. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you. Further questions of the witness? Ms. 

Solis. 

 MS. SOLIS. Thank you. Mr. Willis, thank you for being here and 

your presentation. I wanted to ask you if EPA has done any actual 

analysis of the measured toxicity, values, or environmental fate in 

transport of bitrex? 

 MR. WILLIS. No, Congresswoman Solis, we have not actually done 

any testing ourselves. We have reviewed available data that has been 

made known to us. We have also reviewed two structurally very similar 

chemicals and looked at the data associated with them and a number of 

other analogs, but we have not done any testing ourselves. 

 MS. SOLIS. Okay. Mr. Willis, to your knowledge, has Honeywell or 

their trade association, the Consumer Specialty Products Association, 

provided you with scientific studies they have accumulated which show 

that DB does not biodegrade in the environment or presents risks in the 

groundwater? 

 MR. WILLIS. I am not aware of that, no. 

 MS. SOLIS. And are you aware of a study done by a consulting firm 

known as Roy F. Weston that concluded that DB does not biodegrade 

and would pass through publicly owned treatment works? 

 MR. WILLIS. I am not aware of that study, no. 

 MS. SOLIS. Are you aware of another study done by Roy F. Weston 

that reached the conclusion that if you put DB down the drain, it goes 

right into the water and does not biodegrade? 
30

 MR. WILLIS. No, I have not looked at any of these studies myself. 

 MS. SOLIS. Okay. And are you aware of another study performed 

by the Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association which concluded 

that DB does not stick in the soil, rather it stays in and travels with the 

groundwater, therefore it is reasonable to expect contamination 

problems. As the DB accumulates in the groundwater, the net result is 

that the groundwater may become bitter and thus, well water in the area 

would potentially be unpotable? 

 MR. WILLIS. No, I am not familiar with that. 

 MS. SOLIS. Since there are numerous studies that show DB does not 

biodegrade, is it likely not safe for the environment? Is the EPA 

supporting the sweeping liability exemption from the Superfund and 

other environmental laws as contained in H.R. 2567? 

 MR. WILLIS. Congresswoman, as I noted in my testimony, the 

Administration doesn’t actually have a position on this bill and that 

would include on the liability provision. 

 MS. SOLIS. And has EPA attempted to get environmental fate and 

transport data from the manufacturers of this product? 

 MR. WILLIS. No, Congresswoman. We have just performed the inhouse screening level analysis based on data that was readily available. 

 MS. SOLIS. So does that exclude sound scientific studies? 

 MR. WILLIS. It would not exclude sound scientific studies, no. It 

would be based on any data that were available to us. We did not do a 

data call-in, for example, to get data from manufacturers and others who 

may have tested this, but relied on readily available information. 

 MS. SOLIS. Thank you. I would also like to ask for unanimous 

consent to submit correspondence that we have received in the 

committee to be added to the record and hopefully allow for other 

materials that Members might have to bring forward to put in the record. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Would the gentlelady have any objection to giving 

Members a couple of days as part of the unanimous consent to submit, as 

part of the record, any rebuttal materials, as well, so that both sides of the 

issue are in the record? Okay. Then, without objection, the unanimous 

consent request as amended is agreed to. 

 [The information follows:] 
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65

 MR. GILLMOR. The gentlelady from New Mexico. 

 MRS. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Willis, thank you 

for being here. What is the proper way to dispose of antifreeze? When 

you take your car in to get the coolant changed when it gets to be 

summertime, what are they supposed to do with it? Do you know? 

 MR. WILLIS. I am afraid I don’t, Congresswoman. 

 MRS. WILSON. So is this stuff that you are not supposed to put down 

the drain and dispose of in some other way or is this just a benign 

chemical that you can put down the sink? 
66

 MR. WILLIS. I am afraid I don’t actually have the answer to your 

question, Congresswoman. 

 MRS. WILSON. You said in your testimony that plain antifreeze has 

low toxicity and is easily biodegradable. Does that imply that it--that 

was kind of a surprising statement to me, and I am always taught that 

you don’t put that stuff down the drain. 

 MR. WILLIS. Congresswoman, I don’t think I said it is 

biodegradable. I think I said it is relatively not biodegradable. And 

based on my personal understanding, I think it probably does need to be 

disposed of properly. I am simply ignorant of which law it is that it 

needs to be disposed of properly under. 

 MRS. WILSON. But to your knowledge, this bittering agent, DB, 

which is included in shampoo, laundry detergent, fabric softener, animal 

repellants, pesticides, bath cleaners, stain removers for clothing, so it is 

going down our drains in all of those products when we rinse the stuff 

out of the shower after we have cleaned it, but you are not aware of any 

contamination problems or environmental problems where a site has 

been located where the groundwater has been contaminated by DB? 

 MR. WILLIS. That is correct, Congresswoman. We are not aware of 

any cases of environmental contamination by DB. 

 MRS. WILSON. And how long has this substance been routinely used 

in consumer products? 

 MR. WILLIS. I think for several decades. 

 MRS. WILSON. So this is not a case of this being a new thing and we 

have got some terrible problem to look forward to, this has been on the 

market and used since I was, probably since I was born, 1963, I think is 

the date that I recall, so we are talking about several decades of 

experience with this going down our water systems, right? 

 MR. WILLIS. Well, yes, with environmental exposure to this 

chemical, indeed. For example, through its use as a deer repellant or in 

consumer products. 

 MRS. WILSON. Or down my drain if I use something to wash the 

shower or wash clothes or-- 

 MR. WILLIS. Yes, Congresswoman. 

 MRS. WILSON. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you. Further questions? The gentleman from 

Washington. I beg your pardon. I am told Mrs. Capps was first. 

 MS. CAPPS. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Willis. 

On the next panel today, we are going to hear testimony from the 

American Waterworks Association representing 4,800 utilities 

nationwide to the effect that history is replete with examples of the 

unintended consequences of measures adopted to obtain laudable goals. 

MTBE is an example, when added to motor fuels, an example that has 
67

left many local governments and drinking water utilities with 

contaminated water and huge treatment and cleanup costs. 

 Now, your testimony describes the knowledge of EPA about 

denatonium benzoate as, and these are quotes, these phrases: “limited 

information.” Another quote, “Not conducted a full risk assessment,” 

and the third one, “No extensive database of toxicity or environmental 

fate information on DB.” And finally, “Not enough information for the 

agency to conduct a thorough human health or environmental assessment 

on this chemical.” 

 I ask you if there may be unintended consequences to this bill and 

whether it is your concern that there may be and if it should be of 

concern to us, in your position with the Environmental Protection 

Agency? 

 MR. WILLIS. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman. DB is, as was noted 

earlier, is not similar to MTBE. 

 MS. CAPPS. I know that. I was using it as just an example of 

something with very good intentions leading to very severe, unintended 

consequences. 

 MR. WILLIS. Indeed, Congresswoman, some of the differences 

between this chemical and MTBE, however, point up some of the 

differences of a chemical of this nature and chemicals that tend to cause 

widespread environmental contamination. One of the issues is the 

concentration a chemical is used at, and this would be used in low 

concentrations. 

 MS. CAPPS. I don’t want to make a comparison between DB and 

MTBE. I was only using that as an example. What I am getting at is the 

level of studies that have been conducted, the numbers of them, the range 

of them, the variety of them, and this is your agency. Do you consider 

that there may be, based on your knowledge that you have already in the 

agency, that there may be unintended consequences that perhaps could 

be ferreted out ahead of time so that we don’t fall into the path that we 

have on other occasions? 

 MR. WILLIS. We do not have a concern about a significant health or 

environmental risk from DB based on our present analysis. 

 MS. CAPPS. You have enough information that leads you to say 

there is no reason for concern? Let me phrase it a different way, because 

I really want to get you to say something that will be useful to us, 

because this is a tough decision that we have to make. I was on the bill 

the last time, but now I have questions because I am concerned about the 

statements that I just gave you that might indicate that there may not be 

sufficient studies. Let me say it this way. Do you believe that it is in 

our interest, here on this committee, that there be a full scientific 

assessment of this chemical conducted before we take a very unusual 
68

step, different from the other products in which it is used, of mandating 

that DB be added to an automotive product? 

 MR. WILLIS. Congresswoman, I think it is a bit of a challenge for 

me in my position to, if you will, tell you what I think you should do. I 

think that would-- 

 MS. CAPPS. You think it would be useful to have a more extensive 

scientific assessment? 

 MR. WILLIS. There are some data gaps. 

 MS. CAPPS. There are some data gaps. Would it be useful to have 

those gaps filled? 

 MR. WILLIS. It would depend on a number-- 

 MS. CAPPS. You can’t say yes or no? 

 MR. WILLIS. I cannot say yes or no because it depends on a number 

of exposure situations where we also don’t have the data. 

 MS. CAPPS. Well, could this be tested out? Exposure situations. 

Could there be a variety of situations at least examined? 

 MR. WILLIS. Congresswoman, I feel myself getting in trouble here. 

 MS. CAPPS. Oh. Let me ask you one more yes or no question. I 

have about 10 seconds. This is a statement made by the Consumer 

Specialty Products Association on July 16th of 2004 in a letter that they 

wrote. This is their quote. I want to ask if you agree with them or not. 

They say and I quote, “We believe that any additional requirements for 

the inclusion of bitterants in antifreeze and other automotive products or 

engine coolants should be deferred at least until such time as a full 

toxicological exposure and risk evaluation be publicly available for the 

bitterants, themselves, both as discreet chemicals and as incorporated 

into automotive products.” Do you agree? They believe more studies 

are warranted. This is the industry. Do you agree? 

 MR. WILLIS. Congresswoman, we would, for a chemical of this 

type, with the expected production volume and exposure considerations, 

we would not be going after more data to conduct a fuller risk 

assessment. 

 MS. CAPPS. I yield back. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Further questions? Mr. Bass. 

 MR. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just ask one question. 

Mr. Willis, you stated that--by the way, this is a follow under the 

distinguished Ranking Member’s comment about the absorptive nature 

of DB in soil and it says here that you state that the chemical properties 

of DB would make it unlikely for it to migrate to groundwater because of 

its propensity to absorb soil unless it is sandy soil. Can you give us a 

practical explanation of exactly what this means? Does this mean that 

you think it is a problem if it gets into groundwater or not? If DB is not 
69

filtered out by drinking water systems since it does not biodegrade, is it a 

threat to health or the environment? 

 MR. WILLIS. Based on our modeling, we think if this reaches the 

soil, it is unlikely to move through the soil into groundwater at any 

appreciable rate. 

 MR. BASS. All right. Well, that is it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you. Further questions? Mr. Inslee. 

 MR. INSLEE. Thank you. 

 Do you think, can the Federal government guarantee that DB will not 

be harmful to human health in any manifestation? 

 MR. WILLIS. No, Congressman, we cannot make that guarantee. 

 MR. INSLEE. And why can’t you make that guarantee? 

 MR. WILLIS. Because we don’t have the test data for all possible 

endpoints, nor do we have the fate and exposure data that would allow us 

to do that sort of assessment. 

 MR. INSLEE. So the bill essentially works on the assumption that a 

guess that the Federal government can guarantee the safety of this 

product because as a total exemption from liability of the manufacturer 

of the antifreeze compound, assuming, I guess, that means that we are 

supposed to be guaranteeing to the public that it is safe so that when we 

tell a manufacturer to put it in there, that no one has a claim if they are 

killed or get cancer or have some other health problem. To me that 

doesn’t make any sense. If the Federal government can’t guarantee it is 

safe, we shouldn’t be denying citizens a claim against a manufacturer of 

the product once we tell them to put it in there. Am I right on that? 

 MR. WILLIS. Congressman, you are drawing me into a position on 

liability and I think I have noted that the agency doesn’t have a position 

on this bill, including on the liability. 

 MR. INSLEE. Well, I have a position that if the Federal government 

can’t guarantee the safety of a product, we shouldn’t be denying citizens 

the right for a claim when Congress insists it be in there and that is why I 

think this blanket liability, and I have read it, it is a blanket liability for 

the manufacturer of the product as long as the product is put in there 

according to the Congressional specification. Now, it isn’t for the 

manufacturer of the DB, but that will be the bankrupt corporation that 

has $1.20 in their till when people start getting sick, if that were to 

happen. So I think we have real problems with this liability perspective. 

 Is there anything that you can give us on a lay basis to characterize 

that the potential toxicity, biodegradable--I don’t know what the word is-

-its characteristic of being biodegradable or not, is there anything else 

you can put this in kind of a spectrum? Is it benign as mother’s milk? Is 

it as potentially dangerous as DDT? Is it unknown as other products? Is 

there any kind of spectrum you can give us as something we could-- 
70

 MR. WILLIS. Well, Congressman, there are a number of chemicals 

that sort of fall in this low to moderate range. One that members may be 

familiar with is something called sodium benzoate. Sodium benzoate is 

commonly found as a food additive. It shows up in soda pop. It may 

have been in the drinkable green liquid and is in the same general 

toxicity range as DB. 

 MR. INSLEE. And can you think of anything else that has a similar 

characteristic of being biodegradable or not biodegradable? 

 MR. WILLIS. I would have to get back you on that, Congressman. I 

can’t think of a good example offhand. 

 MR. INSLEE. I read in your testimony, you made some reference to, 

again, based on the models of the agency’s screening analyses, the 

compound is predicted to be moderately toxic to aquatic organisms and 

plants, with fish, aquatic invertebrates, and algae being least to most 

sensitive, respectively, so that would mean algae would be the most 

sensitive. Is there any way to characterize that? Aquatic invertebrates 

second most sensitive? 

 MR. WILLIS. It is in high concentrations, Congressman, it would 

likely kill some, but possibly not all algae in a water system. Similarly, 

it may kill a number of the invertebrates that live in the water column 

and that fish feed on, although it is less toxic to those aquatic 

invertebrates than to algae. 

 MR. INSLEE. So we have a situation where ingestion to pets, we 

know, can cause death and we know that there is some risk of death to 

other animals or--it may not be pets, but they are in the animal kingdom, 

is that the situation? 

 MR. WILLIS. Congressman, I may have misunderstood your original 

question. I thought we were talking about DB, but the deaths to pets, I 

think, are-- 

 MR. INSLEE. Yes, let me rephrase my question. With the death to 

pets that we are all concerned about here, besides our children, or death 

to pets that happen when they eat the antifreeze, itself, but in order to 

prevent that, if we mandate a product that can end up mortal to other 

animals in the animal kingdom, it is kind of an irony, I guess, that I am 

troubled by a little bit because they may not be our pets but they are 

God’s creatures and we do have concerns about salmon who live on 

these little aquatic invertebrates in the Puget Sound and it is just 

something we ought to think about. Thank you. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Further questions of the witness? Ms. Schakowsky. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. Mr. Willis, you are Division 

Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxic Substances. I was a little concerned that you were unable to 

answer what I think would be a pretty common question, how do you 
71

dispose of antifreeze in a safe way. We are talking about, I mean, if part 

of it is Office of Pollution Prevention, I would think that common 

substances, particularly those that people use so often and might have, 

likely have questions about, is that not your field? 

 MR. WILLIS. That is correct, Congresswoman. Disposal of 

antifreeze is not one of our office’s activities. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. So who is concerned about pollution 

prevention, that is how one would dispose of chemical hazard, et cetera? 

Does anybody oversee that? 

 MR. WILLIS. Congresswoman, I believe the Office of Solid Waste 

would oversee that. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. And antifreeze would fit into solid waste? 

 MR. WILLIS. Indeed. It would, Congresswoman. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. 

 MR. WILLIS. I would have to get back to you with an answer 

because it is outside of the realm of our office’s work. However, I can 

tell you what offices in EPA are engaged in that and what they are doing. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Okay. Let me understand your response to Ms. 

Capps’ question. We are now in the process, potentially, of mandating 

the inclusion of a widely used, of a substance in a widely used product 

and my understanding of what you said, that you would not do any 

further risk assessments than have already been done on DB, that we 

could proceed ahead, mandate it, it become law without any more 

inquiry into DB? 

 MR. WILLIS. Yes, Congresswoman. If a chemical like DB came 

into our program with the data that we had readily available to us during 

the screening level analysis, we would not have taken an action to 

control the risk of this chemical. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. The difference between this and many other 

things is the Federal government is taking, I think, a fairly unusual step, I 

don’t know, to actually mandate the use of a particular product, which is 

somewhat different than, it seems to me, than examining the toxicity or 

the environmental impact of just any old product; we are actually going 

to be mandating that. And to follow up on Mr. Inslee’s remarks, the 

toxicity to fish, aquatic invertebrates, algae, and aquatic plants is 

predicted, there are environmental impacts that could affect the salmon 

or others. At what level does that become a concern? 

 MR. WILLIS. Congresswoman, at the levels that this chemical is 

estimated to be used at in products, we would not be concerned about 

these toxicities because those levels would not be expected in, for 

example, the aquatic ecosystems that we are talking about here. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Low to moderate concern for toxicity to humans 

and mammalian wildlife. Well, moderate concern. Also, I just wanted to 
72

point out when our Ranking Member Solis, asked you about a number of 

other studies and there are all kinds of, there is a whole book of them 

here and you were unfamiliar with them. Now knowing that there have 

been studies, and I understand there are some conflicting findings, do 

you feel obligated to assess those, to add that to your decision making 

process or your evaluations? 

 MR. WILLIS. Indeed, Congresswoman. We would very much like to 

review those studies and add that to our evaluation. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. So in fact, under certain circumstances, you 

would increase your risk assessment, that is to look further, perhaps 

change your view? 

 MR. WILLIS. Oh, indeed, Madam. Any time data becomes available 

to us, we are always happy to reevaluate a chemical. 

 MS. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Willis. We appreciate 

you coming. We will call Panel 3 forward. Very well. If the panel is 

prepared, we will start with Mr. Jeffrey Bye of Honeywell, who is 

testifying on behalf of the Consumer Specialty Products Association. 

Mr. Bye. 

STATEMENTS OF JEFFREY BYE, VICE PRESIDENT, 

PRESTONE, HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. ON 

BEHALF OF CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS 

ASSOCIATION; PATRICE L. SIMMS, SENIOR PROJECT 

ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE 

COUNCIL; SARAH AMUNDSON, DEPUTY AND 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DORIS DAY ANIMAL 

LEAGUE; MELINDA EYRICH, DVM, CO-OWNER, 

URGENT CARE VETERINARIAN HOSPITAL; AND TOM 

BONACQUISTI, DIRECTOR OF WATER QUALITY AND 

PRODUCTION, FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY 

ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN WATER WORKS 

ASSOCIATION 

MR. BYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Solis. 

My name is Jeff Bye. I manage the Prestone Antifreeze business for the 

Consumer Products Group of Honeywell International, and I also, as 

mentioned, represent our industry association through the CSPA. Our 

business is an automotive after-market business. We also manufacture 

FRAM filters and Autolite sparkplugs. Our business is headquartered in 

Danbury, Connecticut. We are part of Honeywell International, which I 

am sure many of you know is a large, multinational corporation, maybe 

120,000 employees, about 60,000 in the United States. 
73

 A little history: Prestone, the business I manage, is the leading 

producer in North America and the leading marketer of antifreeze. We 

sell the product in all 50 States, as well as Canada and Mexico. We sell 

the product primarily into retail through people like Auto Zone, Advance 

Auto Parts, and Pep Boys. We also sell through mass merchants, such as 

Wal-Mart, K-Mart, and a number of smaller outlets. The product is 

produced in three plants in the United States, in Freehold, New Jersey; 

Alsip, Illinois; and Torrance, California. We also have a small plant in 

Mexico City. 

 We manufacture and the brands we sell, again, primarily to retail, are 

under the Prestone brand, and then a whole host of store brands and 

private label brands. We also do some bulk manufacturing for the auto 

manufacturers, themselves, primarily General Motors, Ford, and Toyota. 

A little bit about antifreeze that maybe we didn’t get completely from 

Mr. Ackerman. It has been around for over 75 years in a form not unlike 

it is today and that is primarily with the chemical ethylene glycol in it. 

Ethylene glycol has some phenomenal properties in terms of lowering 

the freeze point of water and keeping high temperatures under control, so 

it makes a perfect coolant in a car’s engine. And then again, it has been 

like that for over 75 years. 

 In more recent history, antifreeze has been called on to provide some 

other functions within an engine and primarily, that revolves around 

corrosion protection of a car’s cooling system and heating system. To 

accomplish that, over the last 20 to 30 years, along with the ethylene 

glycol, a number of chemical additives have been put into antifreeze, and 

if you were to buy that gallon of antifreeze today, it would be about 95 

percent ethylene glycol and about 5 percent other chemicals. Most of 

what we do and most of what our chemists do for us and in the industry 

is work on those other chemicals, that 5 percent. Those are the 

chemicals that are proprietary, patented formulas that work for corrosion 

protection. Ethylene glycol is ethylene glycol, and it has its temperature 

controlling properties. 

 Ethylene glycol does a great job of controlling temperatures and 

providing freeze protection, but as you have also heard, it has a down 

side in that it is highly toxic, especially when ingested by people or pets. 

To that end, we have, as a company and our industry, taken extensive 

steps throughout the years to protect people and particularly children: 

child-proof caps, foil seals, and warning labels. We sponsor poison 

control centers. We do public service announcements on proper disposal 

and handling of the antifreeze. Although there haven’t been fatalities, 

there are poisonings that happen periodically by accident with adults and 

children. 
74

 We can’t say the same for pets, as you pointed out. Mr. Ackerman 

pointed out, you will find it in the parking lots spilled out of older 

radiators, people will dispose of it improperly, leave it open in a garage 

and pets have consumed it and have died from it. To that, the animal 

rights folks and animal welfare people have, for the past number of 

years, pushed lawmakers on a local, State and Federal basis to support 

legislation that requires manufacturers like ourselves to provide and put 

into our product a bittering agent to discourage animals from drinking 

the product. 

 In fact, going back to 1991 up to now, three States have enacted 

legislation; Oregon being the first, followed by California in 2002, and 

most recently New Mexico last year. Those States require us to include 

the product DB in our product to prevent accidental poisonings. In 2004, 

we partnered with, as an industry, with the Doris Day League to get 

Federal legislation passed that would accomplish what they are looking 

for, which is the prevention of poisoning of animals on a broader basis. 

And what we, as manufacturers, would look for, which is a way to 

provide that product to all 50 States, but in a way that is sort of within 

the course of commerce--practical and reasonable and efficient. Because 

right now there are 11 States that have legislation pending, and that 

legislation covers a number of plants and a number of locations. Even 

the bills themselves are not uniform in what they require of the 

producers, so the bill would provide a uniform benefit to both sides from 

poisoning and to distribution. 

 Further, that bill also provides assigned liability to us, as 

manufacturers of the antifreeze. It holds us responsible for that product 

which we know and design, antifreeze. We are fully responsible for our 

product in any way, shape, and form, always have been and always will 

be, and assigns liability to the producers of bitterant, in this case the 

producers of DB, for their product and its impact if there is a problem. 

Because at the end of the day, what we do as an industry is, and what our 

chemists, what they spend all their time on is analyzing products that go 

in car’s cooling system and the impact of that product on a car’s cooling 

system. And to that end, you know, we are fully responsible for that. 

We are more than happy to include a product that is not intended for that 

purpose, if it satisfies the needs of another group. But we are not experts 

in that product and to that end, that is why we look to have this bill 

assign liability to those people that are in that realm, which is not where 

our expertise lies. 

 And with that, I appreciate the opportunity to speak here and will 

welcome any questions at the right time. Thank you. 

 [The prepared statement of Jeffrey Bye follows:] 
75

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFFREY BYE, VICE PRESIDENT, PRESTONE, HONEYWELL 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

Introduction 

Good afternoon. I am Jeff Bye, Vice President for Prestone, a Honeywell business. 

Prestone has been the 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 HR 2567. 

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 120,000 

employees, with approximately 60,000 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, with business headquarters in Torrance, California. 

Prestone Background 

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 throughout the nation. 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 the 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% ethylene glycol and 50% 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. 
76

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 human 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 ten 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 a national poison 

control center as a resource and service for veterinarians and pet owners. The center is 

staffed with specially trained veterinary toxicologists available to handle any animal 

poison-related emergency, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 

Need for a Single Uniform Antifreeze Standard 

For several years, the animal welfare 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 welfare 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. 

In December 2004, 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 – HR 2567 – 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, HR 2567’s preemption provision 

would avoid the potential inconsistency and practical difficulty of manufacturers 

complying with a patchwork of various state and local mandates. At least eleven states 

have been actively considering similar requirements, including Alabama, Maine, 

Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and 

Washington, and the trend indicates that additional states will pursue antifreeze bills. 

Now is the appropriate time for Congress to establish a national standard. The 

difficulty of managing compliance with a patchwork of inconsistent state mandates 

would be significant and would hinder an adequate supply of antifreeze across the 

country. Further, the additional costs at the manufacturing and distribution levels would 

ultimately be borne by the American consumer – for a product that is considered a 

necessity for the proper maintenance of an automobile’s engine. A national standard 

would ensure that the mandate is both uniform and cost effective, while responding to the 

call for improved antifreeze safety measures. Some states that have passed or considered 

antifreeze legislation, including New Mexico and Maine, have expressed their desire for 
77

Congress to pass a federal bill because they recognize the appropriateness of a national 

standard and federal enforcement. 

Liability Provisions 

HR 2567 would 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. 

HR 2567 shares the essential components of the liability provisions within the New 

Mexico, California and Oregon state laws as well as legislation introduced in the House 

of Representatives in 2004. Notably, the three state laws and HR 1563, sponsored in the 

108th Congress by Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), all 

provide some form of liability protection to antifreeze manufacturers for the 

consequences of DB. Indeed, HR 1563 in the 108th Congress was cosponsored by 110 

House Democrats and 23 House Republicans. 

The 2005 New Mexico law (NM §57-19-38) includes the following liability 

provisions: 

“A manufacturer, packager, distributor, or recycler or seller of engine coolant or 

antifreeze that is required to contain an aversive or bittering agent pursuant to this 

section is not liable to any person for personal injury, death, property damage, 

damage to the environment or natural resources or economic loss that results from 

the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in engine coolant or antifreeze. 

The limitation on liability ... of this section is only applicable if denatonium 

benzoate is included in engine coolant or antifreeze in the concentrations mandated 

by this section. The limitation on liability provided ... does not apply to a particular 

liability to the extent that the cause of that liability is unrelated to the inclusion of 

denatonium benzoate in engine coolant or antifreeze.” 

The 2002 California law (Section 17582) includes the following liability provisions: 

“A manufacturer, distributor, recycler, or seller of an automotive product that is 

required to contain an aversive agent under this section is not liable to any person 

for any personal injury, death, or property damage that results from the inclusion of 

denatonium in ethylene glycol antifreeze.” 

The 1992 Oregon law (§§431.870 – 915) includes the following liability provisions: 

“(1) A manufacturer, distributor or seller of a toxic household product that is 

required to contain an aversive agent ... is not liable to any person for any personal 

injury, death or property damage that results from the inclusion of the aversive 

agent in the toxic household product. 

(2) The limitation on liability provided by this section is only applicable if the 

aversive agent is included in the toxic household product in concentrations 

approved by the Poison Prevention Task Force. 

(3) The limitation on liability provided by this section does not apply if the personal 

injury, death or property results from willful and wanton misconduct by the 

manufacturer, distributor or seller of the toxic household product.” 
78

HR 1563 in the 108th Congress included the following liability provisions: 

“LIABILITY- 

(1) LIMITATION- A manufacturer, distributor, recycler, or seller of an automotive 

product that is required to contain an aversive agent under this section is not liable 

to any person for any personal injury, death, or property damage that results from 

the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in ethylene glycol antifreeze, provided that 

the inclusion of denatonium benzoate is in concentrations mandated by subsection 

(a). 

(2) EXCEPTION FOR WILLFUL MISCONDUCT- The limitation on liability 

provided by this subsection shall not apply if the personal injury, death, or property 

damage results from willful or wanton misconduct by the manufacturer, distributor, 

recycler, or seller of the ethylene glycol antifreeze.” 

The current House legislation in the 109th Congress, HR 2567, includes the 

following liability provisions: 

“Limitation on Liability- (1) Subject to paragraph (2), a manufacturer, processor, 

distributor, recycler, or seller of an engine coolant or antifreeze that is required to 

contain an aversive agent... shall not be liable to any person for any personal injury, 

death, property damage, damage to the environment (including natural resources), 

or economic loss that results from the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in any 

engine coolant or antifreeze, provided that the inclusion of denatonium benzoate is 

present in concentrations mandated... 

(2) The limitation on liability provided in this subsection does not apply to a 

particular liability to the extent that the cause of such liability is unrelated to the 

inclusion of denatonium benzoate in any engine coolant or antifreeze. 

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to exempt any manufacturer or 

distributor of denatonium benzoate from any liability related to denatonium 

benzoate.” 

In fact, the current version of the federal bill improves upon the bill in the 108th

Congress by unambiguously establishing the liability responsibilities of antifreeze and 

denatonium benzoate manufacturers. HR 2567 includes the final provision of the liability 

section (paragraph (3)) to clarify that the liability protections regarding DB extend only 

to antifreeze manufacturers, while paragraph (2) explicitly restricts any protections only 

to the consequences of DB. 

Alternative Bittering Agents 

The three state laws differ in regard to allowing alternative bittering agents beyond 

DB, and the bill passed by the Senate Commerce Committee in November 2005 differs as 

well. New Mexico law requires antifreeze manufacturers to specifically add DB as the 

sole bittering agent to their products. California law specifies DB as an appropriate 

bittering agent, but allows alternatives to DB if another agent meets the same degree of 

aversion at the same concentration. Because DB is the only chemical that currently 

satisfies the legislation’s bitterness standard at the specified concentration, California law 

effectively establishes a mandate requiring manufacturers to use DB to fulfill the state 

law requirements. Oregon law as passed in 1992 generically called for the addition of an 

aversive agent, but a 1993 litigation settlement regarding the statute specifies DB as the 

sole agent at a required concentration. 

In November 2005, the Senate Commerce Committee considered the possibility of 

allowing alternatives to DB, and the Committee passed a bipartisan amendment to allow 

the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to propose an alternative bittering 

agent if the alternative is as effective as DB as a bitterant, is compatible with motor 

vehicle engines, and shows no evidence of unreasonable adverse effects on the 
79

environment. The CPSC is the federal agency responsible for regulation and 

enforcement of federal laws associated with antifreeze and other consumer products. 

Prestone and the other domestic antifreeze manufacturers supported the Senate 

Commerce Committee amendment allowing alternative bittering agents. The CPSC’s 

requirements, however, are important to recognize. Because of DB’s unique bittering 

characteristics, we are able to add a minimal quantity of the additive. Antifreeze 

manufacturers would have to add more volume of other bittering agents to achieve the 

same level of discouragement based on odor and/or taste. Another important 

consideration is the affect of the alternative bittering agent on an automobile. DB has 

proven to be a safe substance within motor vehicle engines, and alternatives may corrode 

the engine or impact its functionality. 

Prestone and the U.S. antifreeze industry appreciate the deliberative approach that 

Chairman Gillmor has taken in regard to the development of HR 2567, the 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. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you very much, and we will now go to Mr. 

Patrice Simms, Natural Resources Defense Council. 

MR. SIMMS. Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the 

committee. My name is Patrice Simms. I am a Senior Project Attorney 

with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and I thank you very much 

for asking me here to speak to you today. I also have written comments 

that I have provided, and I hope that you will accept them. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Everybody’s full written statement will be part of the 

record. 

 MR. SIMMS. Thank you very much. I am not going to strictly follow 

my written comments, but I am going to follow that outline. And I do 

want to reiterate, at the very beginning, that NRDC is a staunch supporter 

of strong laws to protect people and the environment, including animal 

life, both domestic animals and wildlife. More specifically, we support 

the idea of making antifreeze a safer product to have in the marketplace. 

We also recognize that one way to do that may be to make antifreeze less 

palatable, therefore making it less attractive and reducing the number and 

seriousness of instances of accidental ingestion, particularly, again, 

among children, pets, and wildlife. That said, unfortunately, NRDC 

must oppose the bill as it is currently written, and I want to discuss a 

little bit the outline of our objections to the bill and the basis for those 

objections. 

 From NRDC’s perspective there are two really critical issues. The 

first one is one that you have heard mentioned again and again here 

today, that the bill currently includes a liability waiver for the 

manufacturers and in fact, apparently for the entire chain, from the 

antifreeze production all the way through the recycling stage. And this 

waiver essentially holds harmless this entire industry from injury, 

whether it is property damage, whether it is physical injury, permanent 

disability, death, any range in there, as well as environmental harms, 
80

including harms that would impair our important natural resources such 

as drinking water. Second, the bill preempts States from regulating 

antifreeze bitterants, and you have heard this from a couple of people 

who have spoken already today States’ ability to regulate products that 

are dangerous to people’s health and the environment is incredibly 

important, and treading on that ability is something that should be 

avoided. In this case, the ability for States to act is very important as a 

backstop to any potential injury that might happen down the road, and 

preempting States from that ability is something that we would 

strenuously object to. 

 With respect to the liability waiver, as a matter of general principle, 

liability waivers are, in our view, not good policy, especially where the 

underlying requirement, in this case, the requirement for a bittering agent 

to be added to the market product, is imposed to address a harm that is 

directly the result of the production and resale of the product itself. That 

is the reason that the DB, or the other bittering agent, needs to be in the 

product is because the product is otherwise unacceptably dangerous for 

the public to have. At least that would presumably be the basis for 

requiring some regulation to make it safer. And it only makes sense to 

hold the industry that benefits from having that product, that highly toxic 

product, in the marketplace, responsible not only for instances of harm 

caused by the product itself, but instances of harm caused by additives 

that are necessary to make that product acceptably safe, and for that 

reason, the idea of a liability waiver is particularly objectionable in this 

case. 

 I would note that the public always carries its share of the risk, 

because the public stands at the frontline whenever any injury does 

occur, and it is fundamentally unfair, in this situation, to insist that the 

public continuing to carry its risk and to not require the industry that is 

benefiting from the product to also carry its risk of possible harm in the 

future. 

 Now I would note we have heard a number of things today. I would 

like to emphasize one of the things that we have heard come up again 

and again, and that is that we know very little about the impact of DB in 

the environment, and that is critically important, and we have included as 

an attachment to NRDC’s testimony some summary of the same studies 

that people have spoken about today. And the fact that we know very 

little means, in our view, it is very unwise at this point to suggest that we 

ought to be waiving liability for this product. Similarly, in our view, it 

makes very little sense at this point to specifically identify DB as the 

only possible bitterant to be added to antifreeze to make it a safer 

product. From what we are aware, there is very little reason for that 
81

limitation and in fact, the primary function of that limitation is to set up a 

justification for a liability waiver. 

 MR. GILLMOR. I don’t want to assume, but we are trying to stay 

within our time constraints. 

 MR. SIMMS. Okay. 

 Very well. So I will note only one other point and that is something 

that confuses me a little bit here, and that is that there has been argument 

back and forth about whether or not DB is dangerous or not. If it is 

dangerous, it is unwise to waive liability. If it is not dangerous, why is 

the application of liability to the industry problematic? It would be, if 

you accept that factual basis, it is a negligible risk and so why is that a 

problem? And from our view, the liability waiver and the preemption of 

State authority, any way you look at the facts underlying this particular 

bill, are inappropriate. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. 

 [The prepared statement of Patrice L. Simms follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICE L. SIMMS, SENIOR PROJECT ATTORNEY, NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman, and Honorable Members of the Committee, thank you for this 

opportunity to speak with you today about H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 

2005. 

Allow me to start by saying that NRDC is a staunch supporter of strong laws that 

protect the health and wellbeing of people and animals. At its core, the intent of this bill 

is certainly positive – to protect the health and wellbeing of children, household pets, and 

wildlife that may be exposed to ethylene glycol (the highly toxic chemical commonly 

used as automobile antifreeze). We also commend organizations like the Doris Day 

Animal League for pursuing this worthy cause, and the sponsors and supporters of this 

bill for making this important issue a priority. 

Unfortunately, NRDC must oppose this bill as it is currently written. As a general 

matter, we do not oppose, and in some cases have specifically recognized the value of 

bitterants as one means of reducing the number and severity of exposures to toxic 

chemicals. However, the inclusion of a sweeping liability waiver in H.R. 2567, that 

would give antifreeze manufacturers, processors, distributors, recyclers and retailers, a 

get-out-of-jail-free card with respect to any harm that a bittering agent might cause in the 

future, is simply unpalatable. This “free pass” would apply not only in instances where 

the bittering agent causes damage to motor vehicle equipment, but also where it directly 

harms people (by causing sickness or death) or where it causes environmental damage 

(including impairment of natural resources). Significantly, the waiver also includes no 

exceptions for harm that results from gross negligence or willful misconduct. 

Additionally, the bill includes a provision that preempts States from regulating, in 

any way and for any reason, antifreeze bitterants (except to the extent that the State 

regulations are identical to the provisions of H.R. 2567). Preempting State authority to 

adopt stricter rules than those required at the federal level is rarely a good policy, and in 

this case it is both unnecessary and unwise. 

While we support the regulatory objective of making antifreeze a safer product, 

including, as one option, a bittering agent requirement in order to reduce the chances of 

poisoning children, pets, and wildlife, we do not understand why this bill mandates the 

use of a specific bitterant and then provides a liability waiver. We would urge that the 

legislation simply require the use of an effective bitterant that will prevent children and 
82

pets from consuming this otherwise sweet-tasting toxic product, and allow the industry to 

determine what bitterant might be most safe and effective. In our view, it is inappropriate 

to assign the risks that denotonium benzoate (DB) or another bitterant may pose to the 

public and the environment, rather than to the industry that reaps the economic benefit 

from sale of a toxic product that requires a bitterant to be safe. 

The mandate to use DB exclusively appears to serve no purpose other than to create 

a justification for also including a liability waiver – a waiver that takes important 

protections away from the American people. In fact, allowing flexibility in the use of 

bitterants would make it easier for industry to respond to any problems that might arise 

with a particular chemical, or to shift to a more effective, more readily available, safer, 

less expensive, or otherwise more appropriate chemical if one were to emerge. 

There is nothing inappropriate about requiring that the antifreeze industry to make a 

product that is as safe at it can be – by appropriately addressing the attractiveness and 

availability of its product to children and animals (including, e.g., taste, color and safety 

packaging) and by taking responsibility for the toxicity and adverse health and 

environmental impacts of all the product’s ingredients (including impacts resulting from 

the use of bitterants). 

The bill’s preemption of State authority to regulate antifreeze bitterants is also 

troubling. NRDC has a long history of opposing attempts to preempt more stringent 

State law. In general, in our view, it makes little sense to limit the tools available to 

States in their front line battles to protect their citizens and respond to public health or 

environmental hazards. Precluding States from adopting laws more stringent than, or in 

addition to, federal law prevents advances in public health and environmental protection 

and leaves people more vulnerable. 

While we recognize the importance of the issue that the bill sponsors are attempting 

to address, and we hope that Congress is able to pass a strong bill that makes antifreeze a 

safer product, for the reasons I have outlined here, NRDC cannot support H.R. 2567. 

Once again, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this committee today 

and explain to you NRDC’s position on this bill. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you. And next is Dr. Melinda Eyrich, Coowner of Urgent Care Veterinarian Hospital. Dr. Eyrich. 

DR. EYRICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak 

here before this committee today. I have been a veterinarian for 

approximately 15 years, focusing on emergency medicine for that past 

seven years. I am a member of the AVA, the American Veterinary 

Association, and I also have a letter from the AVA to submit to record 

today, with me. 

 When I was asked to speak here today, I was asked to reflect on 

specific cases of antifreeze poisoning that I have seen over the years as 

an emergency veterinarian, and there are way too many, to be quite 

honest with you. But one case specifically came to my mind, and I 

would like you to indulge me to relay that case to you today. 

An 8 year-old male golden retriever was presented into my clinic one 

evening in the fall of the year. He was unable to lift his head, but being a 

golden retriever he could still just very weakly wag his tail as he laid on 

the table. His lab values showed that he was in kidney failure, and the 

test for ethylene glycol, or antifreeze, in his blood was extremely 

positive. 
83

 And I have to tell you, on the other side of this exam room table 

from me was a family with 2 young boys, approximately the age of 10 

and 12, and they were in tears over their sick friend, and I gave his 

family a very poor prognosis for this dog’s recovery. At that time, I also 

discussed with them the extreme expense involved in trying to treat this 

animal. The pharmaceutical that we use to treat antifreeze poisoning is 

called Antizol, and it is approximately $300 a vial. It is an extreme 

financial hardship for most families, and in most families the cost of 

treating this disease is actually prohibitive. But this family decided, 

because of the extreme worth to this family that this dog was, that they 

were going to go ahead and try to treat this animal. So over the next 3 

days we tried to save this dog, and in the course of visits with his family, 

I got to know them and I got to know the relationship they had with this 

dog. This animal was a gift. He had played fetch with the boys, he had 

gone swimming with them in the summertime, he had slept on one of the 

boys’ beds every night, faithfully, and he waited for them to come home. 

But at the end of the 3 days, we were not able to save this dog and the 

decision was make to humanely euthanize him, in the face of worsening 

lab work. 

 But as we sat around this dog after we had euthanized him, the 

younger of the two boys looked at me and he asked me a question and he 

said, “Why does antifreeze kill dogs?” And I started with a medical 

explanation of why antifreeze kills dogs. I said, “It causes kidney failure 

and sometimes we can’t reverse that process.” But part way through my 

explanation, he interrupted me and he said, “No. What I want to know 

is, why do we have a substance around so commonly that kills dogs?” 

His statement to me was everybody has it. And then I tried to explain to 

him that it was not the intention of antifreeze to kill dogs. It is the 

intention of antifreeze to help car engines. And his response to me was, 

that doesn’t make it right. And he was correct, it doesn’t make it right. 

 As I looked at my own two children before I left today, I realized 

that there are enough things that are difficult to explain to children in this 

world, that if we have a chance to change something that is very difficult 

to explain to them, then maybe we should act and try to do that. This 

seems like a very simple solution to a very deadly problem. 

Antifreeze, for dogs, is not only deadly, but it is attractive. It has a 

sweet taste, as you have already learned today. I can tell you, 

anecdotally, dogs do not like bitter tastes. Also, this toxicity, as I have 

already mentioned, is also not only emotionally taxing for families, but it 

is financially taxing for families. I am fortunate. I live in the State of 

New Mexico. We already have a law in place requiring a bitterant added 

to antifreeze. I would like to see help for my peers in the other 47 States, 

as it sounds like they need help with this issue. Thank you for your time. 
84

 [The prepared statement of Dr. Melinda Eyrich follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MELINDA EYRICH, DVM, CO-OWNER, URGENT CARE 

VETERINARIAN HOSPITAL

Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify before the committee today. 

My name is Dr. Melinda Eyrich; I have been a veterinarian for the past 15 years, 

focusing on emergency medicine for the past 7 years. I am the owner of Urgent Care 

Veterinary Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

When I was asked to speak today, I was also asked to reflect on specific cases of 

antifreeze poisoning. One case in particular jumped into my mind. An 8 year old male 

Golden Retriever. He presented in the fall of the year, unable to raise his head but he 

could still weakly wag his tail. He was in kidney failure. The test for the presence of 

ethylene glycol in his system was strongly positive. 

 On the other side of the exam table from me were two young boys, in tears, over 

their sick friend. Their approximate ages were 10 and 12 years old. I gave the family a 

very poor prognosis for recovery. The decision was made to try and save this important 

family member. As we worked to save him over the next three days, the two boys 

recalled countless stories of how he had shared their youth. In their young eyes, This 

Golden Retriever had shared their entire lives. He had played fetch, swam and slept on 

their beds. This friend had waited loyally for them to return on the bus at the end of each 

day. 

The most effective treatment for ethylene glycol poisoning is very expensive. I am 

not able to mark up the drug we use because, at approximately three hundred dollars a 

vial, the expense is prohibitive to most families. At the end of three tear-filled and heart 

wrenching days–in the face of worsening lab results—we could not save this family 

member. 

These boys witnessed a horrible painful death until the difficult decision was made 

to euthanize their friend. When the younger boy asked why antifreeze kills dogs, I 

initially started to explain the clinical reason for the kidney failure it causes. Part way 

into my explanation, he interrupted me and reworded his question so that I understood 

that what he was really asking is why do we have something so commonly around that 

kills dogs. I remember him saying “everyone has it”. I tried to explain that was not its 

intended use and that his friend’s death was an accident. He replied "that does not make 

it all right." 

 He was correct. The events of this world can be hard enough to explain to children. 

If we have a chance to lessen some of the wrongs, and make them right, we should act. 

 The addition of an agent to make antifreeze taste bitter appears to be a practical 

simple solution, to a very deadly killer. This type of toxicity is not only emotionally 

taxing for families but a financial hardship as well – usually in the face of a guarded 

prognosis. I would love to be able to never dread the change of seasons, when wellmeaning people change their antifreeze and do not dispose of it safely. It would be a 

celebration to never lose a friend to something that could be made preventable. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Tom Bonacquisti. 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. Bonacquisti. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Okay. Good. The Director of Water Quality and 

Production, Fairfax County Water Authority, and he is testifying on 

behalf of the American Water Works Association. 
85

MR. BONACQUISTI. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. I am Tom Bonacquisti, Director of Water Quality and 

Production for the Fairfax County Water Authority in Fairfax County, 

Virginia. I am here on behalf of the American Water Works Association, 

or AWWA. AWWA commends you for holding this hearing and 

appreciates the opportunity to present its views on H.R. 2567, the 

Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005. 

 Founded in 1881, AWWA is the world’s largest and oldest scientific 

and educational association representing drinking water supply 

professionals. Our membership, over 57,000 strong, is comprised of 

administrators, utility operators, professional engineers, contractors, 

manufacturers, scientists, professors, health professionals, and ordinary 

citizens. The association’s membership includes over 4,800 utilities that 

provide over 80 percent of this Nation’s drinking water. AWWA and its 

members are dedicated to providing safe, reliable drinking water to the 

American people. 

 AWWA commends efforts to protect children and animals from the 

dangers of ingesting antifreeze. We support efforts to find a solution to 

prevent the tragedies that occur when children or animals ingest toxic 

doses of antifreeze. As an association of professionals dedicated to 

protecting public health, we can relate to the desire to ensure that 

children and animals don’t accidentally ingest a poisonous compound. 

AWWA’s members work everyday to ensure that millions of Americans 

have safe, high-quality water. We understand that if antifreeze had a 

bitter taste, some needless suffering and expense might be avoided. 

 In our statement today, we will not comment on how best to achieve 

the goal of protecting our children and pets from antifreeze poisoning, or 

which bittering agent to use. Those issues lie outside of our area of 

expertise. We have serious reservations about statutorily mandating a 

specific bittering agent and specific concentrations of that agent. We 

generally believe those kinds of decisions should be left to the regulatory 

process, in which all available scientific data can be examined and 

decisions can be made with opportunity for public review and comment 

and outside an overtly political process. 

 We also have very serious concerns about language in the bill that 

waives the liability of any manufacturer, processor, seller, or recycler of 

antifreeze containing the prescribed adversive agent from any damages 

arising from natural resource or environmental damages. This provision 

is unwise, unsound, and unfair and should be removed from the bill. 

 In this statement, I will primarily address the liability issue, which is 

our chief concern with the bill. H.R. 2567 requires the use of 

denatonium benzoate, DB, as a bittering agent for antifreeze. Little is 

known about the environmental fate and transport of DB. The material 
86

safety data sheet for commercial formulations of DB are not helpful on 

this matter, as they contain little or no data on the fate and transport of 

this agent. According to manufacturers, DB is biodegradable and is not 

known to bioaccumulate. However, studies by other researchers have 

found that the denatonium ion does not biodegrade during treatment in 

typical wastewater treatment plants. Some research suggests that to the 

extent degradation does occur, it is primarily the result of the breakdown 

of benzoate and that the denatonium ion responsible for the adversive 

taste of the compound is not easily biodegradable. 

 Studies also suggest that DB does not adhere to soil, but rather stays 

in and travels with the groundwater. We believe it is reasonable to 

expect contamination problems as DB accumulates in the groundwater 

supplies. Given the extreme bitter properties of DB, it appears that tiny 

amounts of the chemical could render drinking water supplies bitter and 

unpalatable. One manufacturer’s material safety data sheet states that in 

cases of accidental release, DB is to be kept out of water supplies and 

sewers. Given the conflicting and inconclusive data on the fate and 

transport of DB, particularly in water, it would be very imprudent to 

provide far-reaching liability immunity to companies making or handling 

antifreeze containing this chemical or another other adversive agent. 

 A liability waiver is of particular concern because sooner or later, 

somewhere, and perhaps in many places, contamination of drinking 

water supplies is likely to occur. When that happens, drinking water 

utilities will be forced to treat or remove this compound from the water 

they deliver to their customers. Our customers will not accept the taste 

of antifreeze in their tap water. When contamination occurs, drinking 

water utilities will be forced to change or add treatment or removal to get 

DB out of the drinking water. In severe cases, this could even require the 

abandonment of water supplies and the development of new sources. 

Increasingly, in many areas of the country, such new sources are 

unavailable. Whatever a drinking water utility is forced to do, it is all but 

certain to increase the cost of water in that community, perhaps 

significantly. The question will become, who should fairly bear that 

cost? 

 History is replete with examples of the unintended consequences of 

measures adopted to obtain laudable goals. Perchlorate was added to 

munitions to make them more stable. However, perchlorate is now 

found to be contaminating drinking water supplies. MTBE, or methyl 

tertiary butyl ether, was added to motor fuels to reduce air pollution. 

However, MTBE contaminated drinking water supplies in many areas of 

the country, and even minute quantities of MTBE made drinking water 

unpalatable. The cost of cleaning up MTBE-contaminated drinking 

water supplies is conservatively estimated at billions of dollars. 
87

 No one can know what the cost of removing DB from drinking water 

supplies might be, and I am not asserting that it would be billions of 

dollars. Some contamination of water supplies by DB and some 

increased cost of treatment or removal, perhaps significant, is all but 

inevitable. It is also important to remember that antifreeze is used in 

large volumes. 

 I would like to say, in conclusion, AWWA recommends a regulatory 

rather than a legislative process to identify an adverse agent for 

antifreeze. We strongly oppose the limitation on liability provisions of 

H.R. 2567 and strongly recommend that liability provisions be deleted 

from this bill. AWWA and its members thank you for holding this 

hearing concerning H.R. 2567, and thank you for considering our views. 

 [The prepared statement of Tom Bonacquisti follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM BONACQUISTI, DIRECTOR OF WATER QUALITY AND 

PRODUCTION, FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN WATER 

WORKS ASSOCIATION

SUMMARY OF MAJOR POINTS

1. AWWA commends efforts to protect children and animals from the 

dangers of ingesting antifreeze. 

2. AWWA recommends a regulatory rather than a legislative process to 

identify an aversive agent for antifreeze. 

3. AWWA strongly opposes the Limitation on Liability provisions of H.R. 

2567, and strongly recommends that liability provisions be deleted from 

the bill. 

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Mr. Chairman. I am Tom Bonacquisti, Director of Water Quality 

and Production for the Fairfax County Water Authority in Fairfax, Virginia. I am here on 

behalf of the American Water Works Association (AWWA). AWWA commends you 

for holding this hearing and appreciates the opportunity to present its views on H.R. 2567 

– The Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005. 

Founded in 1881, AWWA is the world's largest and oldest scientific and educational 

association representing drinking water supply professionals. Our membership, over 

57,000 strong, is comprised of administrators, utility operators, professional engineers, 

contractors, manufacturers, scientists, professors, health professionals, and ordinary 

citizens. The association's membership includes over 4,800 utilities that provide over 80 

percent of the nation's drinking water. AWWA and its members are dedicated to 

providing safe, reliable drinking water to the American people. 

ANTIFREEZE POISONING IN CHILDREN AND PETS

 AWWA commends your committee’s efforts to protect children and animals from 

the dangers of ingesting antifreeze. We support efforts to find a solution to prevent the 

tragedies that occur when children or animals ingest toxic doses of antifreeze. As an 
88

association of professionals dedicated to protecting public health, we can relate to the 

desire to ensure that children and animals don’t accidentally ingest a poisonous 

compound. AWWA’s members work every day to ensure that millions of Americans 

have safe, high quality water. We understand that if antifreeze had a bitter taste, some 

needless suffering and expense might be avoided. 

In our statement today, we will not comment on how best to achieve the goal of 

protecting our children and pets from antifreeze poisoning or which bittering agent to use. 

Those issues lie outside our area of expertise. However, we do have serious reservations 

about statutorily mandating a specific bittering agent and specific concentrations of that 

agent. We generally believe those kinds of decisions should be left to the regulatory 

process in which all available scientific data can be examined and decisions can be made 

with opportunity for public review and comment outside an overtly political process. 

We also have very serious concerns about language in the bill that waives the 

liability of any manufacturer, processor, seller, or recycler of antifreeze containing the 

prescribed aversive agent from any damages arising from natural resource or 

environmental damages. This provision is unwise, unsound, and unfair, and should be 

removed from the bill. In this statement, I will primarily address the liability issue, which 

is our chief concern with the bill. 

LIMITATION ON LIABILITY

 H.R. 2567 requires the use of denatonium benzoate (DB) as a bittering agent for 

antifreeze. Little is known about the environmental fate and transport of DB. The 

Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for commercial formulations of DB are not helpful 

on this matter as they contain little or no data on the fate and transport of this agent. 

According to the manufacturers, DB is biodegradable and is not known to bioaccumulate. 

However, studies by other researchers have found that the denatonium ion does not 

biodegrade during treatment in a typical wastewater treatment plant. Moreover, some 

research suggests that to the extent degradation does occur, it is primarily the result of the 

breakdown of benzoate and that the denatonium ion, responsible for the aversive taste of 

the compound, is not easily biodegradable. 

Studies also suggest that DB does not adhere to soil, but rather stays in and travels 

with the ground water. We believe it is reasonable to expect contamination problems as 

DB accumulates in the groundwater supplies. Given the extreme bitter properties of DB, 

it appears that tiny amounts of the chemical could render drinking water supplies bitter 

and unpalatable. One manufacturer’s Material Safety Data Sheet states that in cases of 

accidental release, DB is to be kept out of water supplies and sewers. 

Given the conflicting and inconclusive data on the fate and transport of DB, 

particularly in water, it would be very imprudent to provide far-reaching liability 

immunity to companies making or handling antifreeze containing this chemical or any 

other aversive agent. 

 A liability waiver is of particular concern because sooner or later, somewhere, and 

perhaps in many places, contamination of drinking water supplies is likely to occur. 

When that happens, drinking water utilities will be forced to treat or remove this 

compound from the water they deliver to their customers. Our customers will not accept 

the taste of antifreeze in their tap water. 

When contamination occurs, drinking water utilities will be forced to change or add 

treatment or removal to get DB out of the drinking water. In severe cases, this could 

even require the abandonment of water supplies and the development of new sources. 

Increasingly, in many areas of the country such new sources are unavailable. Whatever a 

drinking water utility is forced to do, it is all but certain to increase the cost of the water 

in that community, perhaps significantly. The question will become, who should fairly 

bear that cost? 
89

History is replete with examples of the unintended consequences of measures 

adopted to attain laudable goals. Perchlorate was added to munitions to make them more 

stable; however, perchlorate is now found to be contaminating drinking water supplies. 

MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) was added to motor fuels to reduce air pollution; 

however MTBE contaminated drinking water supplies in many areas of the country, and 

even minute quantities of MTBE made drinking water unpalatable. The cost of cleaning 

up MTBE-contaminated drinking water supplies is conservatively estimated at billions of 

dollars. 

No one can know what the cost of removing DB from drinking water supplies might 

be, and I am not asserting that it would be billions of dollars. However, some 

contamination of water supplies by DB and some increased cost of treatment or removal, 

perhaps significant, is all but inevitable. It is also important to remember that antifreeze 

is used in large volumes in many industrial applications, such as airplane de-icing, and 

that large releases and widespread contamination of water supplies are possible. 

Informed by the MTBE experience, we should seek to avoid DB becoming the 

problem that MTBE became. The impact of even small releases of DB on drinking water 

supplies is unknown. With a widespread mandate for the use of DB in antifreeze, the 

incidence of contaminated drinking water supplies can only increase. If this happens, it 

would be no more fair to excuse the companies making or handling antifreeze from 

liability than it would be to mandate that they be always liable. The question of liability 

is and should remain a decision that is made based on the facts of particular cases. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, AWWA recommends a regulatory rather than a legislative process to 

identify an aversive agent for antifreeze, strongly opposes the Limitation on Liability 

provisions of H.R. 2567, and strongly recommends that liability provisions be deleted 

from this bill. 

AWWA and its members thank you for holding this hearing concerning H.R. 2567 – 

The Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005. AWWA. And thank for you considering our 

views. We will be pleased to answer any questions or provide additional material for the 

committee. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you. Sarah Amundson, Deputy and 

Legislative Director of the Doris Day Animal League. 

MS. AMUNDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also to Ranking 

Member Solis, for this opportunity to testify in support of the Antifreeze 

Bittering Act. I am Sarah Amundson, the Legislative Director with the 

Doris Day Animal League, and I also want to express our genuine thanks 

to Representatives Ackerman, Rohrabacher, and Wilson for their 

leadership on this issue. Do keep in mind that there are more than 58 

million homes in this country that have pets. We are a Nation of pet 

lovers, and the very thought of having 90,000 of our companion animals 

ingest antifreeze and the majority of them die, on an annul basis, is 

simply unacceptable. We certainly recognize that there are three States, 

all three of which we have had a hand in moving legislation in, that 

currently have this statutory provision on their books. I want to remind 

folks that all three of those States also have liability provisions in them. 

So much information has been covered, both through the wonderful 
90

Member statements that were given with the opening of the hearing, and 

also the folks who have testified. I would like to go straight to some of 

the considerations that have been raised, in the hope that we can address 

some of these concerns. 

 First of all, the Doris Day Animal League would by no means 

advocate for the addition of DB in antifreeze as the panacea to this 

genuine problem. For obvious reasons we are careful to tell consumers 

and pet lovers that they need to ensure that antifreeze is properly 

disposed of, properly stored, and that the industry’s efforts to ensure 

there are child safety caps and foils on the tops of those containers are 

measures of protecting pets. But what we do know is that animals are 

actually chewing through those containers, which means they are 

ingesting antifreeze, not only from spills on driveways, but also through 

those containers, and that means we need another tool in the toolbox. 

That is the additional of denatonium benzoate in the antifreeze. We did 

advocate strongly in 2002, in California, for a very similar statute. We 

have the support of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California 

Integrated Waste Management Board, and yes, folks, the Sierra Club, in 

that endeavor. In that situation, we were very pleased to have taken an 

active role, but clearly, as Congressman Ackerman demonstrated, he 

wants to prevent his colleagues in New York from driving to New Jersey 

and exposing pets and children to antifreeze poisonings. For that reason, 

we have got to have a uniform standard, and obviously, the only way to 

regulate interstate commerce in this country is through a Federal law. 

 We are an animal protection organization, which means we are 

necessarily committed to environmental protection. What that means is, 

we have done a grave analysis of what is known about DB, the 

information that is in the risk assessment profile, consideration for the 

fact that it is between 30 and 50 parts per million that actually goes into 

antifreeze in this country to render it bitter, revisit the fact that it only 

takes 7,000 gallons to render all of the antifreeze covered by this bill in 

this country bitter. And I just want to make a valuable point here. There 

has been some misinformation. This bill will only cover the consumer 

market where we have seen the grave nature of this problem. It does not 

cover industrial or commercial uses, which means plane deicing is not 

covered by this bill. We are talking about consumers here. 

 In addition, there have been grave concerns raised about the liability 

waiver. As an animal organization concerned about environmental 

protection, I can say that there is no possible way we would support a 

blanket sort of liability waiver, and it doesn’t exist in this bill. For 

obvious reasons, I am sure if you asked Mr. Bye here, he would state that 

whether it is Superfund, RCRA, or any of the other existing 
91

environmental statutes in this country, he knows for a fact that they will 

still be responsible for cleanup for ethylene glycol antifreeze. 

 Let us get to the volume issue again. DB is not handled, stored, or 

used in the same sort of volume as the additive MTBE in this country, 

and I think Congressman Ackerman did a wonderful job of illustrating 

the nature of 80 million gallons, on a daily basis, of MTBE versus 7,000 

gallons for the entire product of antifreeze covered under the bill, on an 

annual basis. I wish Congressman Ackerman, with his illustrative points, 

had taken that cup of denatonium benzoate and showed us just how little 

of that cup would go into that one-gallon containing, because at 30 to 50 

parts per million, you are probably talking about the tip of my finger. 

That is how little DB would go into a single container. 

 You know, a lot of concerns have been raised today, and in other 

situations, with regard to water quality. Today, I want to introduce into 

the record, with the Chairman’s permission, a letter we have received 

from the California State Water Resources Control Board, appointed by 

the Governor, stating that, “Even though it is regarded as the bitterest 

known substance to date, we are unaware of adverse impacts to 

California’s water supplies arising from the use of denatonium benzoate 

in antifreeze and a variety of other products.” 

 Further to that point, I want to note that this statute has been on the 

books in the State of Oregon since 1993, and I have a direct quote from a 

Maine environmental protection report from their State toxicologist. “No 

incidents of drinking water well contamination or groundwater 

contamination or bad tasting water due to denatonium benzoate have 

become known.” And of course, Ranking Member Solis referred to the 

California Integrated Waste Management report that found that DB 

readily biodegrades and its transport is attenuated in soil. 

 We have also had a number of concerns raised about the efficacy of 

DB, and I would like us to take into consideration a weight-of-evidence 

approach, which is what we often do with chemicals. If EPA is 

demonstrating what they know about the risk profile, on the basis of the 

testimony presented here today, it seems to me that much of the criticism 

about the efficacy of DB has come from a 2004 review of the Oregon 

Poison Control Center records of pediatric poisonings. I want to point 

out two quick things here. First and foremost, the majority of problems 

we have in this country of ethylene glycol poisoning are household pets. 

There is no reporting requirement for household pet ingestions or deaths 

in Oregon, so the issue was not even considered. When it comes to 

efficacy, we have definitely got to take that issue to heart. 

 The survey also measured exposures, but didn’t measure the level of 

DB in products consumed. A 1996 Oregon study, after the bill was 
92

implemented, did a study of the measurement of DB in the products that 

were regulated and there were some that had no detectable amounts. 

 MR. GILLMOR. We will have to wrap up pretty quickly. 

 MS. AMUNDSON. Yes, sir. Efficacy has also been studied by EPA. 

When you consider rodenticides and the previous requirement to ensure 

both dyes and bittering agents were included in rodenticides, EPA did a 

review of the scientific data and considered it the bitterest substance 

known to man. It did not compromise the value of the rodenticides, and 

the conclusion was that it also prevented children’s exposure or 

children’s ingestions of that product. Antifreeze poisonings cause animal 

suffering and great death. We have a solution here for pennies per 

gallon, and together, we can find a way to mark this bill up and move it 

forward, and really address the 90,000 deaths that we are seeing each 

year. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 [The prepared statement of Sarah Amundson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SARAH AMUNDSON, DEPUTY AND LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE

Good afternoon. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for 

the opportunity to testify today in support of the Antifreeze Bittering Act. I am Sara 

Amundson, Legislative Director for the Doris Day Animal League (DDAL). DDAL has 

350,000 members and supporters nationwide who strongly support H.R. 2567. 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 

Representatives Ackerman, Rohrabacher, and Wilson for their leadership on H.R. 2567, a 

bill with the ultimate goal of better protecting animals and children from a common 

household hazard. 

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, the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, Honeywell 

and all U.S. antifreeze manufacturers, the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the 

American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Veterinary Medical Association, 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-ityourselfers.” In addition, a neighbor wishing to rid himself of a barking dog or 

wandering cat may deliberately bait a pet, instigating a cruel solution to a neighborhood 

squabble. 

Because it is colorful and has a sweet taste, animals and children are drawn to it. 

Animals may quickly ingest a lethal amount. One teaspoonful of ethylene glycol 

antifreeze can kill a cat. As little as one to two tablespoonfuls can kill a 100-pound dog. 

One survey found that two out of three veterinarians see at least one accidental ethylene 

glycol poisoning each year. The Washington State School of Veterinary Medicine places 

the annual number of dog and cat antifreeze poisonings at approximately 10,000; 

however, a 1996 “study of small practice veterinarians throughout the United States 
93

found that more than 90,000 dogs and cats die each year from ingesting ethylene glycol 

antifreeze.”1

 Unfortunately, the symptoms of poisoning can be misleading, causing the 

pet lover to think the animal is merely sleepy until renal failure causes death. 

Moreover, according to statistics compiled by the American Association of Poison 

Control Centers, more than 1,300 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. While records 

indicate that accidental ingestion by children is caught early enough to prevent death, not 

all human victims recover because not all ingestions are accidental. Ethylene glycol 

antifreeze is also used in murders and suicides. 

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 employ an 

additional tool, which is requiring the addition of denatonium benzoate (DB) to antifreeze 

that is sold directly to the consumer. 

Denatonium benzoate is one of the bitterest substances known and available to us. 

In 1963, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 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) currently requires that all industrial alcoholbased 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. 

Requiring the addition of DB to ethylene glycol antifreeze destined for the consumer 

retail market has the potential to 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, common-sense measure, literally costing pennies per gallon, to 

achieve significant, beneficial results. 

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 ten years that 

had passed, despite the voluntary efforts by the antifreeze industry to educate the public, 

large numbers of animals were still being poisoned from ingesting antifreeze. In 2001, 

13 California veterinary clinics reported 136 cases of antifreeze poisoning with 107 

 

1

 Petition published in Fed. Reg. v.63, #27, Feb. 10, 1998, p.6693. 
94

deaths. Antifreeze poisoning continued to send many children to the hospital. 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 several other states in support of 

bills to require the addition of denatonium benzoate to antifreeze. Last year, New 

Mexico became the third state to pass such a bill into law. And that language is identical 

to the federal bill before you today. 

DDAL strongly supports the pursuit of progressive state policies. However, 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 and distributed 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 denatonium benzoate as an additive to antifreeze that 

contains ethylene glycol....” 

Concerns and Questions 

We would like to address and, we hope, allay, some of the concerns about this 

legislation that have been raised. 

First and foremost, comparisons have been made between this legislation and the 

methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) issue, but there are significant and meaningful 

differences between the two. 

3⁄4 Contrary to characterizations that have been made, there is no blanket liability 

waiver in the bill before you today. While the MTBE liability language would also 

have extended to MTBE manufacturers, H.R. 2567 does exactly the opposite: It 

holds the manufacturers of antifreeze and of DB liable for their respective products, 

without limit. All three state laws (California, New Mexico and Oregon) include 

some form of liability protection for antifreeze manufacturers. H.R. 2567 goes a 

step further than California’s and Oregon’s laws by establishing “assigned liability” 

under which antifreeze manufacturers and denatonium benzoate manufacturers are 

liable for any problems that arise from the use of their respective product. DDAL 

would not support legislation that exempts manufacturers from liability for their 

products. 

3⁄4 In 1999, MTBE use amounted to 8.4 million gallons PER DAY (3 billion+ 

gallonsper year), whereas approximately 7,000 gallons annually of DB will be 

needed to bitter the antifreeze covered by the legislation (i.e., 157 million gallons). 

According to a report commissioned by the Maine legislature: “One gallon of 

reformulated gasoline, if spilled, would release a mass of 308g of MTBE to the 

environment. It would take 2704 gallons of treated antifreeze to release an 

equivalent mass of denatonium benzoate.” 2

 

2

 Denatonium Benzoate Report, ME Dept. of Environmental Protection, February 13, 2006, p. 11. 
95

3⁄4 MTBE was able to cause such damage to drinking water supplies in large part 

because gasoline is stored in underground tanks. About 9 million gallons of 

gasoline are released to the environment each year due to spills and leaks. At no 

time is either DB or antifreeze stored underground. 

That same report by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection cited a 

conversation with Ken Kaufmann, Oregon’s state toxicologist, in which he stated 

that “’no incidents of drinking water well contamination or groundwater 

contamination or bad tasting water due to denatonium benzoate have become 

known.’” 3

3⁄4 EPA data indicate that MTBE is a potential human carcinogen at high doses. At 

low doses, such as the low levels needed for aversion, DB exhibits low mammalian, 

avian, and aquatic toxicity. There is a record of only one negative reaction to DB, 

which occurred in 1978 in a hypersensitive man. 

Efficacy Issues 

Questions have been raised about whether the addition of DB to antifreeze will 

indeed prevent poisonings. Most of those expressing doubts about DB’s efficacy point to 

a June 2004 retrospective review by Mullins and Horowitz of Oregon Poison Control 

Center (OPCC) records of pediatric exposures to antifreeze and windshield washer fluid 

for the period 1987-2003, as well as coroner reports of poisoning deaths between 1994-

1997. 4

 OPCC reported “no change in frequency” of pediatric poisoning frequency after 

1995. The authors also found that “no child died or suffered ‘major’ effects before or 

after 1995.” They concluded, “The mandatory addition of denatonium benzoate to 

automotive products has produced no measurable reduction in unintentional pediatric 

toxic alcohol exposures in Oregon.” 

Not only are there deficiencies in this report, but it must also be placed in the 

context of other reports that point to the efficacy of DB. 

3⁄4 The overwhelming problem with antifreeze poisonings, in terms of number and 

mortality, occurs among animals, chiefly household pets. The Mullins/Horowitz 

review does not even consider this aspect of the issue. Unfortunately, it would be 

difficult to perform a similar evaluation of animal poisonings as there are no 

reporting requirements, in Oregon or elsewhere. 

3⁄4 This evaluation actually argues in support of a uniform national standard 

inasmuch as it does not account for the effect of the use or misuse of antifreeze 

purchased outside Oregon. 

3⁄4 The Mullins/Horowitz retrospective survey does not take into account variable 

levels of DB in antifreeze and windshield washer fluid. A state study 5 done in 

1996 found considerable variability in the amount of DB present in various 

consumer products. The availability of consumer products that are not in 

 

3

 Ibid., p. 8. 

4

 Mullins and Horowitz, Vet Hum Toxicol, 2004 Jun;46(3): 150-2. 

5

 The Oregon Health Division is responsible for monitoring compliance with the required addition 

of a bittering agent to consumer products under the Household Toxic Products Rules, but there is no 

protocol for periodic testing. Henderson et al. [Chemosphere. 1998 Jan;36(1):203-10) developed a 

sufficiently sensitive High Pressure Liquid Chromatography method for analyzing DB in consumer 

products. They analyzed antifreeze and windshield washer fluid products purchased in Oregon 1994 

and 1996. The concentration of DB in the products purchased in 1994 ranged from non-detectable 

(less than 1.25 ppm) to 30.9 ppm, with 7 out of the 10 products having undetectable levels. In 1996, 

the concentration of DB in antifreeze ranged from 26.4 to 32.6, with no non-detects. The 

concentration of DB in windshield washer fluid ranged from non-detect to 30.1 ppm, with 8 of the 

14 washer fluids having undetectable levels. Although this is a very small study, this indicates that 

in 1996, there was still considerable variability in the amount of DB present in various consumer 

products. 
96

compliance with the law suggests not merely that the impact of the law (i.e., 

decrease in child and animal poisonings) may not be measurable for some time, but 

also that the purpose of the law is actually undermined. This situation argues in 

favor of a uniform federal standard for bittering antifreeze. 

3⁄4 This is not the only indication that the Mullins/Horowitz survey may have been 

premature. A 2001 analysis of data by the staff of the California Integrated Waste 

Management Board (CIWMB) suggests that it would be ill-advised to make 

judgments about the efficacy of denatonium benzoate on the basis of experience 

over a relatively short time period by noting that “[c]omparatively, it took 17 years 

to conclusively prove that child-resistant caps were effective in reducing child 

exposures in general.” 

It is true that data on the efficacy of DB are not abundant, and that data exist on both 

sides of the question. That being said, however, there is evidence of its usefulness in 

preventing or mitigating ingestion of substances by children and animals. 

For example, in its memo supporting West Harlem Environmental Action v. U.S. 

EPA, the Natural Resources Defense Council6

 wrote: “...EPA claims that it revoked the 

bittering agent requirement because of efficacy concerns, but EPA’s own analysis 

disproves these concerns. Before requiring the safety measures, EPA reviewed scientific 

studies on denatonium benzoate, a possible additive and ‘the bitterest substance known to 

man.’ EPA 0113I. A field study of a rodenticide containing 10 parts per million of this 

bittering agent resulted in a ‘95% reduction in rodent activity.’ Id. The same level of 

bittering agent in different household products ‘was found to reduce the amount ingested 

by children.’ Id. This record evidence supports the conclusion that a bittering agent can 

effectively control rats and deter children’s exposure.” 

In 1963, the FDA approved the addition of denatonium benzoate to cosmetic and 

toiletry products as a safety mechanism to deter children from ingesting these products. 

It is used in hundreds of products to render them unpalatable, including cleaning agents, 

other household products, cosmetics, and personal care products—everything from 

detergents and aftershave to fire extinguisher fluid, gasoline, pesticides and herbicides, 

ink, wax crayons, nail polish remover, bubble bath, hair spray, and eyeshadow. It is even 

in veterinary sprays and ointments. In 1989, the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

approved it for food plant use. 

Also, according to the Center for the Science and Engineering of Materials7

, DB “is 

recognized as the bitterest substance known. When it is added in only minute quantities 

to potentially harmful household, garden or automotive products, this harmless additive 

renders these products unpalatable and becomes a powerful deterrent against poisoning 

especially in young children.” 

Likewise, the CIWMB staff study also found “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.” 

One such study is “Denatonium benzoate as a deterrent to ingestion of toxic 

substances: toxicity and efficacy”8

, in which the authors conclude the following: 

 

6

 West Harlem Environmental Action v. US EPA, Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Summary Judgment, filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council in US District Court for the 

Southern District of NY, March 29, 2005; pp15-16 

7

 “The National Science Foundation sponsors a network of Materials Research Science and 

Engineering Centers (MRSECs) at U.S. universities. The Center for the Science & Engineering of 

Materials (CSEM) at Caltech is one of them. The goal of the program is to stimulate 

interdisciplinary research and education in materials.” (CSEM Fact Sheet) 8

 Hansen SR, Janssen C, Beasley VR. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 1993 Jun; 35(3):234-6. 
97

“Since there is evidence that some taste aversion agents reduce the quantities of 

liquid substances ingested by dogs, and there is evidence that denatonium benzoate 

reduces ingestion quantities by children, denatonium benzoate may reduce the 

seriousness of accidental exposures to harmful fatal substances in dogs. This 

deterrent potential in animals needs to be investigated further. Denatonium 

benzoate should be added to toxic substances available in and around homes which, 

when ingested, represent serious hazards to animals and children.” 

Given that there is evidence of an aversive reaction to DB by animals; that there is 

no evidence indicating animals or children might be harmed by this safety measure; and 

that animals are likely to benefit from this step and children almost certainly will 

benefit—coupled with the long history of DB's use (and recognized value) as a bittering 

agent—a strong case can be made in favor of a policy decision to require the addition of a 

bittering agent to this indisputably toxic substance even in the face of some scientific 

uncertainty. We feel that this is a wise step to take since the possibility exists for 

preventing some poisonings or at least mitigating the severity of those that do occur. 

Environmental Issues 

As an animal protection organization, we would not advocate the use of chemicals 

that would harm the environment, animals, or human health, so we do not take lightly the 

environmental concerns that have been raised about DB. We have based our support for 

adding denatonium benzoate to ethylene glycol antifreeze not only on the prospect of 

preventing poisonings, but also on an extensive record of safe use both here and abroad. 

3⁄4 DB is a chemical that has been used safely and effectively as an aversive agent in 

this country for over 40 years; as noted earlier, in 1963 the FDA approved its use in 

cosmetics and toiletries to deter children from ingesting them. It is used in dozens of 

other household and personal care items, cleaning agents, and many other products, 

such as deer repellent, that make their way into the municipal waste stream or are 

deposited directly on or applied to the environment. Bitrex, one of the commercial 

brands of DB, “has been officially recognized as the denaturant of choice in more 

than 40 countries.” 

 While some data gaps exist for hazard identification, state and federal regulators 

ultimately assess for risk. With that in mind, it should be noted that: 

3⁄4 The CIWMB staff analysis found 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.” 

3⁄4 DB exhibits low mammalian, avian, and aquatic toxicity, especially at the levels 

used for aversion. 

3⁄4 Ethylene glycol antifreeze is already rigorously managed as a hazardous 

substance; waste antifreeze may contain lead, cadmium, and other heavy metals. 

According to EPA, dumping antifreeze can cause serious water quality problems. 

Therefore, the industry urges consumers and large-scale users to dispose of used 

antifreeze properly. That will not change when DB is added in the minute quantities 

needed as a bittering agent. The Consumer Product Safety Commission’s testimony 

at the Senate hearing confirmed that DB will contribute little or no incremental 

hazard or risk to human health when added to ethylene glycol antifreeze. 

 
98

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. Our very 

informal tally of cases of both deliberate and accidental poisonings includes eight alleged 

antifreeze deaths in Iowa, and others in Florida, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, 

Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and elsewhere. We worked with a family 

in Georgia who sought justice for their two dogs killed by a belligerent neighbor. State 

Representative Kathy McCoy, who successfully carried the bill in New Mexico, lost her 

own companion animal in the same way. Suicides and murders involving antifreeze have 

occurred in Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, 

and Pennsylvania. 

Where the perpetrator in a deliberate poisoning case 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. 

Because of its widespread acceptance, and because consumer demand for less toxic 

alternatives has been slow to develop, we fully expect ethylene glycol-based antifreeze to 

continue to dominate the market for the foreseeable future. Therefore, accidents will 

continue to happen despite the best prevention and precautions, and sadly there are 

always those who seek an easy way to harm animals. These are needless tragedies that 

touch many lives. This legislation will do much to prevent both kinds of tragedies from 

happening. 

Please support moving H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act, to the floor for 

consideration by the full House of Representatives.

 MR. GILLMOR. Thank you very much. With regard to the letter that 

you wanted entered into the record, without objection, hearing none, it 

will be entered in the record. 

 [The information follows:] 
99
100
101
102

MR. GILLMOR. Let me start with Mr. Simms. A couple of questions. 

You talked about the necessity of balancing risk, and it was unfair that 

the public bear the whole risk. If we look at this situation, we know on 
103

one side there is a risk of death to children, and, if Mr. Ackerman’s 

testimony is correct, 1,400 children a year, that means on average we 

have more than 100 children every month dying from the lack of a 

bitterant in antifreeze. On the other hand, we weigh the chemical DB, 

which so far we have no evidence of a risk, and we know it is used in 

hundreds of products, and in this case it would be a very minimal use, 

only 7,000 gallons. Would you explain to me how it is a good value 

judgment on our part to let 100 children die a month, instead of taking a 

small amount of this agent, which has no risk shown, and trying to save 

those children? 

 MR. SIMMS. I will answer your question, but I want to make a 

couple of clarifying points. One, our objection is to the liability waiver. 

Removing the liability waiver does not-- 

 MR. GILLMOR. If the liability waiver were not in here, would you 

support the bill, saying we ought to mandate the addition of DB, period? 

 MR. SIMMS. What we object to is the liability waiver and the 

preemption of State authority to regulate. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Well, you still haven’t answered my question. 

 MR. SIMMS. Okay, I will answer. If those two points in the bill were 

absent, we would not be objecting to the bill. 

 MR. GILLMOR. And not be objecting? 

 MR. SIMMS. That is correct. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Is that the same as supporting or is that the same as 

waffling? 

 MR. SIMMS. I will give you the best answer that I can give. The 

only reason that we are objecting to the bill is the liability waiver and the 

preemption. Assuming that those two things were gone, we would look 

at the bill again and determine whether it was worthy of support. Given 

the balances that you have just discussed, my assumption is that we 

would support it. And in fact, we are strongly in support of bills such as 

this that have, as their objective, the protection of public health and the 

environment, and in fact, have recognized bitterants as a way of 

achieving that for poisons that otherwise are-- 

 MR. GILLMOR. Let me ask you, in terms of preemption, would you 

agree that there are certain cases in a national market where a product 

made in one State is shipped to all 50 States, as Mr. Ackerman pointed 

out, a car drives all the way across the country with that product, isn’t 

there a reason, which we do in a lot of cases, for having a uniform 

standard? What is the holy grail of not having a national standard when 

you are talking about a chemical like DB and you are talking about a 

product that is used all over the country. The antifreeze that I get in Ohio 

isn’t any different than the antifreeze in Florida or Kentucky. Why 

shouldn’t there be a national standard? 
104

 MR. SIMMS. I am not suggesting that there should not be a national 

standard. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Well, that is what preemption is. 

 MR. SIMMS. But let me clarify. I mean, what we are suggesting is 

that if Congress decides to adopt a national standard and that standard 

says, use a bitterant and use it, sufficient to be adversive for this highly 

toxic material, then States should be able to regulate beyond that to the 

extent that they believe it is necessary to protect their citizens, but it 

wouldn’t preclude that national standard from being in place. 

 MR. GILLMOR. But it wouldn’t be a national standard. It could be a 

national standard-- 

 MR. SIMMS. It would not be a uniform national standard. 

 MR. GILLMOR. --with 50 different amendments. 

 MR. SIMMS. It is not clear to me why there is any expectation that 

that would happen and why, therefore, there is a need to preempt that in 

the bill. 

 MR. GILLMOR. Well, it is already happening. You have three States 

adopting a different standard, and you have 10 others considering it, so I 

mean that is the concern. Let me ask you just one more thing, regarding 

your concern with DB. On March 29 of last year, your organization 

submitted a motion for summary judgment in West Harlem 

Environmental Action v. U.S. EPA. In that case, you argued that the 

EPA should require a bittering agent, including DB, in rat poisoning, to 

protect against unhealthy ingestion by children and deer, and you stated 

the evidence from DB tests supports a conclusion that a bittering agent 

can effectively control rats and deter children’s exposure. So I mean, 

why do you think Governor Richardson, who sent us a letter in support 

of the bill and a letter against the bill-- 

 MR. SIMMS. Respectfully, I disagree. We are not suggesting that 

bittering agents cannot be effective ways to prevent unwanted ingestion 

of harmful chemicals. Far from that; we have recognized them as a 

valuable means of doing that. Some context to that particular case: what 

we were challenging was EPA’s withdrawal of the protection of bitterant 

and marking dyes in rat poison, which it had decided to impose, based on 

a specific finding that rat poison posed an unacceptable risk to health, 

poisoning in the range of 15,000 to 50,000 children a year, and we 

argued that they could not remove that protection without imposing some 

alternative protection for human health and accidental poisonings. And 

in doing so, we argued that they needed to reimpose that requirement, 

that we acknowledge would protect people from unwanted poisonings. 

But by no means is our position here inconsistent. We do not argue here 

that bitterants are ineffective or we know nothing about their use in 

antifreeze. We have not looked at that or studied that. We certainly 
105

would say that they are effective in some context and very useful in some 

context. The problem here is with letting industry off the hook for any 

liability that might occur down the road, in an instance where some harm 

does occur. 

 MR. GILLMOR. We could pursue it further, but my time has expired, 

so let me go to Ms. Solis. 

 MS. SOLIS. Thank you. My question is for Dr. Eyrich. Did I 

pronounce that correctly? I wanted to ask you if you would support 

mandating the use of another antifreeze formulation called propylene 

glycol, which would be significantly less toxic and meets the testing 

standards for an engine coolant and corrosion properties? 

 DR. EYRICH. Thank you for your question. I am aware of propylene 

glycol. From a medical standpoint, propylene glycol will also respond to 

the test they use to test for ethylene glycol, and so it makes it very 

difficult, in a medical situation, to actually understand what the animal 

has actually been exposed to. Antifreeze or ethylene glycol is still a very 

common chemical, and I think there are people in this room that are more 

qualified to answer the question of whether it is no longer going to be 

used any time in the immediate future or be replaced entirely by 

propylene glycol. And certainly, alternatives should be looked at or 

entertained as much as possible. 

 MS. SOLIS. Thank you. And I think that is what some of us are 

trying to get at, if there is a way to look at other types of additives that 

are not going to be as harmful to the public health and to, obviously, our 

water, in this case, and to habitat. And I just wanted to clarify, also, from 

Mrs. Amundson. You talked about legislation in California that was 

passed. Certainly, they have been ahead of us on many things, and in 

this area they did provide for a liability waiver for manufacturers and 

what have you, but they did not waive liability for environmental damage 

or natural resources, much like the State of Oregon. So let us be clear on 

that what we are looking at here, in terms of this legislation, is sweeping. 

This will actually remove that liability through the whole process and 

that is something that just doesn’t sit well with some of the members of 

this committee, and myself included. I am concerned about that. 

 And I also wanted to go to Mr. Bye, regarding your testimony. You 

said, on page six, the proposed Federal legislation would not change the 

liability of antifreeze manufacturers for the products. Under the 

legislation, antifreeze manufacturers continue to be liable for ethylene 

glycol antifreeze itself, and DB manufacturers and distributors are liable. 

I mean, from what we are hearing here, it sounds like we have some 

very, very different perceptions of who is going to be held liable and who 

is not. Can you explain your statement again? 
106

 MR. BYE. Yes. Our position is very clear on this. As I said, we are 

experts on what our product does in the cooling system of a car. That is 

where our chemists work, and that is what our expertise lies in. We are 

not experts in any way, shape or form, and so we fully stand behind, 

always have and always will, any issues that are our product: the 

antifreeze and the components of it that are designed to work in a car’s 

cooling system, any impact they have on the environment. On any 

liability situation, we are fully supportive of, always have been and 

always will be. When we are asked to put a component into our product 

that we are not experts in-- 

 MS. SOLIS. Yes. 

 MR. BYE. --that is where we feel we should not be held liable for 

any impact that product may have, but we feel that full liability should 

resort to and be assigned to the people that manufacture it and supply it. 

So that is just where the distinction comes, just where our area of 

expertise lies, and that is not with a bittering agent; it is with car cooling 

systems. 

 MS. SOLIS. Yes. And if I ask you the same question, would you 

support mandating the use of another type of additive that I mentioned, 

propylene glycol, which is less toxic. 

 MR. BYE. Yes, we are the leading seller today of propylene glycol 

product in the United States. 

 MS. SOLIS. Yes. 

 MR. BYE. Order of magnitude, we sell 250,000 gallons, plus or 

minus, out of a total of 50 million. It is readily available at Wal-Mart, 

AutoZone, anywhere else. It has some issues with it that would cause us 

probably not to be supportive of it, but not the least of which is, it is only 

slightly less toxic to start with. Some could maybe address that better. 

But the biggest issue for us, on the automotive side, is that it has different 

cooling capabilities. It requires different additive packages for corrosion, 

and the net of all that is, it would require the car manufacturers to 

redesign engine cooling systems. 

 MS. SOLIS. My time is almost up, so I want to, if I could--sorry to 

interrupt. 

 MR. BYE. Yes. 

 MS. SOLIS. But wasn’t it true that in the 108th Congress, Honeywell 

and the trade association, Consumer Specialty Products, opposed H.R. 

1563, which required DB to be added in the antifreeze? 

 MR. BYE. We didn’t oppose generally, we have opposed it on a 

State basis, prior to late 2004, for many of the reasons stated. 

 MS. SOLIS. You did not oppose that Federal piece of legislation that 

was introduced in the 108th? 
107

 MR. BYE. I do not believe so. Oh, we did? Okay. I just had the bill 

numbers mixed up. 

 MS. SOLIS. My understanding is that-- 

 MR. BYE. You were correct. I had the bills-- 

 MS. SOLIS. --the information that was provided back-- 

 MR. BYE. Right. 

 MS. SOLIS. --at that time was submitted by your association-- 

 MR. BYE. No, you are correct. 

 MS. SOLIS. --in opposition. 

 MR. BYE. Yes. 

 MS. SOLIS. In opposition. 

 MR. BYE. Yes. 

 MS. SOLIS. That is a lot of information, by the way. 

 MR. BYE. Yes. 

 MS. SOLIS. An analysis that has been done that I believe EPA 

mentioned that they did not have a chance to look at, testing that had 

been done by your trade organization. 

 MR. BYE. We provided all of that information to everybody on the 

panel, and we have always been forthcoming with all of that information. 

 MS. SOLIS. But with EPA, do you know if they have actually had an 

opportunity to-- 

 MR. BYE. We did not provide it to them. We provided it to the 

panel. 

 MS. SOLIS. Okay. Mr. Bye, is it correct that there are a number of 

scientific studies, on the environment fate of DB, that shows it does not 

biodegrade in the environment and could present a risk to our 

groundwater? 

 MR. BYE. There may be. There are a number of conflicting studies. 

I am not familiar with the content of all of them. Again, that goes back 

to-- 

 MS. SOLIS. So these studies are included here in the-- 

 MR. BYE. Yes, they are. 

 MS. SOLIS. --association that you represent. 

 MR. BYE. And as we have pointed out, there is conflicting data in 

there and hence our reluctance to take on full responsibility for the 

product. 

 MS. SOLIS. Can I go over? 

 MR. GILLMOR. I was going to let you go over, as much as I went 

over, but I think you are there. 

 MS. SOLIS. All right, thank you. 

 MR. GILLMOR. The gentlelady from New Mexico. 

 MRS. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bonacquisti, I have 

a couple of questions for you. You said in your testimony that you don’t 
108

like the liability provisions, the separated liability allowing the DB 

manufacturers to be liable for their product and the antifreeze 

manufacturers to be liable for this product that is in this bill, and you 

called it unwise, unsound and unfair. In the spring of 2003, the 

American Water Works Association issued a press release stating that 

you supported an act called the Drinking Water Standards Preservation 

Act that would protect water utilities from lawsuits as long they are in 

compliance with Federal and State regulations. 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. Yes, that is true. 

 MRS. WILSON. Why is fair or sound and wise for you and unwise, 

unsound and unfair for the guy at the other end of the table? 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. Well, I think the water utilities are public health 

and public service entities. Our mission is to remove contaminants from 

a water supply, not to put them in, and if we meet Federal standards for 

drinking water contaminants, or if we are below those standards that 

have been set by a regulatory process, through EPA and the regulatory 

process, we should not be held liable. 

 MRS. WILSON. So if Mr. Bye complies with the Federal standards, 

he should still be liable, but if you do, you shouldn’t because you are a 

nonprofit? 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. Well, if Mr. Bye’s product went through a 

regulatory process. 

 MRS. WILSON. So your issue here is not that it is the difference 

between law and regulation. Is that what I am hearing here? 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. Well-- 

 MRS. WILSON. I won’t push you any further, but as I like to say at 

my house, only my mother can have it both ways, and I think you see my 

point here. 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. I understand. 

 MRS. WILSON. I wanted to ask a question of the folks from the 

NRDC, if I could, Mr. Simms. You talked about unacceptable risks and 

you talked about rat poison in particular, and the adding of bitterant to rat 

poisoning, that there is a level of unacceptable risk and that somewhere 

between 15--and as I think I hear you right, 15 and 50,000 children are 

poisoned per year with rat poison. At what point does the risk become 

unacceptable? 

 MR. SIMMS. Well, let me clarify. That was EPA’s finding of 

unacceptable risk. And it was pursuant to fifth row, which is the-- 

 MRS. WILSON. I am familiar with law. 

 MR. SIMMS. Yes. And so that was not our determination of 

unacceptable risk. It was a litigation that revolved around EPA’s 

regulatory determination of unacceptable risk, and then active afterwards 
109

with respect to rat poison that was inconsistent with that finding of 

unacceptable risk. 

 MRS. WILSON. Do you think that that is unacceptable risk for 15,000 

children to be poisoned? 

 MR. SIMMS. Do I personally think that? 

 MRS. WILSON. Well, NRDC advocated for keeping the bitterant in 

the rat poison. 

 MR. SIMMS. That is right, that is right. 

 MRS. WILSON. So you agree that that was-- 

 MR. SIMMS. We would leave it as it is. That is something that 

should be addressed. 

 MRS. WILSON. What the level of risk is. 

 MR. SIMMS. The level of risk, that level of risk from exposure to rat 

poison. Absolutely. 

 MRS. WILSON. The reason I wanted to hear what you had to say 

about that a little more is because that is what we are doing here, we are 

balancing risks. We have a known risk with antifreeze of about 1,400 

children being poisoned each year, not dying but being poisoned, and 

about 90,000 animals per year, and we also have a low risk of an additive 

that is very common. And it seems to me that the trial lawyers are upset 

because they are going to have one less party to sue. Well, that is a risk I 

am willing to take, when the balance is on the other side of the number of 

people being poisoned. 

 Mr. Bonacquisti, one final question for you in the time that I have 

available. You talked about in your testimony, you said that it is 

inevitable that DB will eventually show up in the water system. There 

are other products that contain DB. We have gone through the list here, 

the shampoo, the things to clean my shower, all kinds of cosmetics and 

so forth. Have any of your members detected this as a problem now, and 

what do you and your association members use to get DB out of the 

water now? 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. Right now, I am not sure if we have detected 

DB. We would use some analytical techniques to do so. To get DB out 

of the water, I really don’t know. We have different water treatment 

techniques to use for different types of contamination, but I don’t think 

that there is a enough research or scientific data that has been 

accumulated so far to help our water utilities determine what the best 

avenue of treatment is. 

 MRS. WILSON. Well, you said in your testimony that somewhere, 

and perhaps in many places, contamination of drinking water supplies is 

likely to occur. We have been using this for 45 years. 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. Yes. And that is where we are going to have do 

our research. 
110

 MRS. WILSON. Where has it occurred? 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. We are going to have do our research to find 

that out. I mean, if DB is being added to larger and larger quantities of 

this antifreeze, then we will potentially see this in the drinking water 

supply. 

 MRS. WILSON. I mean, we are using it in hundreds of products 

already that are going down the drain and into the waste water, not into 

an antifreeze changing pool at Just Brakes or at Jiffy Lube. Have you 

had any cases where it has been detected in the water, and what is the 

treatment mechanism used-- 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. Not to my knowledge have we had any 

detection on DB. 

 MRS. WILSON. So this statement that contamination of drinking 

water supplies is likely to occur, what is that based on? 

 MR. BONACQUISTI. On an increased volume of DB being added into 

antifreeze, if it is added. 

 MRS. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 MR. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Washington. 

 MR. INSLEE. Thank you, thank you. Mr. Bye, if this bill passed 

without the liability protection for you, would you quit making 

antifreeze? 

 MR. BYE. Would we quit making antifreeze? 

 MR. INSLEE. Yes. 

 MR. BYE. No, we would not. 

 MR. INSLEE. So the issue is whether or not citizens--they are going 

to get their antifreeze. The question is whether they are going to have--in 

the existing bill, they won’t have relief if they get poisoned, and if we 

pass the bill without it, they will have the antifreeze and the protection of 

the judicial system in case they do get poisoned, right? Is that pretty 

much the deal? 

 MR. BYE. If the bill passes? 

 MR. INSLEE. If the bill passes without the liability waiver for the 

manufacturer of the antifreeze, consumers will get the antifreeze, you are 

going to keep making it-- 

 MR. BYE. Yes. 

 MR. INSLEE. --to keep their cars running, and they will also have 

existing protection in the judicial system in case they get poisoned, 

against the manufacturer of the antifreeze, right? 

 MR. BYE. Correct. 

 MR. INSLEE. Okay. So if we pass this bill without the liability 

provisions, we will get the antifreeze, the cars will still work, the dogs 

won’t get poisoned, the kids won’t get poisoned, and in case somebody 
111

gets poisoned by the product, Americans will have what they have today, 

which is the right to a judicial remedy, is that the deal? 

 MR. BYE. They certainly will. 

 MR. INSLEE. Okay. That is why I think it probably makes sense to 

take the liability provision of this thing out of here, because there is no 

reason for it. I want to ask Mr. Bye or anyone else this: why mandate a 

specific chemical? If we want to solve this problem, why don’t we just 

mandate a bittering agent that meets a certain characteristic? Why 

wouldn’t that be a preferable way to do this? Can anybody articulate 

that? Anyone? 

 MS. AMUNDSON. If I may, Congressman. I guess now is the time to 

step up a bit. Mr. Bye could certainly address why it is that denatonium 

benzoate is the chemical of choice in this situation, but I do want to say 

that we have had the opportunity to experience markup on this bill on the 

Senate side, and this is an issue that did arise at that time and the 

sponsors did address it through an amendment. I have no idea, and 

obviously I cannot speak for the sponsors for this bill, but there is the 

possibility that an equivalent chemical that demonstrates the things that 

we are asking DB to demonstrate in the Senate version of the bill, could 

be a way of addressing this issue. 

 MR. INSLEE. I am sorry. You know more about that different 

universe, the Senate, than I do. But what was the amendment? There 

was an amendment to allow alternatives, then? 

 MS. AMUNDSON. There was an amendment to, in essence, create a 

study provision on denatonium benzoate and also to allow for the 

addition of other additives that demonstrated what DB did under the 

auspices of that study and performed an equivalent level of protection 

without injuring cars’ engines. 

 MR. BYE. And to that point, if you asked for all of our comments, 

we as an industry, I can’t speak to the effectiveness of one over the other. 

That is somebody else’s expertise, how it works in dogs and all. I can 

tell you that DB was analyzed by us for its impact on a car’s cooling 

system. So any other substance that came along would have to go 

through that same process on our side, and the bill refers to that point. It 

also has to be compatible with the car’s cooling system, and that would 

be our only point of view. 

 MR. INSLEE. You mean the Senate bill, the Senate amendment? 

 MR. BYE. Yes. 

 MR. INSLEE. I see. Coming back to--yes, Mr. Simms. 

 MR. SIMMS. If I could add to that, I think that is a very good 

question. And one of our primary concerns is, why would we close the 

door to competition in the future, remove the flexibility that would allow 

industry to address needs in the future, if some other problem arises with 
112

this bitterant, or if some other bitterant proves to be more effective, more 

available, more economical. 

 MR. INSLEE. Right. 

 MR. SIMMS. I just wanted to reinforce that. 

 MR. INSLEE. Got you. Coming back to this liability issue, I think 

that the rationale, if there is one, for the liability protection is, if 

Congress mandates it, that manufacturers shouldn’t be liable for putting 

it in, I can understand that a little bit. But it seems to me, doesn’t it make 

sense that if you do remove protection of Americans who now have 

protection, if they get hurt by a product, they have got the right to 

reimbursement for their damages, and if we pass it, we would be 

stripping Americans of that right. If we were to do that, shouldn’t the 

Federal government replace it with some compensation plan through the 

Federal government? 

 MR. BYE. Well, my understanding is, we are not stripping them of 

the right to do that. We are assigning the person that they would go after 

for their damages. 

 MR. INSLEE. Well, that is in heaven where all defendants are solvent 

with huge insurance. And I can assure you, looking at the Exxon 

situation, where they took a billion dollars out of my constituents and 

now they have $2 in the till, that is not the way the real world works. 

You are stripping Americans of having a right to compensation from a 

solvent defendant. And in many cases, particularly this case, where you 

can have significant damages, frankly, including the MTBE situation, the 

manufacturer of the sub-particle component is going to be gone, toast, 

history, nothing, and you are going to effectively eliminate any right to a 

nickel for the people who could potentially be damaged by this product. 

Now, despite the fact that my friend from New Mexico’s comment that 

just the trial lawyers are the only one with the stake, a game, you know--

as a former practicing lawyer, I can tell you that they are the truck 

drivers, they’re teachers, they are pharmacists, who can get hurt. And it 

is not the trial lawyers we ought to be thinking about, it is the people who 

can get poisoned by this product, and they today have a right to 

compensation that Congress would be taking away from them in the real 

world if we pass this with that liability provision. What I am suggesting 

is, if we do that, shouldn’t we substitute a Federal compensation package 

for them in lieu of that? Would that make sense, if we were going to 

remove this liability, this claim? Anybody have any thoughts about that? 

 MR. GILLMOR. Well, the gentleman’s time has expired. 

 MR. INSLEE. Thank you. 

 MR. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Oklahoma. 

 MR. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my first question is 

to Mr. Simms. Your testimony makes a reasonable suggestion that 
113

antifreeze manufacturers have a choice in the adversive agent that they 

use in their product. However, to put your legislative recommendation 

into context, you would be requiring companies to reformulate a wellknown, 70-year-old product, but not give these same companies any 

support for doing these new activities. Since you are unwilling to 

support providing targeted legal cover for compliance with this 

additional mandate to longstanding manufacturing practices, is your 

concern based more on the impact of the adversive on the environment, 

or simply the ability to sue the antifreeze manufacturer if there is a 

problem with the adversive? 

 MR. SIMMS. I think that the point is more complicated or multifold. 

There is the question, when something goes wrong, if something goes 

wrong, someone is injured, does that person have the legal remedies 

available to them that are appropriate? It is about preserving the rights of 

people who are injured to be made whole by that industry that is 

benefiting from having the product in the marketplace. And the fiction 

that the DB manufacturer should be responsible for the DB, ignores the 

fact that the DB is in the antifreeze because the antifreeze is unsafe. And 

if the antifreeze producers, in that chain, that they should be in part 

responsible for injuries that might occur from that chemical that is there 

to make their product more safe. And that is not suggesting that the DB 

manufacturer should be let off the hook. They should bear their share of 

the responsibility, and the public, as I have said, always bears their share 

of the responsibility, because ultimately they are the ones who end up 

getting injured if something goes wrong. If nothing goes wrong, then the 

removal of the liability waiver is of negligible consequence to the 

industry. It is the question of who are we protecting. 

 MR. SULLIVAN. Thank you. And Ms.--I know Edmonsons from 

Oklahoma, so Amundson. Is that how you say it? 

 MS. AMUNDSON. Amundson. Thank you. 

 MR. SULLIVAN. Amundson, okay. Well, since the California law 

was passed in 2002, has there been any reduction in poisoning deaths, 

accidentally or otherwise? If not, why is that? And spills on highways 

aren’t likely to be a source of antifreeze ingestion for children or 

household pets, or are they? 

 MS. AMUNDSON. The latter question first. Spills on highways, no, 

not necessarily, but it is driveways and it is the way that antifreeze is 

stored in containers inside of those garages that we are particularly 

concerned about. For obvious reasons there are local, State, and Federal 

guidelines for how antifreeze is in fact recycled and disposed of, and it is 

the Jiffy Lubes that are abiding by those considerations. 

To your first question, I wish there was a reporting requirement for 

both pets and people in the State of California around this issue, but due 
114

to concerns about appropriations associated with that component, it was 

removed from the bill. And, sir, if I may, just one more point that has 

troubled me a little bit today. With all due respect to the call for a 

regulatory process to consider the viability of DB in antifreeze, that study 

has been done. That was done by CPSC, which made a recommendation 

that it in fact be included in a number of common household products, 

including antifreeze. 

 MR. SULLIVAN. Thank you. 

 MR. GILLMOR. That concludes our hearing, and I want to thank all 

of our witnesses for coming. Testimony is very helpful. We stand 

adjourned. 

 [Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
115

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY DR. MELINDA EYRICH, DVM, CO-OWNER, URGENT CARE 

VETERINARIAN HOSPITAL

June 26, 2006 

The Honorable Paul E. Gillmor, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman, 

Thank you for your questions. I am happy to see the interest and investigation continuing 

on the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005, H.R. 2567. Any continuing effort to lessen the 

danger of antifreeze is greatly appreciated by those of us trying to deal with its effects. 

Sincerely, 

Melinda S. Eyrich DVM 

Urgent Care Veterinary Hospital 

9032 Montgomery Blvd 

Albuquerque, NM 87108 

THE HONORABLE PAUL E. GILLMOR 

1. New Mexico has been one of three states to actually require DB in antifreeze 

products. Could you please describe for me how the implementation of this new law 

has changed, if at all, the number of animals you have had to see as a result of 

antifreeze ingestion? 

Governor Richardson signed the bill into law in April 2005, manufacturers were 

required to add DB beginning July 2005, and retailers were required to sell bitter 

antifreeze on January 1, 2006. While the bittering mandate is new and its effects 

are not yet fully known, I have not seen a case of antifreeze poisoning in 2006. If the 

trend continues, 2006 will be a year to both remember and celebrate! 

2. In your professional opinion, at the levels required in the New Mexico state law and 

the legislation before the Committee today, would DB by itself present a serious 

health risk to pets or humans from ingestion? 

Based on the testimony given during the hearing the following facts were evident to 

me: DB has been in use as a taste deterrent since approximately 1964. Since that 

time, no adverse effects of this chemical have been found. After the hearing, I 

looked through both my home and clinic and found no less than twelve items with 

DB added to them. These items include cleaning products I use to clean the bath 
116

tub I bathe my four year old in and fingernail polish remover my teenager uses 

regularly. I know that both animal and people do not like very bitter tastes. I feel 

that DB is a far safer risk than antifreeze. I know antifreeze kills, so far DB has not 

caused any detectable problems. 

 

3. You mention that one vial of the drug used to treat for ingestion of ethylene glycol 

costs about $300. How many vials are normally required for treatment and how 

much would a person expect to pay to simply restore their pet's health after ingestion 

of antifreeze? 

Depending on the size of the animal, 1-3 vials would be needed. With early 

detection and treatment, the conservative estimate is 1200.00 to 1500.00 dollars. If 

there are complications associated with kidney failure, the estimated cost could be 

2000.00 and up. This is a significant financial burden for most families and for a 

significant number treatment is financially prohibitive. 
117

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY SARAH AMUNDSON, DEPUTY AND LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE

June 28, 2006 

Honorable Paul E. Gillmor 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2323 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515-6115 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

We are pleased to have the opportunity to respond to your additional questions, as well as 

those submitted by Committee Ranking Member John Dingell and Subcommittee 

Ranking Member Hilda Solis, as part of the hearing record on H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze 

Bittering Act. 

Thank you for holding the hearing on this important bill. Please let us know how we can 

be of further assistance. 

Sincerely, 

Sara Amundson 

Legislative Director 

SA/nb 

Submitted Questions from Members 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 

Hearing on HR 2567, the “Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005,” May 23, 2006 

Sara Amundson, Legislative Director, Doris Day Animal League 

From the Honorable Paul Gillmor, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment and 

Hazardous Materials 

1. Your testimony states that unlike MTBE liability protection that was debated 

during the Energy Policy Act of 2006, the liability protection in HR 2567 

establishes an “assigned” liability scheme where each manufacturer remains 

entirely on the hook for their respective product. Can you explain how this 
118

scheme theoretically would work when a court is assigning damages based on 

antifreeze contamination? 

The antifreeze manufacturers would remain liable for damages associated with their 

product. Denatonium benzoate (DB) is a very distinct chemical and the manufacturers of 

that product would remain liable for damages caused by it. A court would assign 

damages based on the damages caused by each product separately. This is no different 

from assigning liability in any other case where multiple contaminants might be released 

at the same location, and a court must assign liability based on the damages caused by 

each contaminant separately. For example, where one party might have released 

petroleum products at a site and another party might have released a chlorinated solvent 

at the same site, a court would impose liability on each party for damages caused by the 

material it released. 

2. Does your organization see either the antifreeze manufacturers or the DB 

manufacturers as being unfairly advantaged by the inclusion of the liability 

protection? How has your group worked with the environmental organizations 

and the water utilities at the state level regarding the liability provisions? Are 

you aware of any reported contamination cases of DB from antifreeze in the 

states that have passed legislation? 

No. The purpose behind crafting this provision in the way in which it was done was 

to ensure that the manufacturers of antifreeze and the manufacturers of denatonium 

benzoate (DB) would be responsible without limit for correcting any problems and 

remediating any damage caused by their respective products. 

 The Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Wildlife Fund actually 

endorsed H.R. 1563 in the 108th Congress, and that bill did include liability language. 

While that language differed from the current bill, it did cover “personal injury, death, or 

property damage that results from the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in ethylene 

glycol antifreeze, provided that the inclusion of denatonium benzoate is in concentrations 

mandated” under the bill. It has been argued that “property damage” could also have 

encompassed environmental damage. I would also note that the California Sierra Club 

supported the bill that went on to become law there, and the Sierra Club Rio Grande 

chapter in New Mexico supported the bill that became law there, the liability language in 

which is identical to that in H.R. 2567. 

 We are not aware of any reported contamination cases involving DB in antifreeze in 

the states that have passed legislation. As a matter of fact, both Oregon and California 

have stated that they have not observed any ill effects on water supplies. As noted in my 

testimony, a report by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection cited a 

conversation with Ken Kaufmann, Oregon’s state toxicologist, in which he stated that 

“’no incidents of drinking water well contam-ination or groundwater contamination or 

bad tasting water due to denatonium benzoate have become known.’” Likewise, a letter 

from the California State Water Resources Control Board to the subcommittee noted that 

“to date we are unaware of adverse impacts to California’s water supplies arising from 

the use of denatonium benzoate in antifreeze and a variety of other products.” (New 

Mexico’s law has been in effect for only a little over a year.) I think Cong. Wilson’s 

question to Mr. Bonacquisti, who testified on behalf of the American Water Works 

Association, got to the crux of the matter: Mr. Bonacquisti could not cite any cases of 

water contamination from DB, even though it has been used in a variety of products for 

over 40 years. 
119

3. What happens under the liability provisions if one of the manufacturers or 

distributors is grossly negligent or malfeasant in the handling and disposing of 

antifreeze? What about a user or consumer? Are any absolved from liability in 

any way under these provisions? 

Our interpretation of the bill’s liability language, which states that the liability 

limitation applies only insofar as “the inclusion of denatonium benzoate is present in 

concentrations mandated by” the bill and that “limitation on liability...does not apply to a 

particular liability to the extent that the cause of such liability is unrelated to the inclusion 

of denatonium benzoate in any engine coolant or antifreeze,” and our intention, has been 

that any use or handling of DB by the antifreeze industry that does not comply with the 

law would not be covered. This would include, of course, any negligence or malfeasance 

on their part. However, we appreciate that some have viewed the provision as deficient 

with regard to “willful misconduct,” and we certainly are amenable to including a 

specific exception to the liability provision for “willful misconduct.” 

 The “limitation on liability” applies only to “a manufacturer, processor, distributor, 

recycler, or seller of an engine coolant or antifreeze”; the legislation does not address 

consumer mishandling or improper disposal of antifreeze. Localities generally regulate, 

or otherwise provide guidance to residents on, the proper disposal of household 

chemicals. 

4. In your testimony you admit that there are data gaps for hazard identification. 

These data gaps, if significant enough, could prevent a thorough risk analysis. 

If DB has been in use for over forty years, why are there any data gaps at all? 

The Doris Day Animal League would defer any conclusions regarding a thorough 

risk analysis of denatonium benzoate or ethylene glycol to the federal regulatory agencies 

responsible for assessing available information and regulating these respective chemicals. 

Relevant to denatonium benzoate is the testimony of Jim Willis of the Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxic Substances of the Environmental Protection Agency, who, through 

available data and further modeling studies, provided chemical structure background 

specific to environmental exposure, human/wildlife exposure, human/wildlife toxicity, 

and aquatic toxicity. 

During questioning, Mr. Willis responded that EPA had not conducted testing of 

Bitrex (one of the commercially available brands of denatonium benzoate) because, based 

on a review of available data and experience with similar chemicals and other analogies, 

such testing was not necessary. In response to another, similar question, he noted that, 

more generally, with respect to a chemical of this nature, with this production volume and 

exposure, EPA would determine that a full risk assessment was not warranted. 

5. Why don’t educational campaigns prevent most of the accidental ingestions? 

How have the additional protective measures such as labeling, child proof caps 

and education failed? Is there anything that can be done in terms of an 

educational campaign to raise awareness even more that may help to reduce 

accidental ingestions? 

I would preface my response to this question by noting that animal poisonings and 

deaths, both in sheer numbers and as a percentage of ingestions, far exceed those of 

humans. The packaging, labeling, and educational efforts of the antifreeze industry don’t 

mean much when a dog can and will chew through a container, or a disgruntled neighbor 
120

takes out his anger on the cats next door. As we noted in our testimony, the estimates of 

such poisonings run from a low of 10,000 to as high as 90,000 deaths per year. 

We recognize the antifreeze industry for its proactive efforts to safeguard human 

health with respect to the use and misuse of its products. To reduce the risks of 

accidental exposure, all antifreeze products sold to consumers are equipped with childresistant caps and provide prominent label warnings about proper use, storage, and 

disposal of the product. In addition, most manufacturers, including Prestone, adhere to a 

voluntary industry policy to use foil safety seals on consumer product containers. 

Between 1983, when the American Association of Poison Control Centers began 

collecting such data, and 2004, there were no reported deaths of children under the age of 

six. Unfortunately, there has been such a death this year: According to The Advocate, a 

Louisiana newspaper, on May 31, a three-year-old Baton Rouge boy died after drinking 

antifreeze left in a cup on a bedroom dresser by his father’s girlfriend. The intended use 

of the antifreeze was to poison some dogs hanging around the house. The woman was 

booked on one count of negligent homicide. 

Deaths of children between 6 and 19 years of age have been primarily teenage 

suicides, as have many deaths among adults, although some have been homicides. 

Antifreeze is an easy, and easily obtained, weapon for homicide or suicide; the addition 

of denatonium benzoate would make antifreeze far less appealing for these purposes. 

Since 2000, the reported number of ethylene-glycol antifreeze poisoning exposures, 

of children specifically and in general, have held fairly steady (about 1300 and 5000 

respectively). We would argue that those numbers are still too high—and unnecessarily 

high when there is an inexpensive additional step that can be taken to reduce the number 

and severity of ingestions among both humans and animals. Educational campaigns 

likely reach a point of maximum effectiveness, and it is not possible to put a complete 

end to human carelessness and indifference, or determination to harm one’s self or others. 

Moreover, educational campaigns and child safety caps do not discourage pets from 

licking up the spills that still occur despite industry’s best efforts to prevent them, or keep 

dogs from chewing through containers, nor do they dissuade individuals from using 

antifreeze to deliberately kill animals or other people, or to commit suicide. 

The use of a bittering agent in antifreeze would provide an inexpensive additional 

layer of protection against accidental ingestions, and make it less attractive as a suicide 

method or as a weapon to use against animals and humans alike. 

Submitted Questions from Members 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 

Hearing on HR 2567, the “Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005,” May 23, 2006 

Sara Amundson, Legislative Director, Doris Day Animal League 

From the Honorable John Dingell, Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and the Honorable Hilda Solis, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on 

Environment and Hazardous Materials

1. Your testimony stated that denatonium benzoate (DB) is added to “cosmetic and 

toiletry products, including nail polish, hairspray, and cleaners.” 

Have the manufacturers, processors, distributors or recyclers of cosmetic and toiletry 

products, including nail polish and hairspray, been granted immunity from liability for 

damage to the environment (including natural resources) that results from the inclusion of 

denatonium benzoate in these products? If so, please cite the specific Federal law that 
121

provides liability immunity for “damage to the environment (including natural 

resources)” to the manufacturers, processors, distributors, or recyclers of such products. 

Not to our knowledge. 

2. Do the manufacturers, processors, distributors, recyclers, or sellers of nail polish, 

hairspray, or other cosmetic products that include denatonium benzoate in their 

products receive immunity from liability for personal injury, death, property 

damage, or economic loss that results from the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in 

the product? If so please cite the specific Federal law that provides such immunity 

from liability. 

Not to our knowledge. 

3. Are there any scientifically-valid statistics gathered by the State or an animal poison 

control center that provide information on whether and to what degree the Oregon or 

California laws have led to a reduction in accidental ethylene glycol poisonings in 

dogs and cats? If so, please provide them. 

No such data have been collected. This is a glaring shortcoming of the Mullins and 

Horowitz review that was published in 2004 (as referenced in my testimony), since the 

overwhelming problem with antifreeze poisonings, in terms of the number of both 

ingestions and deaths, occurs with companion animals. We know of no state or other 

requirement for reporting cases of ani-mal poisonings. In fact, as part of its antifreeze 

bittering bill, California opted not to appropriate funds to collect data on animal 

poisonings. Moreover, the data that the national animal poison control center has on 

these incidents are somewhat misleading: It is acknowledged that, since veterinarians see 

antifreeze poisoning cases so frequently, they know what to do and most do not even 

bother to call the center. 

4. Does the Doris Day Animal League believe that ethylene glycol antifreeze is an 

inherently dangerous product? 

The Doris Day Animal League relies upon the characterization of ethylene glycol by 

the Environmental Protection Agency in its Integrated Risk Information System, and by 

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s “Toxicological Profile for 

Ethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol,” for acute and chronic effects. 

5. Is the Doris Day Animal League aware of any lawsuits that have been brought 

against Honeywell or other manufacturers of antifreeze in 2004 or 2005 for 

accidental antifreeze poisoning due to ingestion of ethylene glycol that caused death 

to a dog or cat? If so, please indicate the number of such lawsuits in 2004 and 2005 

and the legal theory behind the lawsuit. 

No, we are not. 

6. Subcommittee Chairman Gillmor, in questioning a witness about balancing risks, 

stated at the hearing that: 
122

“We know on one side there is a risk of death to children, and if Mr. Ackerman’s 

testimony is correct, 1,400 children a year, that means on average we have more 

than 100 children every month dying from the lack of a bitterant in antifreeze.” 

Do you agree or disagree with the statement that “we have more than 100 children 

every month dying from the lack of a bitterant in antifreeze”? 

There was a bit of a misunderstanding. Rep. Ackerman referred to approximately 

1400 children each year who are poisoned by antifreeze (with children defined as persons 

19 years of age and under). This number refers to ingestions, not deaths. Rep. Wilson 

clarified this later in the hearing. The number of deaths of children over time has been 

relatively small, though it may be said that any is too many. And unfortunately, a 3-yearold boy in Louisiana died this past May after drinking antifreeze that had been left in a 

cup on a dresser; the antifreeze was going to be used to poison dogs. Deaths of children 

between 6 and 19 years of age have been primarily teenage suicides; the presence of a 

bitterant in antifreeze would discourage at least some of these rash teenagers from using 

it to kill themselves. 

If I may, I would like to respond to questions #7 and #8 together: 

7. Are you aware of a 2005 study by a group of doctors led by Dr. E. Martin Caravati 

conducted on behalf of the American Association of Poison Control Centers, 

Washington, D.C., and published in Clinical Toxicology Journal, which made the 

following statements: 

“A review of U.S. poison center fatality data for the 18-year period 1985-2002 did 

not find any suspected suicides or deaths from ethylene glycol reported in children 

under the age of 12 years.” 

“No deaths of patients under the age of 12 years or from unintentional exposure 

were reported by poison centers to TESS (Toxic Exposure Surveillance System) 

from 1985-2002”? 

If you have any information that supports or conflicts with these findings, please 

provide it. 

8. In your testimony, you indicate that more than 1,300 children ingest antifreeze each 

year. What percentage had moderate or major effects? Are you aware that the E. M. 

Caravati et al. study found that for known outcome by reason for ingestion of 

ethylene glycol for all ages between 2000-2002, only 4 percent of the unintentional 

exposures had moderate or major effects? 

The Doris Day Animal League was pleased to note the findings in the 2005 study by 

Dr. E. Martin Caravati, which concurred with conclusions we have seen and noted in 

reference materials from other studies of antifreeze ingestions by children under 12; 

notably, that no children in that age range have died from ingestions during the time 

period examined. Unfor-tunately, on May 31 of this year, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a 

three-year-old child did die from ingesting antifreeze, which was stored in a cup on the 

parent’s dresser to be used to kill nuisance dogs in the neighborhood. This is particularly 

tragic because it illustrates one horrific aspect of the problem all too well; by using 

antifreeze as a tool to kill dogs and improperly storing the chemical, a child also 

unnecessarily died. 
123

The Caravati study also concludes that “only 4 percent of the unintentional 

exposures had moderate or major effect.” That still represents approximately 52 people 

experiencing moderate to major effects every year, and we contend that if even one of 

those is a child, that is one child too many. The financial and emotional toll on a family 

from rushing a child to the emergency room to prevent renal failure and other 

complications is unacceptable in our society. 

 Moreover, with respect to the number of persons who ingest antifreeze and 

experience moderate to major effects, DDAL would suggest that it is somewhat 

disingenuous to exclude intentional ingestions, since these would not occur if antifreeze 

were not such an attractive suicide method. In 2003, across all antifreeze-related cases, 

the percentage experiencing moderate to major effects, or death, was 9.5 percent; in 

2004, it was 11.5 percent, according to AAPCC statistics. As I have stated elsewhere and 

will expand upon later in response to another question, animal poisonings and deaths, 

both in sheer numbers and as a percentage of ingestions, far exceed those of humans. 

These numbers more than warrant taking this step to make anti-freeze taste bad and thus 

be less attractive to animals, children, potential suicides, and potential murderers. 

9. In your prepared testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, you cited a California 

Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) staff analysis as follows: 

“The CIWMB staff analysis found 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.’” 

The CIWMB does not identify any scientific studies upon which these statements 

are based or discuss the body of scientific studies that have been performed that 

reached a different conclusion. Are you aware of whether the CIWMB staff 

performed any scientific studies or whether the CIWMB contracted for any 

scientific studies on the environmental fate and transport of DB? If you are aware of 

any such studies performed by the CIWMB staff or on behalf of the CIWMB, 

please provide them. Further, can you inform the Subcommittee whether the 

CIWMB ever explained in their report or elsewhere on what basis the staff was able 

to reach these scientific conclusions? 

The California Integrated Waste Management Board, appointed by the governor, 

released this staff analysis in 2001, leading to the board’s support of the California 

legislation. Ms. Anna Ward was the staff person assigned to compile the report. The 

Doris Day Animal League respectfully suggests that any questions regarding the studies 

used or commissioned would be more appropriately directed to the California Integrated 

Waste Management Board. 

If I may, I would like to combine questions #10, 11, and 12 for purposes of 

responding:

10. In your prepared testimony you state that, “the Washington State School of 

Veterinary Medicine places the annual number of dog and cat antifreeze poisonings 

at approximately 10,000.” 

Is the figure based on an actual statistically significant study? If not, what is the 

figure based on? Does the term “poisonings” in your testimony mean exposures or 

actual deaths? 
124

11. Your prepared testimony also referred to a 1996 study of small practice veterinarians 

throughout the United States that found 90,000 dog and cat deaths each year from 

ingesting ethylene glycol. Was this a statistically significant study? How was it 

performed and by whom? Has there been a more recent comparable study? 

12. What accounts for the significant disparity in numbers between the Washington 

State School of Veterinary Medicine estimate and the 1996 study? 

When we refer to numbers of poisonings, we are referring to ingestions. When we 

say deaths, we are referring to actual deaths. 

There are two national estimates of the number of companion animals who ingest 

antifreeze each year. One estimate cited frequently by a variety of sources puts the 

number of dogs and cats poisoned each year by antifreeze at 10,000. That number is 

attributed to the Washington State School of Veterinary Medicine. We do not know the 

source of their data. 

The higher estimate of 118,000 exposures and 90,000+ DEATHS of dogs and cats 

due to antifreeze poisoning comes from a 1996 survey of “a nationally representative 

cross-section of small-animal veterinarians” (total number = 400) conducted by Bruno 

and Ridgway Research Associates on behalf of the American Society for the Prevention 

of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and Safe Brands Corp. While we cannot account for the 

difference between the Washington State University statistics and the ASPCA survey 

results, more recent studies support the ASPCA results. A 2002 survey of 21 Nevada pet 

clinics revealed 78 cases of ethylene glycol poisonings, with 67 deaths (a fatality rate of 

85 percent). A similar survey in 2001 of 13 California veterinary clinics reported 136 

cases, with 107 deaths (a 78 percent fatality rate). These death rates are consistent with 

the 77 percent rate found in the 1996 survey. 
125

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY PATRICE L. SIMMS, SENIOR PROJECT ATTORNEY, NATURAL 

RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Honorable Mr. Paul E. Gillmor 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Dear Mr. Gillmor: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on Environment and 

Hazardous Materials on Tuesday, May 23, 2006, regarding H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze 

Bittering Act of 2005. Attached please find answers to the follow-up questions that you 

forwarded to me by letter dated June 8, 2006. 

Sincerely, 

Patrice Simms 

Senior Project Attorney 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Questions from the Honorable Paul E. Gillmor

1. Legislative bodies make value judgments all the time substituting one risk 

for another in pursuit of the common good. Do you think that it is fair or 

appropriate for a person or entity, pursuant to a Federal mandate, to fully 

comply with the law in making their product and then be liable for 

damages if an unrelated person or entity is negligent in the use of that 

product? 

In general, NRDC believes that it is both fair an appropriate to hold manufacturers 

of a dangerous product accountable for the injuries that their product causes, including 

injuries that are associated with any additive that is necessary to make their product safer. 

To the extent that any individual injury results in part from the activities of “an unrelated 

person or entity [who] is negligent in the use of that product,” that person should also 

bear liability. It is entirely inappropriate, however, to provide a wholesale waiver of 

liability for any possible harm for the very industry involved in the production and sale of 

a dangerously toxic product. Injured parties should have full access to the courts, and the 

ability to seek restitution from each and every responsible party. 

2. Why are you opposed to the liability protection included in this bill when 

the manufacturers of both products are completely held accountable for 

their own products? By opposing this provision, are you arguing that the 

deeper pockets should always be available to pay for damages, even when 

their product is not legally found to be the cause of the contamination or 

damage? Is assigned liability a new concept or do the courts engage in 

this practice all the time? 
126

The liability waiver provision of H.R. 2567 rests upon a convenient fiction that each 

manufacturer (the maker of the bitterant and the maker of the antifreeze) should be 

responsible for the possible ill-effects of its own product. The underlying presumption 

being that the antifreeze manufacturers are responsible for the presence and impact of 

their product in the marketplace and the manufacturers of the bitterants are responsible 

for their product. However, this fiction ignores entirely the fact that but for the 

unacceptably dangerous nature of the antifreeze itself, the bitterant would be an 

unnecessary ingredient and would not be in the marketplace in this product at all. In fact, 

the manufacturers of the bitterant are not responsible for creating the need for their 

product in antifreeze, and thus should not be, as the bill suggests, uniquely and 

exclusively responsible for the risks associated with this particular use of their product. 

Congress is considering a bitterant requirement for antifreeze because the product 

that the antifreeze manufacturers make (in the view of this bill’s sponsors) is 

unacceptably unsafe. Thus, it is due to the dangerousness of the antifreeze (the product 

that antifreeze manufacturers profit from) that a bitterant may be required, and yet 

Congress is considering letting antifreeze manufacturers off the hook entirely for any 

damage that might result from the use of a bitterant in their product. This approach 

would take away significant rights from those people who might be harmed in the future 

by this bitterant use – the right to seek redress against the industry sector that is both 

responsible for creating the need for the bitterant and that profits from the sale of the 

otherwise dangerous product. Accordingly, antifreeze manufactures, as the makers of a 

dangerous product, must be held responsible (along with the bitterant makers) for the 

consequences of introducing a bitterant into the marketplace in antifreeze, and therefore 

should bear their share of the risk associated with possible injury or environmental 

contamination. 

The process of assigning liability among responsible parties, to the extent that this is 

necessary at all, should occur in the courts, where the relevant, case-specific factors can 

be taken into consideration. 
127

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY JEFFREY BYE, VICE PRESIDENT, PRESTONE, HONEYWELL 

INTERNATIONAL, INC., ON BEHALF OF CONSUMER SPECIALTY PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

Submitted Questions from Members 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 

Hearing on HR 2567, the “Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005” 

Jeffrey Bye, Vice President, Prestone 

The Honorable Paul E. Gillmor

1. How much of the domestic antifreeze industry does Prestone supply? Who are 

your other competitors in the field? Do all U.S. antifreeze suppliers have the 

same position on this bill? 

Prestone is the largest antifreeze manufacturer in North America, supplying 

approximately one-third of the 160 million gallons sold to American consumers. There 

are four other major market players in the U.S. consumer antifreeze industry: Old World, 

Shell, Valvoline, and Chevron Texaco. 

All U.S. antifreeze manufacturers support HR 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 

2005. 

2. Your company has vigorously opposed legislation like this in the past. Now, 

you are testifying in support of it. What changed and why is it so important to 

you to have these changes? Couldn’t you support this bill without the 

environmental liability protections in it? Would you support changes to the bill 

to preclude liability protections for gross negligence or willful misconduct? 

Prestone has historically opposed state and federal legislative efforts to require 

antifreeze manufacturers to reformulate and add ingredients to our products that we do 

not produce nor have a heating or cooling function. Because of the growing trend of 

states both passing laws and considering legislation that would mandate our adding a 

bittering agent to ethylene glycol antifreeze, in 2004 the industry reconsidered its 

position. 

Existing state laws in Oregon, California and New Mexico vary to some extent, and 

our concern is that additional states will pass incompatible requirements, denying us the 

ability to efficiently produce a low-cost effective product sold throughout the nation. The 

federal legislation currently under consideration by the House Energy and Commerce 

Committee, HR 2567, includes provisions to allocate liability between the antifreeze and 

bittering agent manufacturers. The antifreeze industry supports the legislation because 

we are comfortable with retaining responsibility for our own ethylene glycol products, 

and we recognize the equity in assigning responsibility for the denatonium benzoate to its 

manufacturer. 

HR 2567 also establishes a prescribed standard of the type of bittering agent and 

concentration, thus setting a uniform national standard. Because of these changes, we 

support the bill as introduced. We would not support the legislation without the assigned 

liability provisions and standardized prescription. 

The provision in question limits liability only for damages that result from the 

inclusion of denatonium benzoate in antifreeze in accordance with the terms of the 

statute. An antifreeze manufacturer would be responsible for action or inaction outside 

the scope of the limited set of circumstances outlined by the bill. Given the mandate 

included in HR 2567, it is not apparent how such inclusion of denatonium benzoate could 

be grossly negligent or amount to willful misconduct. Accordingly, we do not see the 
128

rationale for a change that would limit the protection in cases of gross negligence or 

willful misconduct, and are concerned that such a change would be confusing. 

3. Your testimony admits that a major ingredient in antifreeze is a toxic 

substance. Some people have argued that by creating a “causation” standard 

for environmental liability, you are somehow “muddying the water” on exactly 

how much your company should be responsible for cleanup of antifreeze 

releases into the environment. How do you respond to that charge? 

Prestone has been making ethylene glycol antifreeze for over 70 years and we 

whole-heartedly take responsibility for our product. We understand how our product 

quickly breaks down in the environment and we would retain liability for damages 

caused by ethylene glycol under HR 2567. This legislation espouses sound public policy 

by allocating liability for ethylene glycol and denatonium benzoate to their respective 

manufacturers. 

4. The legislation you are testifying about today could pre-empt states that have 

already acted and might be more regulation than some states want to impose. 

In addition to California, Oregon and New Mexico, your testimony speaks to 11 

other states actively considering similar state laws. Are any municipalities also 

considering ordinances on this subject? Why should Congress act on this if so 

many jurisdictions are enacting fairly similar laws? 

Many states are considering legislation along the same lines as Oregon, California 

and New Mexico, but none of the bills is identical to another. Antifreeze sold in onegallon containers is a classic retail consumer product, with the major “big box” retailers 

like Wal-Mart and AutoZone selling most of our products. Because manufacturers like 

Prestone don’t control the distribution and inventory systems of our retailers, forcing us 

to make, store, transport and track state-specific formulas is not just onerous but also out 

of our control. Now is the time for Congress to pass a uniform federal standard before 

other states pass inconsistent laws. Even some municipalities within states have added to 

our concerns, with cities and counties in the state of New Mexico passing regulations 

specific only to their jurisdictions. 

Significant stakeholders, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Natural 

Resources Committee of the Maine state legislature, the Alabama House of 

Representatives, and the Tennessee Senate have recognized that products in interstate 

commerce are best governed by federal standards, and have called on Congress to pass 

legislation establishing a uniform bittering law for ethylene glycol. 

5. Do you believe DB is the best aversive agent to prevent human or animal 

ingestion of your product? If not, do you believe there are equally effective and 

potentially less expensive alternatives? Recognizing the animal health 

consequences of ingesting antifreeze, why doesn’t Prestone voluntarily place 

DB in its antifreeze products? 

Prestone does not manufacture bittering agents and is not an expert on bittering 

additives or other agents that are not part of the heating and cooling functions of our 

products. Our understanding of DB, therefore, is based only on third party statements. 

DB is consistently regarded as the “bitterest substance on earth,” and only a minimal 

amount is required to bitter antifreeze. At this time, we know of no other additive with 

the same bittering qualities. We have conducted studies on the effect of bittered 

antifreeze on automobile engines and have determined that DB does not cause corrosion. 

An alternative that would require a greater volume to achieve the same degree of 
129

bitterness may be more expensive because of the amount involved, as well as the 

potential damage to the automobile engine. 

Prestone is the market leader in automobile heating and cooling products and we 

have no expertise with bittering agents or animal health issues. We would not voluntarily 

add denatonium benzoate to our products. 

Our efforts to discourage accidental animal ingestion are well-documented and 

respected. During the past ten 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. Prestone and other antifreeze manufacturers 

sponsor a national poison control center as a resource and service for veterinarians and 

pet owners. The center is staffed with specially trained veterinary toxicologists available 

to handle any animal poison-related emergency, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. 

6. As I understand it, the only difference between HR 2567 and its version in the 

last Congress is that this year’s bill contains a shield against environmental 

liability and economic loss. Is that correct? How do these new criteria change 

the bill from its previous reference to “property damage” and “personal 

injury”? 

There are two significant differences in the liability provisions between HR 2567 

and the version from the previous Congress. First, as you noted, is the addition of 

specific categories of liability protections, including natural resources. Although this 

term is arguably contained in the broader category of “property” included in the bill in 

the 108th Congress, we encouraged the bill sponsors to be more explicit in the description 

of the liability protections as they updated the legislation for the current 109th Congress. 

The second significant difference in the bills’ liability provisions is the 

establishment of assigned liability in HR 2567 between the manufacturers of ethylene 

glycol antifreeze and denatonium benzoate bittering agent. In the previous federal 

legislation, as well as the California and Oregon state laws, the liability protections 

regarding DB extend to all parties. The New Mexico law and HR 2567 include an 

allocation of liability provision that delineates responsibility between antifreeze and DB 

manufacturers respectively for their own products, offering a more comprehensive 

responsibility structure. 

7. I am confused on your exact stance on the liability provisions in HR 2567 based 

on conflicts between your written testimony and your oral testimony. Could 

you please clarify for me Prestone and CPSA’s stances on the liability shields in 

HR 2567? Does this language remove all rights of action against you? Would a 

harmed party be able to recover damages from antifreeze manufacturers? 

Prestone and the U.S. antifreeze industry firmly support the liability provisions in 

HR 2567 and would oppose the legislation without them. The provisions allocate 

liability responsibility between antifreeze and DB manufacturers respectively, therefore, 

Prestone remains fully responsible for all consequences of our ethylene glycol antifreeze 

products. Parties in litigation could recover damages from antifreeze manufacturers for 

harm caused by the antifreeze, while parties could recover damages from denatonium 

benzoate manufacturers and distributors for harm caused by denatonium benzoate. 

8. Would you support language in the bill explicitly clarifying that no liability 

protection can be extended for claims involving gross negligence or willful 

misconduct? 
130

The liability provision in HR 2567 limits liability only for damages that result from 

the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in antifreeze in accordance with the terms of the 

statute. An antifreeze manufacturer would be responsible for action or inaction outside 

the scope of the limited set of circumstances. Given the mandate included in HR 2567, it 

is not apparent how such inclusion of denatonium benzoate could be grossly negligent or 

amount to willful misconduct. Accordingly, we do not see the rationale for a change that 

would limit the protection in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct, and are 

concerned that such a change would be confusing. 

The Honorable John Sullivan

1. During the hearing, in response to a question from Mr. Inslee, I thought you 

suggested that Prestone would continue selling antifreeze if the liability section 

was stripped from the bill. Would you please clarify that for me? In addition, 

could you please tell me what the impact of this mandate would be on the 

affordability of your product? How many other domestic manufacturers are 

there and would they be able to easily absorb the cost of this mandate? How 

many foreign based manufacturers of antifreeze, who sell their product in the 

U.S. market, would be economically advantaged by compliance with this 

mandate without the chance to be sued for damages? 

Prestone would expect to continue selling antifreeze if the liability section was 

stripped from the bill, although we would no longer support the legislation. The liability 

provisions within HR 2567 are consistent with state laws and should remain part of the 

federal bill. While the price of antifreeze could be increased to cover potential costs 

associated with legal claims and liability related to sales of compliant product, it is also 

possible that continued sales and availability of antifreeze to consumers in the U.S. could 

be affected. 

Although Honeywell is the market leader in consumer antifreeze products, there are 

four additional major domestic manufacturers. These companies are also represented by 

the Consumer Specialty Products Association and oppose the legislation absent the 

liability provisions. Foreign manufacturers who sell antifreeze in the U.S. would be 

covered under the proposed legislation and would maintain the same liability as U.S. 

manufacturers. Because the U.S. manufacturers satisfy approximately 95% of the U.S. 

market, foreign manufacturers are minimal players. 

2. During the hearing, in response to another question from Mr. Inslee, I thought 

you suggested that citizens are better off if we preserve their right to go to court 

and that in order to do so we should strip the liability section from the bill. 

That doing so would ultimately protect children and animals. Could you please 

clarify my understanding of your response? Would the inclusion, or lack 

thereof, of the liability provisions in the bill preclude any physical protection to 

animals and children since the mandate would still be in place? Does HR 2567, 

as introduced, prevent citizens from going to the courthouse or preclude 

lawsuits for damages? Under the bill, if antifreeze is the cause of any personal 

or environmental harm, would any person be able to sue you for damages? 

Have you or your association tried to get environmental fate and transport 

information on DB? If you have tried and have been unsuccessful, do you 

believe that full compliance with the law, no matter who might agree with that 

law, should make your company and its assets eligible for damage suits over a 
131

component you did not choose to add, have little scientific information 

concerning it, and have no way of escaping its addition in your product? 

The concept of “assigned liability” provides protection for citizens seeking to 

recover damages resulting from the use of a product. The antifreeze manufacturer would 

continue to be liable for their product and the DB manufacturer would be responsible for 

their product. Absent the liability protection, the antifreeze industry would oppose this 

legislation or any mandate for a bittering agent in antifreeze. 

H.R. 2567 does not preclude citizens from going to the courthouse to seek damages. 

Parties in litigation could recover damages from antifreeze manufacturers for harm 

caused by the antifreeze, while parties could recover damages from denatonium benzoate 

manufacturers and distributors for harm caused by denatonium benzoate. 

Prestone and CSPA, the industry association, have sought additional information on 

the transport and environmental fate of DB. To date, we have not received such data due 

to confidentially concerns of the DB manufacturers. 

 The Honorable John D. Dingell and the Honorable Hilda L. Solis

1. On July 28, 2004, an Op-Ed article by Consumer Specialty Products 

Association (CSPA) President Chris Cathcart entitled "Effectiveness, Safety of 

Bitterant Antifreeze Unknown" appeared in the Albuquerque Journal and 

stated as follows: 

"According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC), 

virtually all deaths (22 nationwide in 2003) by antifreeze are intentional 

suicides. There has not been a death of a child under the age of 6 related to the 

accidental ingestion of antifreeze since the AAPCC began collecting data in 

1983. Most exposures reported to the AAPCC are minor in nature." 

Do you agree with those written statements and does CSPA still stand behind 

them? 

Prestone and CSPA stand behind the numbers stated in the editorial and referenced 

by the AAPCC. The AAPCC reported a total of 2,395,582 exposures to chemical 

substances in 2003. Of these, the AAPCC reported that it received a total of 5,816 

reported exposures to ethylene glycol. Put in context, the total number of reported 

exposures to ethylene glycol amounts to 0.24% percent (i.e., less than one-quarter of one 

percent) of the total chemical exposures. In 2003, there were 19 deaths: 16 of the deaths 

were ruled intentional suicides, two deaths were of unknown causes (i.e., suicide could 

not be conclusively proven), and one death of an 81 year-old man was ruled as 

“unintentional general.” This last case involved an elderly woman in New Jersey who 

poisoned her 81-year old companion by adding ethylene glycol to the man’s drink. 

For your information, AAPCC recently released their 2004 numbers. The AAPCC 

reported a total of 2,438,644 exposures to chemical substances in 2004. Of these, the 

AAPCC reported that it received a total of 5,562 reported exposures to antifreeze. The 

total number of reported exposures to ethylene glycol amounts to 0.228% percent (i.e., 

less than one-quarter of one percent) of the total chemical exposures. In 2004, there were 

23 deaths: all of these cases were intentional ingestions and 19 were cases where the 

intention of the individual was to commit suicide. 

We are pleased that you are asking about child poisonings and public health. The 

industry is extremely committed to protecting human health related to the use and misuse 

of our products. We have made significant strides in reducing child poisonings. 
132

Unfortunately the recent increase in suicides and intentional murder is something that is 

difficult to combat. The AAPCC reports that there has not been a death of a child under 

the age of six related to ingestion of ethylene glycol-based automotive antifreeze since it 

began collecting data in 1983∗

. The producers of antifreeze have also taken steps to 

reduce the risks from accidental exposure through the use of child-resistant closures. All 

antifreeze products sold to consumers are equipped with child-resistant closures and 

provide prominent label warnings about proper use, storage and disposal of the product. 

See 16 CFR § 1700.14(a)(11) and 16 CFR § 1500.14(b)(2). In addition, most 

manufacturers including Prestone adhere to a voluntary industry policy to use foil safety 

seals on consumer product containers. The AAPCC concluded that child-resistant 

closures have been extremely effective in preventing accidental exposures to consumer 

products. 

2. In the same Op-Ed article in the Albuquerque Journal, the President of the 

CSPA stated: 

"Not only is the effectiveness of mandating the use of a bittering agent in 

antifreeze questionable, there are also concerns about the impact of DB 

[denatonium benzoate] on the environment. Independent scientific studies have 

determined that DB does not biodegrade and is not removed during the 

processes used to treat wastewater at publicly owned treatment facilities. If 

poured onto the ground, DB could contaminate groundwater, potentially 

threatening public drinking water." 

Do you share the concerns expressed by the President of CSPA in his Op-Ed 

article to the Albuquerque Journal? If not, please explain why not. 

Prestone, CSPA and the antifreeze industry have always been consistent in our 

position that the environmental fate of denatonium is uncertain. We understand the 

environmental impacts of ethylene glycol, but we do not manufacture DB and have 

limited knowledge on its chemical profile. The House legislation, therefore, rightfully 

distinguishes liability between the antifreeze manufacturers who maintain responsibility 

for ethylene glycol and the DB manufacturers who remain liable for their product. 

Also, with regard to the OP-Ed piece, it is important to recognize that the CSPA 

response referred to a New Mexico bill that included a bittering mandate for all 

antifreeze products including quantities of 55 gallon non-consumer containers and larger. 

Because of the volume of antifreeze in these larger containers, the amount of DB would 

be proportionally larger as well. That was a significant concern of CSPA’s with the 2003 

version of the New Mexico bill. Like the current federal bill, however, the 2004 New 

Mexico legislation applied to one gallon consumer retail containers and had the support 

of CSPA and Prestone. 

3. In your testimony to the Subcommittee you stated, "it is rare that children are 

accidentally exposed to antifreeze." Please provide your best estimate of the 

number of children accidentally exposed to antifreeze each year in the United 

States for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. 

 

∗

 The Advocate (a Louisiana newspaper) reported that on May 31, 2006, a 3 year-old Baton Rouge 

boy died after drinking antifreeze left in a cup on a bedroom dresser by his father’s girlfriend. The 

woman was booked on one count of negligent homicide. The antifreeze was reportedly intended for 

a neighbor’s dog. 
133

Prestone and the antifreeze industry rely on data from the American Association of 

Poison Control Centers (AAPCC). The AAPCC reports that there has not been a death of 

a child under the age of six related to ingestion of ethylene glycol antifreeze since it 

began collecting data in 1983*

. The producers of antifreeze have taken steps to reduce 

the risks of accidental exposure through the use of child-resistant closures, and the 

AAPCC concluded that such closures have been extremely effective in preventing 

accidental exposures. Consumer antifreeze products feature prominent label warnings 

about proper use, storage and disposal. In addition, most manufacturers including 

Prestone adhere to a voluntary industry policy to use foil safety seals on consumer 

product containers. 

The AAPCC reported a total of 2,395,582 exposures to chemical substances in 

2003. Of these, the AAPCC reported that it received a total of 5,816 reported exposures 

to ethylene glycol. The total number of reported exposures to ethylene glycol amounts to 

0.24% percent (i.e., less than one-quarter of one percent) of the total chemical exposures. 

In 2003, there were 19 deaths caused by ethylene glycol: 16 of the deaths were ruled 

intentional suicides, two deaths were of unknown causes (i.e., suicide could not be 

conclusively proven), and one death of an 81 year-old man was ruled as “unintentional 

general.” This last case involved an elderly woman in New Jersey who poisoned her 81-

year old companion by adding ethylene glycol to the man’s drink. 

In 2003, there were 582 exposures to children under 6, and 803 to children between 

6 and 19. In total, 1,385 of the 5,816 reported cases of exposure involved children under 

the age of 19. 

For 2004, the AAPCC reported a total of 2,438,644 exposures to chemical 

substances. Of these, the AAPCC reported a total of 5,562 reported exposures to 

antifreeze. The total number of reported exposures to ethylene glycol amounts to 0.228% 

percent (i.e., less than one-quarter of one percent) of the total chemical exposures. In 

2004, there were 23 deaths caused by ethylene glycol: all of these cases were intentional 

ingestions and 19 were cases where the intention of the individual was to commit suicide. 

In 2004, there were 672 exposures to children under 6, and 678 to children between 

6 and 19. In total, 1,350 of the 5,562 reported cases of exposure involved children under 

the age of 19. 

The 2005 data has not been released. 

4. Do you agree with the findings of Dr. Michael E. Mullins and Dr. B. Zane 

Horowitz in a published 2004 report on the Oregon law entitled "Was It 

necessary to Add Bitrex (Denatonium Benzoate) to Automotive Products" 

when they concluded: 

'The first law mandating- addition of DB was never necessary. As 

unintentional EG or Meoh exposures in pre-school age children did not cause 

measurable toxicity. The mandatory addition of DB to automotive products 

has produced no measurable reduction in unintentional pediatric toxic alcohol 

exposures in Oregon." 

We neither agree nor disagree with the findings of Drs. Mullins and Horowitz. 

Prestone and the antifreeze industry have reviewed and examined the effects of 

denatonium benzoate only as to its impact on an automobile engine. Ethylene glycol 

 

*

 The Advocate (a Louisiana newspaper) reported that on May 31, 2006, a 3 year-old Baton Rouge 

boy died after drinking antifreeze left in a cup on a bedroom dresser by his father’s girlfriend. The 

woman was booked on one count of negligent homicide. The antifreeze was reportedly intended for 

a neighbor’s dog. 
134

antifreeze containing DB in the quantities specified by the House bill will not corrode an 

engine. 

We note that the primary goal of the federal legislation is to prevent the accidental 

ingestion of antifreeze by pets and other animals, with the deterrence of children’s 

ingestion a secondary benefit. Drs. Mullins and Horowitz focused their study only on 

pediatric exposures. 

5. Do you have any credible evidence that shows that the addition of DB produced 

a measurable reduction in unintentional pediatric toxic alcohol exposures in 

Oregon? 

Prestone and the antifreeze industry have reviewed and examined the effects of 

denatonium benzoate as to its impact on an automobile engine. We have neither pursued 

nor do we possess evidence regarding the reduction in pediatric exposures as a result of 

the addition of DB to ethylene glycol products. 

6. Do any States require reporting of accidental human exposures to antifreeze? If 

so, please identify them. 

To our knowledge, no states require the reporting of accidental human exposures to 

antifreeze. However, the AAPCC compiles exposure data for all chemicals from 62 state 

and regional poison control centers. This data includes accidental exposures to 

antifreeze. 

7. Do any States require reporting of intentional human exposures to antifreeze? 

If so, please identify them. 

To our knowledge, no states require the reporting of intentional human exposures to 

antifreeze. However, the AAPCC compiles exposure data for all chemicals from 62 state 

and regional poison control centers. This data includes intentional exposures to 

antifreeze. 

8. Do any States require reporting of accidental household pet or other animal 

exposures to antifreeze? If so, please identify them. 

We are not aware of any States requiring the reporting of accidental animal 

exposures to antifreeze. 

9. In your testimony to the Subcommittee you stated, "there are occasions where 

household pets and other animals are exposed to ethylene glycol products and 

are injured by ingesting the product." Please provide the magnitude of the 

term "occasions" and provide any information you have on how many 

household pets and other animals die each year in the United States from 

ingesting antifreeze and how many are seriously injured? Please also provide 

the basis for the numbers you submit. 

There are two national estimates of the number of companion animals who ingest 

antifreeze each year. One estimate that is cited frequently by a variety of sources is that 

10,000 dogs and cats are poisoned each year by antifreeze. That number is attributed to 

the Washington State School of Veterinary Medicine. A higher estimate of 118,000 

exposures and 90,000+ deaths of dogs and cats due to antifreeze poisoning is attributable 

to a survey conducted in 1996 by Bruno and Ridgway Research Associates on behalf of 

the ASPCA and Safe Brands Corp. 
135

10. How many lawsuits were filed in each of the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 against 

Honeywell and Prestone for causing deaths to children from the ingestion of 

antifreeze? What is the legal theory behind any such lawsuit? 

There were no lawsuits filed against Honeywell and Prestone for deaths to children 

from the ingestion of antifreeze in the time period requested. 

11. How many lawsuits were filed in each of the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 against 

Honeywell and Prestone for causing death or serious injury to household pets 

or other animals from the accidental ingestion of antifreeze? What is the legal 

theory behind any such lawsuit? 

There were no lawsuits filed against Honeywell and Prestone for deaths or injury to 

animals from the ingestion of antifreeze in the time period requested. 

12. Is it correct, that in the fall of 2005 officials of the Consumer Specialty Product 

Association contacted staff members at the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) and requested that they run a computer-based model for a potential risk 

profile for bitrex (denatonium benzoate) that relies on toxicity and 

environmental exposure estimation techniques? 

Since the CSPA had accumulated numerous scientific studies on the 

environmental fate of denatonium benzoate, which they had submitted to the 

Congressional Research Service by letter dated September 24, 2004, did CSPA 

officials provide the same scientific studies to EPA so its review could be based 

on actual studies rather than computer models? If not, please explain why not. 

In the fall of 2005, CSPA met with EPA officials to inquire if they had 

environmental fate data on DB. It is our understanding that CSPA did not ask EPA to run 

modeling studies, although EPA may have conducted studies either before or after the 

CSPA meeting at their own volition or after requests from stakeholders in Congress or 

elsewhere. CSPA has sought for many years conclusive environmental fate data of DB 

from various sources, although such data does not seem to be publicly available. 

In an effort to be transparent on the issue, we understand that CSPA provided to the 

Library of Congress as well as the Majority and Minority staff of the House Energy and 

Commerce Committee all information that they had regarding DB. CSPA does not know 

whether the Majority or Minority staff shared that information with EPA. 

13. On July 16, 2004, correspondence from CSPA to Macfarlan Smith Limited 

stated as follows: 

"CSPA believes that there is no demonstrated scientific basis for these state 

and local requirements. Further, existing studies and records indicate that, 

with respect to those jurisdictions that have enacted such laws, there is no 

credible scientific evidence showing that the inclusion of bitterants in such 

automotive products has resulted in a reduction in incidents of accidental 

poisoning." 

Do Honeywell and CSPA continue to believe there is "no demonstrated 

scientific basis for these state and local requirements" to mandate the inclusion 

of denatonium benzoate or other aversive agents in antifreeze? 
136

CSPA and Honeywell possess no scientific data to prove that the inclusion of 

denatonium benzoate in antifreeze will prevent accidental ingestion of antifreeze. 

Animal welfare advocates, however, believe that DB will help prevent animal ingestion 

of antifreeze. Furthermore, we continue to believe that individual state bills are not the 

best way to address the supporters request to mandate DB in ethylene glycol antifreeze, 

but instead we recommend a uniform federal solution. 

The entire antifreeze industry is willing to add DB to their products, per the mandate 

of HR 2567, as an additional layer of safety to protect animals and humans as long as the 

liability and uniformity provisions are maintained in the legislation. 

14. What specific factual circumstances with respect to the inclusion of denatonium 

benzoate in antifreeze cause Honeywell to believe that it is necessary to have the 

legal immunity as provided in Section 2 of H.R. 2567 from "damage to the 

environment (including natural resources)"? 

Honeywell, under its Prestone brand, is the market leader in ethylene glycol and 

propylene glycol antifreeze products. We are not in the business of, studying, developing 

or manufacturing denatonium benzoate or other bittering agents. HR 2567 rightfully 

allocates the liability between the antifreeze and DB manufacturers for their respective 

products. The legislation would ensure injured parties the right to sue the appropriate 

manufacturer for all damages – including damage to the environment and natural 

resources – caused by that manufacturer’s product. 

This arrangement of assigned liability is appropriate because of the rare 

circumstance where the federal government is mandating the inclusion of a substance in a 

manufacturer’s product. 

15. If a manufacturer, distributor, or processor of antifreeze negligently spilled a 

gallon of denatonium benzoate that it intended to include or was in the process 

of including in engine coolant or antifreeze and it caused contamination of 

drinking water supplies or a groundwater aquifer, do you agree that the 

manufacturer, distributor, or processor would be immune from environmental 

liability under Section 2 of H.R. 2567? If not, please explain why not. 

No, a manufacturer of antifreeze who negligently spilled DB in the manufacturing 

process would not be immune from environmental liability under HR 2567 for at least 

two reasons. 

The relevant statutory language in HR 2567 states that any manufacturer 

“(1) Subject to paragraph (2), ... shall not be liable ... for any ... damage .... or 

loss that results from the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in any engine 

coolant or antifreeze, provided that the inclusion of denatonium benzoate is 

present in concentrations mandated by subsection (a). 

(2) The limitation on liability provided in this subsection does not apply to a 

particular liability to the extent that the cause of such liability is unrelated to the 

inclusion of denatonium benzoate in any engine coolant or antifreeze.” 

In your scenario, you envision a manufacturer spilling a one gallon container of DB. 

First, because the liability in your fact pattern would stem from the manufacturer’s 

negligence in handling the DB, subsection (2) of the liability section would explicitly 

prohibit protection because the liability is unrelated to the inclusion of denatonium 

benzoate in the antifreeze. Second, because the inclusion of DB in the antifreeze would 

far exceed the concentrations mandated by subsection (a) of the bill, 30 to 50 parts per 

million, the liability provisions would not protect the manufacturer. 
137

A distributor or processor of antifreeze would not be in possession of DB because 

they only handle finished product, although our conclusion would be the same. 

16. If a quantity of denatonium benzoate was spilled during the handling or 

distribution or during the formulation process by a manufacturer of antifreeze 

and caused damage to natural resources, would the natural resource trustee be 

able to bring an action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, against the manufacturer 

for damage to the natural resources, or would such an action he precluded by 

Section 2 of H.R. 2567? 

HR 2567 would not preclude an action under the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended. 

17. Do you agree that all manufacturers of the bitterant denatonium benzoate are 

foreign manufacturers? If not, please identify any U.S. manufacturer and 

provide any evidence that you have demonstrating that a U.S. company is 

currently manufacturing denatonium benzoate. 

No, not all manufacturers of DB are foreign. Honeywell Prestone buys its entire 

supply of DB for inclusion in ethylene glycol antifreeze (to satisfy the Oregon, California 

and New Mexico laws) from an Ohio manufacturer called PMC. We understand that 

PMC may contract manufacture the product from other domestic producers. Dragon 

Chemical, a subsidiary of Burlington Scientific, based in Farmingdale, New York, 

reportedly manufacturers DB as well. 

For your information, the foreign manufacturers of DB would be liable for damages 

caused by their products sold in the United States. We have attached a memorandum 

from Arnold & Porter describing the scope of U.S. federal court jurisdiction to assist you 

in understanding the legal realities. 

18. Do you agree that H.R. 2567 preempts State tort laws by providing immunity 

to manufacturers and sellers of engine coolant or antifreeze for injury, death, 

property damage, or damage to the environment resulting from adding a 

bittering agent, denatonium benzoate, to the coolant or antifreeze? If not, 

please explain why not. 

HR 2567 would preempt state laws in so far as they differ from the federal 

regulation as set forth in the bill. State laws, tort and others, would continue to be 

effective in the regulation of antifreeze, or the regulation of bittering agents such as 

denatonium benzoate, just not state laws that attempt to regulate the inclusion of a 

bittering agent in engine coolant or antifreeze in retail containers under 55 gallons. 

The relevant preemption provision in HR 2567 states: 

“(d) Preemption- No State or political subdivision of a State shall have any 

authority either to establish or continue in effect with respect to retail containers 

containing less than 55 gallons of engine coolant or antifreeze any prohibition, 

limitation, standard or other requirement relating to the inclusion of a bittering 

agent in engine coolant or antifreeze that is in any way different from, or in 

addition to, the provisions of this chapter.” 

19. At the Subcommittee hearing, a Member of the Subcommittee identified the 

following consumer products as having denatonium benzoate in them to make 

them bitter: nail polish, hairspray, crayons, bubble bath, shampoo, eye 
138

shadow, ink, hand sanitizer, windshield wash, laundry detergent, fabric 

softener, and perfume. 

Have the manufacturers of any of these consumer products been provided 

immunity under Federal law from liability for any personal injury, death, 

property damage, or economic loss that results from the inclusion of 

denatonium benzoate in the consumer product? If so, please identify the 

consumer product and the specific statute that provides any such immunity 

from liability. 

With the exception of windshield wash, Honeywell does not manufacture any of the 

identified household products and is not in the best position to describe the scope of 

liability of their manufacturers. Because of your positions on the House Energy and 

Commerce Committee, you and your staff may have a better understanding of the 

liability provisions passed under your Committee’s jurisdiction in the past, with or 

without your support. We do suspect, however, that the manufacturers of the various 

products that contain denatonium benzoate include the ingredient under their own 

volition and have the ability to delete the substance or alter their products’ composition 

without breaking federal law. 

Prestone includes DB in windshield wash products in Oregon because the 1992 

Oregon law requires us to do so. The state law, OR Rev. Statutes Title 36 431.870-915, 

contains liability protections as described in the statute: 

“Limitation on liability; application. A manufacturer, distributor or seller of a 

toxic household product that is required to contain an aversive agent ... is not 

liable to any person for any personal injury, death or property damage that 

results from the inclusion of the aversive agent in the toxic household product.” 

20. Are you aware of any manufacturers of the following products that have been 

provided immunity from liability pursuant to Federal law for "damage to the 

environment (including natural resources)" that results from the inclusion of 

denatonium benzoate in the product: 

a. Nail polish 

b. Hairspray 

c. Crayons 

d. Bubble bath 

e. Shampoo 

f. Eye shadow 

g. Ink 

h. Hand sanitizer 

i. Windshield wash 

j. Laundry detergent 

k. Fabric softener 

1. Perfume 

If so, please cite the specific statute and provision that provides the 

manufacturer of a product where DB has been added any such immunity from 

environmental liability. 

As stated in response to the question above, with the exception of windshield wash, 

Honeywell does not manufacture any of the identified household products and is not in 

the best position to describe the scope of liability of their manufacturers. Because of your 
139

positions on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, you and your staff may have a 

better understanding of the liability provisions passed under your Committee’s 

jurisdiction in the past, with or without your support. We do suspect, however, that the 

manufacturers of the various products that contain denatonium benzoate include the 

ingredient under their own volition and have the ability to delete the substance or alter 

their products’ composition without breaking federal law. 

Prestone includes DB in windshield wash products in Oregon because the 1992 

Oregon law requires us to do so. The state law, OR Rev. Statutes Title 36 431.870-915, 

contains liability protections as described in the statute: 

“Limitation on liability; application. A manufacturer, distributor or seller of a 

toxic household product that is required to contain an aversive agent ... is not 

liable to any person for any personal injury, death or property damage that 

results from the inclusion of the aversive agent in the toxic household product.” 
140

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY TOM BONACQUISTI, DIRECTOR OF WATER QUALITY AND 

PRODUCTION, FAIRFAX COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN WATER 

WORKS ASSOCIATION

June 10, 2006 

The Honorable Paul E. Gilmor, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

 

Enclosed are the American Water Works Association (AWWA) responses to your 

questions asked in your letter of June 8, 2006, To Mr. Tom Bonaquisti, the AWWA 

witness at the hearing on H.R. 2567, The Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005, on May 23, 

2006. 

 

We would be pleased provide you any additional information that you may need 

concerning drinking water issues. If you need additional information, please call me or 

Al Warburton, the Association Legislative Director, at 202-628-8303. Thank you for your 

time and kind consideration of the AWWA recommendations. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Curtis 

Deputy Executive Director for Government Affairs 
141

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY 

THE HONORABLE PAUL E. GILMOR 

June 8, 2006 

CONCERNING 

THE TESTIMONY OF THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION ON 

H.R. 2567, THE ANTIFREEZE BITTERING ACT OF 2005 

PRESENTED BEFORE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

ON MAY 23, 2006

1. In your testimony, you state that information from the manufacturers of db show 

that their product is biodegradable and does not adhere to soil. However, EPA’s 

testimony states that DB is “predicted to be resistant to biodegradation” and is “not 

predicted to readily migrate to soil” unless in very organically rich soils. This is a 

key fact because depending on whether DB is biodegradable relates directly to its 

absorption to sludge or other soils, making it more easily removable in a sanitary 

sewer system. Where is the source of your contradictory data and have your shared 

it with EPA? 

AWWA RESPONSE: Our statement was contradicting the information contained 

in the manufacturers’ Material Safety Data sheet (MSDS) which states that the DB is 

biodegradable and is not known to bioaccumulate. According to studies by Roy F. 

Westin, Inc., DB does NOT fully degrade in the environment. It was not removed during 

the sewage treatment process. It remained in the water and was not removed with the 

sludge (Study No. 92-042 - August 8, 1992; Study No. 92-051 – August 27, 1992; Study 

No. 92-052 – August 31, 1992). The SAE International Technical Paper No. 930587 

states that in its study the denatonium ion was not removed by microbial degradation or 

by adsorption. This research confirms what both AWWA and EPA said on this point. 

However, Study No. 93-087 conducted by Roy F. Westin, Inc. concludes that DB does 

not “stick” to the soil. Rather, it stays in and travels with the groundwater. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to expect contamination problems as DB accumulates in the groundwater – 

the net result is that the groundwater may become bitter and unpotable. These studies 

have been in the public domain for over tens years and we would expect that EPA 

researchers would have access to the studies. Our point was that there is conflicting and 

inconclusive data on the fate and transport of DB, particularly in water, which would 

make it very imprudent to provide far-reaching liability immunity to companies making 

or handling antifreeze containing DB. 

2. Your statement reads: “It is also important to remember that antifreeze is used 

in large volumes in many industrial applications, such as deicing and large releases 

and widespread contamination of water supplies are possible.” However, as I read 

subsection (d) and (e) of the newly created Section 25 in H.R. 2567, the bill caps its 

applicability to 55 gallons or less containers of antifreeze. I understand this to mean 

that we are only talking about containers that would be sold in the retail market. In 

addition, the user of the antifreeze is not covered under the liability shield in the bill. 

Do you share this reading of the bill? 

AWWA RESPONSE: Our point in mentioning that antifreeze is used in large 

volumes in many industrial applications, was to illustrate that by mandating DB in all 

engine coolants or antifreeze, DB would be introduced into the environment in a larger 

scale in addition to the retail quantities of antifreeze and the current uses in certain 
142

consumer products. By exempting one source of DB, the Congress is setting the stage for 

a constant battle between potential responsible parties (PRP) as to the source of the DB in 

the environment. Those parties that are not exempt would argue that the source of DB is 

from an exempted source. Our understanding of the bill is that the liability shield would 

extend down to include the distributor or seller, leaving the user to bear the liability for 

recovery of damages. In many, if not most of the cases, the end user is the financially 

least capable party in the chain to pay damages. The bill creates enough ambiguity for the 

PRPs that endless litigation concerning the source of DB may be the end result, making 

recovery of damages from any source problematic. 

3. Under this legislation, the makers of antifreeze are responsible for any and all 

environmental damage caused by their product, including its main constituent, 

ethylene glycol, which EPA considers a toxic substance. Do you believe that DBlaced antifreeze could seep into groundwater or source water for a water system 

without any environmental effects from the antifreeze itself being in evidence? If 

this is not the case, since environmental liability exposure extends to both antifreeze 

and DB manufacturers, am I not correct that both parties would still be open to 

facing legal action? 

AWWA RESPONSE: The Roy Westin, Inc. Study No. 93-087 assessed the results 

of pouring ethylene glycol on the ground and whether or not DB would stick to the soil or 

travel with the groundwater. In rural areas, some people dispose of used ethylene glycol 

by pouring it on the ground. The study concluded that there is minimal environmental 

impact when ethylene glycol is poured on the ground since it readily biodegrades into 

carbon dioxide and water in a matter of days and does not go into the groundwater in the 

form of the ethylene glycol compound. However, the study concludes that DB does not 

stick in the soil. Rather it stays in and travels with the groundwater. Therefore, it is 

reasonable to expect that when DB-laced antifreeze is poured on the ground, only the DB 

component of the antifreeze would be evident in the in the ground water or source water 

for a water system. Our understanding of the bill is that the manufacturer, processor, 

distributor, recycler, or seller of any antifreeze with the mandated level of DB would not 

be liable for damage to the environment resulting from DB in the antifreeze. 

4. On April 18, 2003, the American Water Works Association issues a press release 

stating its support for the Drinking Water Standards Preservation Act. This bill 

would protect water utilities – much like antifreeze makers – from lawsuits, so long 

as they are in compliance with federal and state regulations. The drinking water 

bill seems to offer your members the same protections thing you are opposed to for 

another interest. How do you square this logic?

AWWA RESPONSE: As you noted, the American Water Works Association has 

endorsed the Drinking Water Standards Preservation Act (H.R. 1540). The bill would 

provide some liability protection fort public water systems that are incompliance with 

federal and state regulations. The difference between H.R. 1540 and other proposed 

liability immunity legislation is that public water systems are not introducing potential 

pollutants into the environment. Rather they are taking pollutants and microbes, many of 

them naturally occurring, out of the water. The thrust of the legislation is to protect the 

standard setting process rather than seeking liability immunity. AWWA believes very 

strongly that drinking water regulations should be based on the scientific process 

established in the Safe Drinking Water Act. States are free to make those standards more 

stringent through the state regulatory process. In all cases, the standards are scientifically 

based to be protective of public health within a reasonable risk range established by 
143

science. We are opposed to drinking water standards being set by judges and juries that 

have a limited capability to make regulatory determinations based on a scientific process. 

5. Based on the testimony of other witnesses, it seems that the antifreeze industry 

has in the past not wanted a mandatory requirement for the addition of a bitterant 

in antifreeze. If the Congress requires the industry to put a substance in their 

product that they would otherwise not do, why shouldn’t Congress excuse those 

companies from potential liability arising from that additional product? Wouldn’t 

it be unfair to not allow this liability protection if the Congress supercedes a 

business decision?

AWWA RESPONSE: As stated in our testimony, AWWA has serious reservations 

about statutorily mandating a specific bittering agent and specific concentrations of that 

agent. We generally, believe that those kinds of decisions should be left to the regulatory 

process in which all available scientific data can be examined and decisions can be made 

with opportunity for public review and comment. Although our testimony focused on the 

limitation on liability, there would be no need for liability immunity if Congress did not 

require the industry to put a substance in their product that they would otherwise not do. 

We are not expert on how best to achieve the goal of preventing antifreeze poisoning or 

which bittering agent to use, but we do know that there are alternatives that should be 

examined. It would be far better for Congress to set a performance standard for the 

industry to achieve and let the industry or a regulatory process decide how to meet that 

performance standard. The industry then would not need liability protection because of a 

Congressional mandate. 

6. According to other witnesses, DB has been and additive in certain consumer 

products for over 40 years. If that is the case, and if there was such a concern on 

what the chemical could do to water supplies, why hasn’t AWWA taken the lead 

and funded studies regarding this additive? Wouldn’t taking some action like this 

bolster your argument that your concerns here are significant and legitimate? Is 

AWWA aware of past groundwater, drinking water, or waste water contaminations 

caused directly by DB?

AWWA RESPONSE: The likelihood that DB would be a contaminant of 

widespread concern is largely a function of the volume released to the environment and 

the analytical method required to detect it at environmental concentrations. 

Based on consultation with environmental laboratories it is unlikely that standard 

tests run by drinking water utilities would inadvertently identify the presence of DB. 

Currently there is not a consensus method for the determination of DB in environmental 

or finished water samples in ASTM, EPA, or Standard Methods. The only ASTM 

standard method for the denatonium ion is WK11066, Standard Test Method for 

Determination of Denatonium Ion in Engine Coolant by HPLC. Detection in water 

would require a gas chromatography / mass spectrometry or high performance liquid 

chromatography / mass spectrometry method. Given the low concentrations and the 

absence of a directed search specifically for DB using such a method its presence is 

unlikely to be detected. 

AWWA has not undertaken any research into DB occurrence or removal as 

previously, there has not been a reason to be concerned about the release of this 

compound occurring in large quantities on a nation-wide basis. With limited exceptions, 

to-date, DB appears to be used in products that are formulated for use in very small 

quantities by consumers and in no instance that we could locate was the application 

taking place under an shield of immunity for any inadvertent harm caused by the release 

of the product. 
144

7. In your testimony, you state that the denatonium ion which is responsible for the 

bitter taste is not easily biodegradable. Is it treatable in nay way? What would a 

wastewater or drinking water facility have to do to remove the ion from the water? 

How much would it cost? How much DB in the water supply would constitute a 

severe enough contamination to warrant the abandonment of that supply? If this 

law were passed, would that much DB even be added to the national supply of 

antifreeze?

AWWA RESPONSE: AWWA was not able to locate a treatability study on DB 

removal from drinking water. However, its chemical structure and properties provide a 

basis for some general observations regarding likely treatment approaches for DB. It 

does not appear that DB would be well removed in a conventional treatment plant (i.e., 

coagulation-sedimentation-filtration-disinfection). Conventional treatment is the 

collection of treatment unit processes that are typical of most surface water treatment 

plants in the U.S. 

DB’s solubility also suggests that it would not be well removed on activated carbon 

either making both powered activated carbon addition (PAC) and granular activated 

carbon (GAC) filtration unlikely treatment strategies. PAC is a common step taken to 

remove taste and odor compounds and GAC is a much more expensive process, but also 

one that has served as a benchmark best available technology (BAT) in the drinking 

water field for a number of years. 

DB does appear amenable to oxidation using advanced oxidants such as ozone, 

ozone- hydrogen peroxide, and ultraviolet light-hydrogen peroxide. It is not clear 

without additional study if indeed advanced oxidants would work, what oxidant 

concentration and contact times would need to be employed or what disinfection 

byproducts will be created from such an oxidation approach. Ozone and other forms of 

advanced oxidation are only found in a limited fraction of water treatment plants at which 

concerns about microbial pollutants or other site-specific reasons led to their inclusion in 

the treatment train. 

AWWA does not have the detailed information needed to estimate the cost of 

treating DB. But we do know from compliance with other major drinking water 

regulations, such as the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Treatment Rule, that the cost for 

the capital cost associated with installing treatment and the annual operation and 

maintenance cost increase significantly for difficult to treat contaminants . The total 

national costs associated with DB would be a function of the specifics of actually treating 

for DB and the number of water treatment plants that found addition of other treatment 

necessary. 

In this context it is also important to realize that many ground water supplies are of 

sufficiently high quality that they are not treated. The addition of one treatment to 

address DB would trigger additional regulatory requirements that in turn would elevate 

cost impacts. This aspect of adding additional treatment is a particular concern for small 

community (e.g., towns, villages, etc.) and non-community (e.g., churches, camp 

grounds, restaurants, gas stations, etc.) ground water systems. 

This question also asks what level of DB poses a risk of abandoning a water supply. 

Solving this question is a local decision, which will need to take into account the 

availability of alternative water supplies, the viability of treatment options, and local 

resources. Historically and at present, taste and odor concerns are extremely important to 

drinking water utility customers as the public is very aware of water that tastes bad and 

they perceive it both as unpalatable and potentially harmful (e.g., the reasoning behind 

addition of a bittering agent like DB). Information provided on Bitrex indicates the 

aversive level in products like antifreeze is 30 ppm. Information provided by Market 

Actives, the U.S. distributor of Bitrex indicts that DB is Bitrex is aversively bitter at 1 to 
145

10 parts per million (ppm) in water (http://www.marketactives.com/faq.html). It appears 

from the literature that the consumers would taste DB in water at much, much lower 

levels on the order of low part per billion levels if not lower. The question remains how 

much DB would be released in any one locale so as to contaminate the water supply at a 

discernable level. Water supplies are contaminated through both proper application of 

products (e.g., pesticides) and inadvertent releases ( e.g., storage tank failures, 

inappropriate disposal practices). There latter risks clearly exist. There are also likely 

instances where the former exist as well. For instance, ethylene glycol and other 

antifreeze compounds are applied to aircraft at airports as a part of deicing. This is an 

important process for aircraft safety. It also results in the release of antifreeze to storm 

water in significant quantities. Quantities sufficient to lead to taste and odor episodes 

come not only from the DB but also from the ethylene glycol. 

8. What are the effects of antifreeze contamination of water supplies without the 

DB additive? Is it easily biodegradable? What kind of treatments would be 

necessary to remove regular antifreeze from water? How much do they cost? Has 

there ever been a case of a severe contamination of a water supply from antifreeze 

without the DB additive that caused the abandonment of that water supply? 

AWWA RESPONSE: As stated in our response to Question 3, the Roy Westin, 

Inc. Study No. 93-087, concluded that there is minimal environmental impact when 

ethylene glycol without the DB additive is poured on the ground since the ethylene glycol 

readily biodegrades into carbon dioxide and water in a matter of days and does not go 

into the groundwater in the form of the ethylene glycol compound. We are unaware of 

any case of a severe contamination of a water supply from antifreeze without the DB 

additive that caused the abandonment of the water supply. However, there are instances 

where large-scale application of antifreeze at airports has resulted in taste and odor 

episodes at conventional surface water treatment facilities. This situation occurred at one 

of Fairfax Water’s facilities prior to installation of ozone and movement of the water 

treatment plant’s intake location.
146

RESPONSE FOR THE RECORD BY JIM WILLIS, DIVISION DIRECTOR, CHEMICAL CONTROL 

DIVISION, OFFICE OF POLLUTION PREVENTION AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES, U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Responses to follow-up questions on U.S. EPA’s May 23, 2006 testimony before the 

Subcommittee on the Environment and Hazardous Materials, at the legislative hearing on 

H.R. 2567, the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2005. 

The Honorable Paul E. Gillmor

1. Fourteen (14) years ago, when CPSC did a literature review of denatonium 

benzoate, CPSC found a general lack of information on bittering agents. With your 

testimony, does this mean that you consider the amount of information particularly 

as it relates to environmental fate-and-transport issues to have increased? 

There is not an extensive database of toxicity or environmental fate information on 

DB, although there is a 2-year oral toxicity study in rats and several other oral studies in 

rats of shorter duration. Although the amount of publicly available data on the fate and 

transport of DB has not increased appreciably in 14 years, EPA's ability to predict the 

fate and transport of chemicals such as DB has improved considerably. EPA is confident 

that its predictions about the fate and transport of DB are reasonably accurate and would 

be supported by future measured test data.

2. The legislation being considered by our committee today contains a Federal 

requirement for antifreeze with 10 percent ethylene glycol to contain between 30 to 

50 parts per million of DB. CPSC testified before the Senate Commerce Committee 

last July 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.” Do 

you agree that human health is best protected from ingestion and the environment 

from releases at this level? 

EPA cannot comment on whether DB at the 30 to 50 parts per million level would 

offer the best protection. That finding would seem to be a matter more within the 

purview of CPSC. However, according to our screening level analysis, EPA would agree 

that exposure to DB at such levels should not pose a significant risk to human health or 

the environment.

3. What are the environmental effects of plain antifreeze being released into water 

or soil? Would it be possible to have bittered antifreeze released into the 

environment and only have the environmental damage caused by the bittering 

agent? 

The environmental effects of plain antifreeze being released into water and soil are 

low. Plain antifreeze is easily biodegradable, i.e., is not persistent. The environmental 

damage caused by the bittering agent if added to antifreeze and released with antifreeze is 

expected to be low. Based on structure-activity relationship (SAR) analysis, DB is 

expected to have low toxicity to fish and aquatic invertebrates and moderate toxicity to 

green algae. In a natural environment, potential exposure to green algae would be 

reduced due to rapid adsorption of the cation of DB to organic matter found in water and 

soils. Once the cation is adsorbed to organic matter it is less bioavailable, thereby 

significantly mitigating the potential for exposure to toxic levels of DB. 
147

4. Has EPA conducted a full risk assessment on DB? Why? How reliable is the 

screening-level toxicity and environmental exposure estimation techniques that EPA 

has used on DB? 

At this time, the Agency does not consider the low expected production volume and 

associated low environmental releases and exposure to support the need for a detailed 

risk assessment. The Agency is reasonably confident of the results of the modeling 

which EPA performed in its screening level fate and toxicity assessment but would 

nonetheless benefit from obtaining copies of existing studies on DB held by industry. 

5. Do you think it is a problem if DB gets into groundwater or not? If DB is not 

filtered out by a drinking water system, since it does not biodegrade, is it a threat to 

health or the environment? 

Because of DB’s low production volume and pattern of use and storage, there would 

be relatively few opportunities for an environmental release that could reach groundwater 

in significant quantities. EPA does not expect DB released to soil to reach groundwater 

because of its tendency to adsorb to soil and its extremely slow soil mobility rate. 

Furthermore, in the event that DB did eventually reach a water supply, we would expect 

it to be filtered out by treatment. Considering the low production volume and pattern of 

use and storage and the results of our screening analysis, we believe that DB is unlikely 

to pose a significant risk even if not filtered out.

6. Some people have raised questions about whether it is possible to get DB 

information since the major manufacturers of this chemical are based overseas and 

past attempts by private parties have been met with resistance due to confidential 

business information claims. Do you have the same problems with getting this data 

and do you believed that DB manufacturers would be subject to “personal 

jurisdiction” in the event of claims of damages caused by DB? 

If needed, EPA could use its reporting authority under TSCA §8d to obtain existing 

studies from manufacturers and processors.

The Honorable John D. Dingell and the Honorable Hilda L. Solis

1. Is it correct that there is only one registered pesticide where denatonium 

benzoate (DB) is an active ingredient?

Currently, there are two products registered with the active ingredient, DB (bitrex). 

Each product contains 0.2% active ingredient. 

Is that registered use a deer repellent sold under the brand name Tree Guard for use 

on shrubs and certain types of trees?

The two registered products are:

1. Tree Guard®, EPA Reg. No. 66676-1 (registered January 30, 1996, to reduce 

feeding by deer on trees, shrubs, flowers, and other ornamental plants), and 

2. Fooey®, EPA Reg. No. 680086-7 (registered August 10, 2005, to reduce 

chewing, biting and licking by dogs, cats, horses, and other animals) 
148

2. Is it correct that the use restrictions for Tree Guard include the following?

• Do not use on food or feed crops 

• Do not apply aerially 

• Do not apply product through any type of irrigation system or hose 

proportioner applicator 

• Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is 

present, or to inter-tidal areas below the mean high water mark 

• Do not clean equipment or dispose of equipment wash waters in a 

manner that will contaminate water resources or arable land. 

Yes, the use restrictions for Tree Guard include the five restrictions listed in your 

question. 

The use restrictions for Fooey include these two restrictions: 

• Do not apply directly to water. 

• Do not clean equipment or dispose of equipment wash waters in a manner 

that will contaminate water resources or arable land. 

The use restrictions for Fooey are fewer than those for Tree Guard because the use 

pattern is more limited. 

3. Is it correct that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled to 

review the registration for Tree Guard in June 2006? If so, what information and 

data will EPA request on the bitterant denatonium benzoate and what type of 

scientific review will be conducted?

Over the next two years, the Agency will review the database for the active 

ingredient, denatonium benzoate, and determine whether there are sufficient data on the 

active ingredient. If not, the Agency will proceed to call in any missing data on the 

individual products themselves. After the necessary data have been submitted and 

reviewed, the Agency will be able to determine whether this pesticide meets the 

requirements for reregistration. EPA expects to complete this process by September 

2008. 

To support the current uses of the active ingredient, EPA would normally require 

basic chemistry, toxicity, worker exposure, and environmental fate and effects data. The 

final list of requirements will be determined during the next two years. EPA will review 

the available data for denatonium benzoate and conduct ecological and human health risk 

assessments based on those studies. 

4. Based on your current knowledge, do you expect the registrant for Tree Guard to 

seek to re-register this pesticide and submit the necessary data for an appropriate 

scientific review?

At this time, we are unaware of the plans of the two registrants to seek reregistration of this pesticide and submit the necessary data for an appropriate scientific 

review. 

5. Is it correct that EPA staff conducted its computer-based modeling estimation 

technique on denatonium benzoate (bitrex) in the fall of 2005 at the request of an 

official of the Consumer Specialty Products Association?

Yes. 
149

6. Did officials of Honeywell or the Consumer Specialty Products Association ever 

provide EPA with the independent scientific studies which they possessed that 

determined that DB does not biodegrade and is not removed during the processes 

used to treat waste water at publicly-owned treatment facilities? If so, please specify 

the date when such studies were provided to EPA.

EPA did not receive the full biodegradation and soil adsorption study reports, along 

with other review articles and assessments, until the May 23, 2006 Subcommittee 

hearing. We are currently reviewing these studies. 

7. At the Subcommittee hearing, you testified that “we have reviewed available data 

made known to us.” Please specify what actual scientific studies were available to 

EPA and identify who provided them.

The Agency performed a general literature review for DB. There is not an extensive 

database of published toxicity values or environmental fate information, so the Agency 

relied on predictive assessments and the results of the 2-year oral study in rats and other 

studies summarized in the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) FR notice of October 

17, 1980 (45 FR 69125), “Establishment of Monographs for Nailbiting and 

Thumbsucking Deterrent and Ingrown Toenail Relief Drug Products for Over-theCounter Human Use.” 

8. Has EPA attempted to obtain environmental fate and transport data from the 

manufacturers of denatonium benzoate? If so, please describe the circumstances.

No. The Agency has not attempted to obtain data from the manufacturers of DB. 

Following the hearing, the Consumer Specialty Products Association did provide us the 

studies referred to in Question and Answer 6 above. 

9. Is EPA currently conducting any actual scientific studies on the environmental 

fate and transport characteristics of denatonium benzoate? 

Given the low expected production volume and associated low environmental 

releases and exposure, the results of its screening level assessment, and pending review 

of the studies provided by industry, EPA has not identified a priority need for it to 

conduct additional studies. 

10. Statements were made at the hearing that denatonium benzoate was used in 

the following consumer products: nail polish, hairspray, crayons, bubble bath, 

shampoo, eye shadow, ink, hand sanitizer windshield wash, laundry detergent, 

fabric softener, and perfume. Do the manufacturers of any of the above mentioned 

products have an exemption or immunity from Superfund liability (including 

natural resources damages) that results from the inclusion of denatonium benzoate 

in the consumer product? If so, please cite the specific statutory provision that 

provides the exemption or immunity from environmental liability (including natural 

resource damages).

No. The exemption from liability that would be provided by sec. 25(c) applies only 

to "a manufacturer, processor, distributor, recycler, or seller of an engine coolant or 

antifreeze that is required to contain an aversive agent under subsection (a)..." 

11. What other laws administered by EPA could be affected by the liability waiver 

for “damage to the environment” contained in Section 2 of H.R. 2567? 
150

EPA does not administer the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) and thus 

does not have primary interpretive authority regarding the statute or amendments thereto. 

Based on what appears to be the most straightforward reading, however, EPA would not 

expect the liability waiver for damage to the environment contained in Section 2 of H.R. 

2567 to significantly impact laws administered by EPA. Since the definition of "person" 

in FHSA Section 2 does not appear to include government agencies, the waiver of 

liability "to any person" would not appear to provide protection from possible EPA 

enforcement actions for regulatory violations. In addition, although several statutes 

administered by EPA provide for "citizen suits" to enforce the statutes, in those cases the 

citizens stand in the shoes of the Government, and the remedy available under these 

provisions is generally an injunction against further violations or penalties paid to the 

U.S. Treasury, not an award to the plaintiff for environmental damage. The 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 

however, does make certain persons liable for the cost of cleaning up releases of 

hazardous substances, and that liability can in some cases be to private parties. If the 

term "damage to the environment" were interpreted to include such cleanup costs, and a 

bittering agent were a CERCLA hazardous substance, CERCLA liability could 

potentially be affected. 

12. Could a spill of denatonium benzoate by a manufacturer, processor, 

distributor, or recycler of an engine coolant or antifreeze that affects navigable 

waterways or results in an imminent and substantial endangerment to human 

health or the environment potentially involve the statutory authorities of the (1) 

Clean Water Act, (2) Solid Waste Disposal Act or (3) Safe Drinking Water Act? If 

not, please explain why not.

A spill of denatonium benzoate that results in an imminent and substantial 

endangerment could involve statutory authority under the Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA could require a person responsible for a spill that results in 

an imminent and substantial endangerment to remediate the spill under the authority of 

RCRA sec. 7003. 

13. Is it correct that Section 2 of H.R. 2567 would provide immunity from liability 

for manufacturer, processor, distributor, or recycler of an engine coolant or 

antifreeze under the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act for damages to the environment caused by spills of denatonium 

benzoate that results from the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in any engine 

coolant or antifreeze? 

H.R. 2567 states that such persons "shall not be liable to any person for any personal 

injury, death, property damage, damage to the environment (including natural resources), 

or economic loss that results from the inclusion of denatonium benzoate in any engine 

coolant or antifreeze, provided that the inclusion of denatonium benzoate is present in 

concentrations mandated by subsection (a)." These persons as described in the bill would 

be exempt from liability under the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Solid 

Waste Disposal Act, but only if the denatonium benzoate were present in concentrations 

mandated by subsection (a). 

14. At the time officials of the Consumer Specialty Products Association asked EPA 

to provide a screening level analysis of denatonium benzoate, did any EPA officials 

ask the industry representatives whether they were aware of or possessed actual 
151

scientific studies that had been performed on the toxicity or environmental fate and 

transport of denatonium benzoate? If not, please explain why not.

The meeting in question was in September, 2005. EPA did not request further data 

because the focus and the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the structure-activity 

relationship (SAR) analysis approach to assessing DB. 

15. With respect to the use of DB in certain consumer products, do the 

environmental exposure risks depend and differ on whether it binds to and the 

manner it is used in the underlying product (such as nail polish or crayons), and in 

the manner in which the underlying product is itself disposed of?

Yes, potential health and environmental risks are related directly to potential for 

release and exposure to the chemical. Generally, the risk posed by a chemical is related 

to its hazard (toxicity) and exposure levels. This is the reason that soil adsorption (which 

limits DB’s mobility in soil) and patterns of use are important for DB. It is not expected 

to migrate through soil to groundwater and (for the consumer use in one gallon 

containers) is not stored in large underground tanks, where the potential for spillage and 

contamination are increased. 

16. Does EPA interpret H.R. 2567 as applying to airplane de-icing operations?

EPA understands this legislation as applying only to consumer uses, in small 

containers, as opposed to airplane de-icing, with associated large volume use and storage 

and potential for accidental spills. 

○