Do you like this story?
Making antifreeze bitter: There ought to be a law
By Christie Keith
March 4, 2010
Finally, some pet-related legislation we can all get behind: a law to force antifreeze makers to add a bitter flavoring to their products is under consideration by the United States Congress. From the VIN News Service:
If enacted, H.R. 615, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, would amend the Federal Hazardous Substances Act to nationally require what already is mandatory in ten states and has been considered in a handful of others: Engine coolant must contain denatonium benzoate, the most bitter compound known, to render the sweet but toxic liquid unpalatable.
The goal of H.R. 615, or the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2009, is to deter children and animals from drinking antifreeze. Ingesting just a tablespoon of ethylene glycol, the poisonous component in automotive antifreeze, can be lethal to a 10-pound cat. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that about 10,000 dogs and cats die from complications related to ethylene glycol toxicity each year, but other agencies guess that number to be much higher. Thousands of people are accidentally poisoned annually, states the American Association of Poison Control Centers. There also are reports of ethylene glycol-based antifreeze being used as a murder weapon.
It’s time, and past time, that lawmakers got off their butts and did this. If industry was going to do it on its own, they would have already. If the 40 states that haven’t passed it themselves were going to, ditto.
There are already some antifreezes out there made with propylene glycol, a substance that’s not as toxic as ethylene glycol. And just because something’s incredibly bitter or otherwise inedible doesn’t mean a dog won’t eat it — dogs have, as we all know, eaten some very unlikely things.
But it’s a start, and a big one.
Federal lawmakers have twice before failed to pass this law, so let’s all hope the third time is the charm.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
This is a big one!
Lots of cats hide under cars. It is so easy for them to lick the drippings of anti-freeze.
I pray that this law gets enacted.
Comment by Evelyn — March 4, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
Unbelievable how much stupid, counterproductive animal laws DO get passed while something so simple - that will save human lives, never mind pets - has failed to pass!!
Comment by Barb — March 4, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
Grr. I thought this got done years ago. I certainly remember DF reporting on it. Must have been a state law. That’s just stupid that they can’t get this done. Although why I expect anything other than stupid, I don’t know.
Comment by Kim Thornton — March 4, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
It’s inexplicable to me that manufacturers have to be FORCED to do this.
One great big honking lawsuit in the making, from the parents of little Justin who thought he was drinking blurpleicious kool-aid.
Plaintiff’s Attorney: So you knew your product tasted sweet?
Antifreeze Executive: Yes.
PA: And you had the technology to make it taste terrible?
AE: Yes.
PA: And you chose not to employ this technology because …?
AE: Uh — it would have cost an extra nickel a bottle.
Jury: Sucks to be you.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 4, 2010 @ 6:52 pm
This has been passed on a state-by-state basis. Long overdue for a federal mandate. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 4, 2010 @ 7:16 pm
I had no clue it was this easy to make antifreeze taste nasty.
And I’m really pissed off that it hasn’t been done way way earlier.
Comment by redheather — March 5, 2010 @ 7:30 am
The previous bills failed due environmental lobbying. The bittering agent does not biodegrade, and contamination of our drinking water could result. Humans can taste the bittering agent at a much lower ppm than animals so saving Fluffy would mean much more agent has to be introduced to the antifreeze, and thus potentially to the environment. I think they need to either find a different bittering agent, or an antifreeze chemical that isn’t so highly poisonous.
Comment by D — March 5, 2010 @ 9:31 am
The older I get the more I realize lots of obvious “good” things are not done due to inertia.
The environmental concern makes sense, but I am sure some super cheap option has not been put in place for a less “good” reason.
Comment by Erich Riesenberg — March 8, 2010 @ 9:09 am