New York vs Bed Bugs » Mattresses

“the possibility of bed bugs arises”

Renee Corea — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:09:53 +0000

The report last week of Chicago’s investigation of 5 stores selling new or used mattresses with bed bugs included a consumer warning (PDF) from Chicago’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection that has to rank an important development in the way cities are engaging with the issues of refurbished mattresses.

Illinois, as far as I can tell, seems not to have sanitizing regulations (like New York).

Here is the Illinois used bedding law. The law requires renovators disassemble the components and inspect them. If any “soiling, malodor, and pest infestation” is present, the material cannot be reused:

(410 ILCS 68/20) Sec. 20. Use of secondhand material. Every manufacturer, renovator, rebuilder, repairer, or sanitizer of used bedding shall remove the outer fabric, the inner foam, the pad, any other fabric, and any other textile product, material, or component and shall inspect each such item for soiling, malodor, and pest infestation prior to the sale or distribution of the article. If any material or component of used bedding appears to be soiled, malodorous, or infested, that material or component cannot be reused, sold, or distributed for use in any bedding product. (Source: P.A. 91-164, eff. 7-16-99.)

So, then, the burden on the consumer to beware:

Purchasing a Mattress in Chicago (PDF):

BEWARE OF BED BUGS:

When buying a used or refurbished mattress, the possibility of bed bugs arises.

Bed bugs are small wingless insects that bite people and pets and do not transmit diseases.

Their name comes from their preferred living quarters: mattresses, sofas and other furniture.

A bed bug problem may not be detected in the store and typically begins after bringing it home.

Signs to watch out for are clusters of black specks on your mattress. Bed bugs have an oval body and range in color from white, to a golden brown or orange.

If you suspect bed bugs, take immediate action by contacting the retailer.

If you feel you have been a victim of fraud contact the City of Chicago by calling 311 to file a consumer complaint.

In one sense this is bold—New York City certainly has not done this and the city’s Department of Consumer of Affairs representative appeared disinclined to consider it at the February City Council hearing.

In another sense it is a capitulation. We don’t know how to keep bed bugs out of refurbished mattresses. You are on your own. Beware.

The bed bugs on the mattresses that no one is responsible for

Renee Corea — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:32 +0000

There are some bed bug problems that are very difficult (like the lack of access to pest control services and the difficulty of containing infestations in multi-unit buildings), and then there are problems that are simpler, if only someone would stand up and own them.

“There is no law”

Nicole wrote to us about a bed bug problem in her neighborhood in Ridgewood, right under her window:

My neighboring building has bedbugs, I feel bad that they are dealing with that, but they do not feel bad or care that they are possibly going to contaminate my apt. They have been tossing mattresses outside, against my property, near my bedroom windows. [...] I notified the owner, who confirmed that the mattresses are infested (you can also see that the mattresses & box springs are covered in BB feces). I asked the owner to move the mattresses away from my window; he said he does not have to do so. I asked if he could at least put plastic covers on them, again he said he does not have to, there is no law….

When Nicole calls 311, every time a new mattress or couch appears, the operators are understanding but all they can do is report the problem to the Department of Sanitation as an “untidy property” complaint. It is unclear what the Department of Sanitation has done. Nicole suspects that the neighbor has been getting tickets, and might be ignoring them, but she has called 311 four times already.

She also called the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and… need we spell it out? Not their problem.

Nicole’s landlord has also talked to the landlord of the infested building, to no avail.

It breaks my heart when people write this:

Please help and let me know what can be done.

I wish I could.

“You are ruining people’s lives”

What is the fate of all this infested furniture?

Large trash day in Nicole’s neighborhood is on Wednesday. The Sanitation Department has picked up once. The second batch of infested mattresses was picked up by a mattress scavenging truck on a Saturday:

A truck came and picked up the mattress, I warned the guy, but he didn’t care, he wanted to make his 10 dollars. I freaked out on him, I yelled “YOU ARE RUINING PEOPLE’S LIVES!!” He did not care!!!!

Another set of mattresses was still outside as of last night.

Other trash from this building—strollers, a headboard—have been taken by people in the neighborhood. None of it was labeled as infested with bed bugs.

I have warned everyone I see picking through my neighboring building’s trash, nobody cares.

So what is the solution to this deceptively simple bed bug problem of improperly discarded bed bug trash?

What is the right carrots/stick approach? The city is fresh out of carrots (or so we’re told) even if they thought to make use of them for this type of problem, so what is the appropriate stick? What sort of fine will make the owner of this bed bug-infested property sit up and take notice?

What about the mattress scavengers?

Nicole, like many other New Yorkers, wishes there were an education campaign appropriate to the levels of infestation we are suffering:

That is one thing that bothers me, is the lack of knowledge people have. I don’t blame them, I only learned recently. I wish flyers were sent out with all bed bug related info, to help people understand better. [...] I wish these people that are dumping this stuff would realize that without wrapping up their infested trash, they risk the chance of bringing them right back into their apts.

Teaching people how to properly wrap and discard infested furniture should be a more or less straightforward matter. Disseminating such information widely is not so simple, but it can be done. The tenants in this building are plainly in need of information. Throwing away their furniture will not solve their bed bug problem. Nonetheless, if they insist on throwing it out, as people sometimes will no matter what information or warnings are available, then they can be taught how to wrap it in pallet wrap or bag it securely and label it as infested.

Of course, the limits of an education campaign are evident in the person of this landlord who says simply, and accurately, there is no law.

Nicole is worried about bed bugs. She can see people buying the bed bug spray bottles at her local hardware store. She knows people who have had bed bugs and she fears the extraordinary expense of bed bug eradication.

I wish I could say something reassuring to her. The dispersal habits of bed bugs are not well understood. There is no doubt, however, that bed bugs and even newly hatched bed bugs on those infested mattresses can survive for many days unfed. I am not prepared to tell Nicole that she shouldn’t worry so much. Would you?

Nicole has gotten a fast education on bed bugs. I especially appreciate her point about the stigma of bed bugs:

It is unbelievable how many people have them, but don’t really talk about it. I guess since I don’t have them, I just feel threatened by them, I am not afraid to talk about it or worry about the stigma that is attached to admitting to having bedbugs. I bring it up to everyone I know, just to spread the word, I was so surprised to learn how many people I knew, and people they know that had them…..it is out of control!

A problem that is out of control, yes. But a problem that nobody owns.

One of the bills considered by the City Council last February would have gone a long way towards addressing this problem. It got short shrift from nearly everyone at the hearing.

Interestingly, at this hearing, a representative of the Sanitation Department was asked some pointed questions about a report that had come to the attention of the committee members about a person who put out bed bug-infested trash in properly labeled and secured bags, only to have the Sanitation Department refuse to pick it up! The Sanitation Department! They’re the ones at risk in these scenarios, and they could take specific steps to protect themselves and all of us.

The Sanitation Department will have a seat on the Bed Bug Advisory Board, if it is ever convened.

Recently Brooklyn The Borough got this out of Seth Donlin at HPD about the missing NYC Bed Bug Advisory Board:

According to Mr. Donlin of HPD, membership for the group has been finalized and an initial meeting is being scheduled, but the membership list is not yet available.

I think we’re all tired of waiting.

close up of discarded mattress (click for larger size)

Ending the 30-day trial risk plus remembering the essential mattress problem

Renee Corea — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:04:00 +0000

S04071 (Monserrate) and A07691 would eliminate the exception whereby bedding returned within a 30-day customer trial period can still be sold as new. Who invented the 30-day mattress comfort trial, anyway?

The bill would also require manufacturers and renovators to disclose the sanitization methods they employ, would prohibit the storage and transport of unsanitized used bedding with new bedding and would provide for damages and recovery of the cost of the mattress, the cost of sanitizing the mattress and related medical expenses.

Another bill, A07157 (Robinson) in the Assembly and S04052 in the Senate, would require all used mattresses be disposed of in an enclosed container.

I think these bills are good. The 30-day trial exception in particular has to go in the age of bed bugs. However, the essential component of any useful policy here has to be the state’s sanitization standards. I now realize that we have not returned to the subject of mattresses in a long while. At the NYC Council hearing in February a city official said that the comment period had ended but that the Department of State was proceeding with additional revisions to the proposed regulations; however, there is no change to the draft posted online. I will finalize our comments based on this draft shortly then. Basically, we categorically object to any proposal that would allow the sanitization of used bedding with spray disinfectants or pesticides of the kind currently labeled for use on mattresses. Secondly, we think that the current draft conflates the idea of encasement as we know it, that is to say, a control tool (not a prophylactic) during an active infestation, with the idea of a barrier. This would be inappropriate in our view. More soon I hope.

We are reviewing the new NYS Department of State proposed mattress sanitizing regs

Renee Corea — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:40:22 +0000

The New York State Department of State Division of Licensing Services has proposed new used bedding regulations which include mattress sanitizing standards for mattress refurbishers/renovators. We are currently reviewing the proposal and drafting our comments. This post is simply to strongly encourage you to also participate.

We are very pleased that the Department of State is considering regulations and we look forward to hearing your thoughts.

The problems of used mattresses and bed bugs are serious and very difficult, as with all things having to do with bed bugs, but they are especially challenging in our view. This is our archive of articles about the mattresses and bed bugs issues. We’ve tried to carefully investigate the issues and the sanitizing practices in other states. We’ll share our thoughts on this proposal with you as soon as possible!

Heartfelt thanks to Persona for telling us about the proposed regs and sharing her thoughts here.

Actually, this is what our used mattress regs could look like!

Renee Corea — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:01:46 +0000

When we last looked at the problems and challenges of regulating the refurbishing of used mattresses and the infamous lack of New York State regulations, we specifically considered the strange regulatory picture in California and the revealing story of a variance request in Nevada.

However, I completely missed the events that unfolded after Nevada’s Board of Health approved a hotel furniture dealer’s variance request to use chemical sanitization, specifically with Steri-Fab, to sanitize used bedding, instead of the fumigation methods prescribed by Nevada law.

(In my feeble defense, the state’s amended regulations were not available online at the time I wrote that post. Still, I should have looked deeper.)

A bit late but here is the full story. It is a good and hopeful one for a change!

If you want to skip the story and just read the mattress regs (PDF), please do because I do go on.

This all began in 2006 when the Southern Nevada Health District (SNHD)—with jurisdiction in Clark County and the cities of Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, Mesquite, and Boulder City—found body-fluids-stained and bed-bug-infested used mattresses and upholstered furniture during routine hotel inspections. The mattresses were untagged or improperly tagged. They traced the mattresses and furniture to a refurbishing facility that did not follow a mattress sanitizing process according to Nevada law (and was stupendously unsanitary). SNHD issued a Cease and Desist order. Another refurbisher applied to the Nevada Board of Health for a variance request in order to use Steri-Fab instead of the onerous fumigation method then designated by law for the sanitizing of used bedding. When that variance request was approved, it was done on condition that the refurbisher work with SNHD to address any concerns.

Concerns like bed bugs!

SNHD outlined their concerns in a presentation about the proposed mattress sanitizing regulations (PDF)—if nothing else, you have to check it out for the great photographs of refurbishing facilities and horrendous hotel furniture!

Vague Procedures

No detail on “sanitation room” design

No detail on visual inspection process that was going to be performed by Hotel Furniture Sales staff

No procedure for disposition of mattresses with adulterants present

Open-ended phrase, “or comparable product” left room for blanket approval of any chemical treatment

“Thoroughly treated” not defined

Insufficient, improper application of Steri-Fab would likely not eliminate bedbugs, including ova

SNHD found the refurbisher’s process inadequate and issued a Cease and Desist order. Two more Cease and Desist orders were issued to other facilities before SNHD decided to go to California (California of the “strict” mattress regulations, remember) on a little fact-finding trip in February 2007.

“Effective, repeatable processes”

SNHD visited five mattress refurbishing facilities in California and analyzed the evidence, including video and photographs, to arrive at the following conclusions:

Facilities employing chemical sanitizers did not have adequately trained staff.

The chemical sanitizer of choice was not applied in a way that saturated all parts of the mattress, such as the coils.

At some facilities, the employees were relying upon real-time advice from the State of California inspectors on how to apply the chemical sanitizer. Even with that instruction, the sanitizer was not applied correctly.

Fluorescent crystals that were part of the sanitizing solution did not remain in suspension long enough to be properly dispersed as a detection agent to ensure complete coverage of the mattress with the chemical sanitizer.

Facilities were cross-contaminating mattresses that had received sanitizer treatment with ones that had not.

Two facilities that employed a dry heat method of sanitization were able to present objective evidence in the form of permanent data logger recordings that they had effective, repeatable processes in place. All parts of the mattresses, including the interior coils, received sufficient heat to destroy pathogens and insects.

Based on these findings, staff concluded:

Use of chemical sanitizer applied by employees was prone to human error.

Using a visual observation of fluorescense under magnification is too subjective to reliably guarantee that adequate disinfection took place.

The only consistently reliable method of sanitization observed at this time was dry heat sanitization.

Dry heat sanitization resulted in a written, objective record of the processes used to disinfect the mattresses.

Source: SNHD memorandum of September 27, 2007 on the adoption of the new mattress sanitizing regulations (PDF)

And that’s how the Southern Nevada Health District found the state’s regulations inadequate and came to write its own mattress sanitizing regulations which provide for only one method of sanitizing used bedding, dry heat.

The State of Nevada, not persuaded by the evidence presented by the SNHD, nevertheless ended up revising their used bedding sanitizing regulations too, getting rid of the formaldehyde/sulphur and hydrocyanic acid gas sterilization methods but replacing them with a vague “application of a chemical pesticide” method, as long as it is properly labeled for disinfecting used bedding and is applied “in a manner which ensures that the used or secondhand articles are disinfected.”

It’s all in the details, State of Nevada.

Saying “in a manner which ensures that the used or secondhand articles are disinfected” is rather meaningless and unenforceable. Good luck with that.

But the bright side is the decisive and right step taken by the Southern Nevada Health District!

Read the Southern Nevada Health District final regulations (PDF). They make clear what the dangers are. They prohibit taking mattresses from the trash for the purpose of refurbishing or refurbishing a mattress that is “adulterated and beyond the point where it can be properly sanitized and/or refurbished.” They are smart and comprehensive, proceeding from a thorough understanding of what is actually required to properly sanitize used bedding and prevent cross-contamination, providing, for example, for the designation of distinct areas or rooms in a refurbishing facility—a receiving area, an area for replacement of the padding, a third area for the dry heat sterilization process, and a fourth area for storage.

Until we altogether abandon the idea that used mattresses should be refurbished and resold to hotels, motels, nursing homes, prisons and the general public, the Southern Nevada Health District’s mattress sanitizing regulations are the model regulations for this industry in our new age of bed bugs.

Yes, the regulations have not been well received everywhere. This is a reaction from the rent-to-own industry.

I’m not unsympathetic and these are tough times, but health and safety come first.

The copy/paste approach to writing mattress sanitizing regulations

Renee Corea — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 05:51:43 +0000

Note: To read about mattress sanitizing regs done right, read this post about the Southern Nevada Health District.

New Jersey has guidelines for the sanitization of used mattresses (PDF).

New Jersey’s bedding law is available here (PDF).

The guidelines give specific direction in the use of Steri-Fab or Microban to sanitize used mattresses—right down to the recommended number of ounces per mattress size.

7. For proper application to achieve disinfection, the following instructions must be followed:

a. Disinfectant must be applied in a manner to achieve sufficient disinfection at all points and surfaces on the bedding/furniture article.

1) If there are any stains on the fabric of the article to be sanitized, they should first be scrubbed thoroughly with warm water and soap. If stain persists, article should be properly disposed of.

2) If there are any tears of any kind in the fabric of the article to be sanitized, this article also should be repaired properly or disposed of.

b. Surfaces should be sprayed until thoroughly dampened and allowed to remain wet at least 10 minutes and then dried before using or moving. Minimum drying time should be 30 minutes.

c. Spray should be directed into all crevices, cracks, tufts, borders, buttons, welt cords, tape edges, seams, creases, folds, hiding places, and irregular surfaces of the bedding/furniture product.

d. To achieve adequate disinfection on mattress surfaces, disinfectant should be applied uniformly in the following amounts: 4 to 5 ounces (wet weight) per single/twin mattress or folding cot, 6 to 8 ounces per double mattress as specified by the product instructions.

Emphasis mine.

A footnote indicates that the guidelines are based on the Virginia Department of Health’s Bedding and Upholstered Furniture Inspection Guidelines, from which indeed they have been copied verbatim.

So, I imagine, I have to presume, that Virginia, if not New Jersey, has some data on the efficacy of 6 to 8 ounces of Steri-Fab or Microban for sanitizing a double mattress.

Perhaps you think there is some kind of error here? It would have to be on error that is repeated in other states, because Connecticut also allows Steri-Fab sanitization of used mattresses. As does Texas—indeed, Texas, like California, provides for these spray sanitization methods as alternatives to dry heat and other methods!

This is from Connecticut’s Instructions for Applying for Bedding and Upholstered Furniture License and Sterilization Sanitation Permits (PDF):

Approximate amounts to use of STERI FAB

Usage per double bed: 6 – 8 oz

5 Gallon: Approximately 80 applications

(40 sets – mattresses/boxsprings)

4 Gallons: Approximately 64 applications

one case (16 applications per gallon/8 sets

12 Pints: Approximately 24 applications

one case (12 sets)

So, with a bunch of states that have this Steri-Fab sanitization option for used bedding (either singly or as an alternative to other methods), I’d like to see data that shows this actually works, especially with the small quantities indicated.

It’s been a while since we’ve looked at this subject but, honestly? There don’t seem to be any good choices here. (By the way, we have to revisit that Nevada/California story; I just discovered there’s more to it.)

Thinking about New York’s mattress sanitizing regulations (which don’t exist!) in the context of the apparently flawed regulations in other states, in the middle of this economy, you might say is a bit of an exercise, but I can’t be the only one interested in this subject, hmm?

Note: Virginia has two full-time staff and four part-time staff dedicated to Bedding and Upholstered Furniture Inspection. You can read their budget here.

A mattress van of sorrows

Renee Corea — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:51:42 +0000

A mattress van in East Harlem

No, there is no law. And we already missed one opportunity—who knows if we’ll get another.

The photographer, Ray Lopez, is a New York City superhero. We don’t use the term lightly. I have had the privilege to see him work. We are immensely grateful for his friendship.

Dr. Pollack and the 2006 NYC bed bug hearing

Renee Corea — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 06:49:30 +0000

Harvard School of Public Health entomologist Dr. Richard Pollack’s testimony before the New York City Council Consumer Affairs Committee on September 18, 2006 deserves reexamination. Actually, it will take some work to redeem his testimony, as it has not so much been forgotten as it was never properly noticed, but I think it’s worth it.

The bill that was the subject of the hearing, Intro 57, aka The Bed Bug Bill, would have banned the sale of reconditioned mattresses in New York City and created a five-member, one-year bed bug task force to study the health concerns associated with bed bugs and issue recommendations. As we know, it never made it out of committee.

When the press covered the hearing, two flawed analyses were presented to New Yorkers.

Here’s the New York Times:

Richard J. Pollack, an expert in parasitic insects at the Harvard School of Public Health who testified at the hearing, said he doubted that the proposed ban would be effective. “As long as used mattresses have value, they will remain a commodity despite attempts to regulate their movements,” he said.

Dr. Pollack’s testimony at the hearing effectively framed the issue and the debate, or non-debate, about reconditioned mattresses as one of ultimate futility.

I would summarize Dr. Pollack’s position like this: It won’t work, because it won’t be enough. Plus, the mattresses are not that bad anyway.

Here’s Dr. Pollack’s full prepared testimony on the matter:

Should New York City authorities ban the sale of second-hand mattresses? Whereas mattresses and box springs are amongst the most frequently and heavily infested items within a residence, bed bugs can, and do often, hide in and deposit their eggs on bedsprings, nightstands, dressers, desks, sofas, picture frames and wall hangings, rugs and diverse other items in home or apartment.

Restricting the sale or exchange of used mattresses might slow the rising tide of bed bug infestations, but it is doubtful that the strategy will effectively stem the flow.

As long as used mattresses have value, they will remain a commodity, despite attempts to regulate their movements. The sale of used mattresses is already regulated in many jurisdictions. These regulations specify which components may be reused and which must be new, the manner in which the mattress must be sanitized and the characteristics, size, color and text, of the mattress label.

Perhaps, but certainly not in New York. There are no mattress sanitizing regulations in New York. To be sure, the Council had just become aware of the absence of sanitizing regulations and the full import of the missing regulations was only established during the hearing.

Given the conditions in New York City, a strategy that would slow ‘the rising tide’ of bed bug infestations would be an effective strategy. By reducing the number of new infestations, which might potentially give rise to more infestations, the overall number of infestations would decrease. It is exactly what must occur. Stop the spread, reduce the number of new infestations, achieve control of existing infestations.

Further, while we know enough about the absolute lack of oversight of mattress refurbishing factories, no analysis has been made of the distribution of used mattresses in our city. Who are the primary consumers and what is the incidence of infestation in their facilities, if institutional purchasers, or homes, if individuals?

The most unfortunate error, in my view, came when Dr. Pollack was pressed, after his prepared testimony, for more suggestions on what the legislative solutions might be. He said:

Used mattresses by themselves, really are not necessarily a danger. They’re only a risk if they derive from an apartment or a home where there were bed bugs.

So, I think the vast majority of the mattresses that may be out there are essentially intrinsically safe. They may not be nice to look at, but they have value.

Dr. Pollack had no factual foundation upon which to assert that used mattresses are “not necessarily a danger.” And when he said they’re only a risk if they derive from an infested home, did he realize that used mattresses in New York City come from the street? That they’re discarded mattresses picked up at the curb by scavengers and sold to refurbishing factories for $5 a piece? (There is a footnote to this story, in a moment.)

Having framed the issue, that banning used mattresses would be ineffective, the administration’s analysis—failing as it did to account for the costs of bed bug remediation, especially in multi-unit housing, and the costs for medical treatment of illnesses that conceivably may be caused by unhealthy exposure to reconditioned mattresses—sailed by without scrutiny in the press reports. Here’s one example from the New York Sun:

While saying he was sympathetic to such bedbug victims, a representative of the Bloomberg administration told the committee that one component of a bill aimed at stopping the spread of bedbugs – a ban on refurbished mattresses – could be financially crippling to poor people.

A refurbished mattress priced at $40 might cost almost $100 when purchased new, the legislative director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, Andrew Eiler, said.

At the very least, another witness said, the ban – which would affect the approximately 130 dealers of second-hand mattresses who operate in the state – would be ineffective.

[Dr. Pollack] said the ban would be ineffective because the bedbug, Cimex lectularius, doesn’t confine itself to mattresses.

Debate over.

That reconditioned mattresses in New York City pose actual health hazards for New Yorkers, never mind contain bed bugs, is now well understood, or should be. If you need a refresher, you can perhaps start with the recent Dateline NBC report.

The footnote? We can in fact add a footnote, two years too late, to Dr. Pollack’s remarks about used mattresses in New York City.

On February 27, 2006, just a few months before the New York City Council hearing, Dr. Pollack was interviewed for a bed bug story in The Somerville News and had this to say:

“I wouldn’t take any mattresses off the street.”

Of course!

Still, I think Dr. Pollack’s testimony at the hearing, excepting that on refurbished mattresses, is absolutely remarkable and New York City would do well to adopt even half of what he suggested.

I can only quote at length:

Legislative action may offer promising aiding efforts to abate current infestations to reduce opportunities for bed bugs to spread to new sites. The Boston and San Francisco regulations should be scrutinized with the aim of adopting those rules that would likely be most effective and practical in New York City.

Specifically regulations and appropriations should be considered that mandate and facilitate inspections of properties with reported infestations, written IPM requirements, training and certification of pest management personnel relevant to identification of bed bugs, and compliance with IPM procedures.

Means to ensure that used mattresses and furniture have been suitably disinfected prior to their resale, and securing of infested items destined for disposal to prevent spread of bed bugs to other residences.

Furthermore, in light of recent reports that some populations of bed bugs are resistant to certain insecticides, New York City authorities should reevaluate the current arsenal of insecticides authorized for use there, support efforts to ensure these products are efficacious against local bed bug populations, and weigh the risks and benefits of augmenting the spectrum of pesticides and their permissible use.

I’d bet no one remembers any of it. But it was excellent.

I’m sorry there is no online transcript of the hearing to point you to. If you’re curious, send me an email and I’ll send you the transcript I quoted from.

Dr. Philip Tierno: “I would never buy a refurbished mattress, a reconditioned mattress, under any circumstances”

Renee Corea — Tue, 20 May 2008 05:03:59 +0000

Tonight it was King Comfort Mattress of Woodside, Queens who got their turn before the cameras, spray disinfectant bottles in both fists.

John Deutzman reported for Fox 5 on the Queens used mattress refurbisher.

Do I really have to tell you what happened here?

Interestingly, when tempers were restored, Deutzman got a tour of the facility and an explanation of their process. Cue the disinfectant bottles.

The report was especially good on the absurdity of a system where there is a used bedding law in our state but no sanitizing rules, the missing mattress sanitizing regulations we’ve discussed before.

Renowned microbiologist Dr. Philip Tierno told Deutzman that “we’re seeing big problems with bed bugs.”

On Deutzman’s accompanying blog post, he writes about Dr. Tierno’s recommendation for those “in a financial bind” to sleep on an inflatable mattress instead. We’ve heard this suggestion from a member of our group too. An inflatable mattress is indeed competitively priced with a filthy, bed bug infested “refurbished” mattress.

Of course filthy, bed bug infested mattresses are considered a right of the poor in this city.

Thanks to Paula for mentioning the story in the comments.

What would New York’s missing mattress sanitizing regs look like anyway?

Renee Corea — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:31:24 +0000

Let’s recap what we learned this week:

The New York Department of State has said that it does not intend to publish mattress sanitizing regulations because doing so would constitute an effective ban on reconditioned mattresses.
The city’s Department of Consumer Affairs believes that poor New Yorkers—those who are least able to afford illness or the costs of eradicating an infestation—should nevertheless be able to buy a reconditioned mattress.

The state will not enforce the law and the city will not ban the sale of reconditioned mattresses—never mind the virtual petri dish of filth and arthropods included at no extra charge.

Have we mentioned lately that the bed bugs are winning?

There are no sanitizing regulations and none are forthcoming. Still, what would they look like? There are 26 states that have reconditioned mattress regulations. How do they sanitize used bedding?

Very laboriously and expensively, apparently. Let’s look at two states in order to get an idea of the regulatory and enforcement challenges.

Nevada

These are the State of Nevada’s approved used bedding (used bedding includes such things as pillows and mattress pads as well as mattresses) sterilization methods:

washing and boiling for at least 1 hour
steam pressure for at least 30 minutes
two streaming steam applications of 1 hour each at 6 hour intervals
two forms of fumigation: formaldehyde and sulphur in a moist atmosphere and hydrocyanic acid gas

California

The State of California’s Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation (BHFTI) enforces the state’s sanitization law. The BHFTI regulations provide two methods for the sanitization of mattresses.

Dry Heat:

(a) The dry heat method may be used to sanitize mattresses, box springs, or similar items covered in whole by a porous material or fabric.

(b) In sanitizing by the dry heat method a temperature of 230 degrees F. shall be maintained in all parts of an approved chamber for such a period of time as may be necessary for sanitization, which shall in no case be less than one hour and 15 minutes. All chambers shall be equipped with racks or devices and the articles to be sanitized shall be so placed therein so that complete circulation of heat and gases around every article being sanitized shall be attained. All chambers shall be insulated sufficiently to insure maintenance of temperature and shall be tightly sealed to prevent any leakage of gases. A thermostat shall be connected with the heating device to provide and maintain a reasonably uniform temperature at 230 degrees F. + (plus or minus) 5 degrees.

and Chemical Disinfection:

(c) Mattresses, box springs or similar articles covered by a porous material or fabric may be sanitized with the chemical disinfectant, Steri-fab registered with the State of California, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Pesticide Regulation for use as a disinfectant.

(1) Application of Steri-fab shall be in accordance with the chemical disinfectant manufacturer’s specification in order to provide adequate coverage by thoroughly spraying over all surfaces so that complete disinfection is achieved.

(2) The Steri-fab disinfectant shall be well mixed throughout the application to ensure adequate dispersion of the tracer chemical which can be detected on the mattress cover in the dry state by use of a hand held ultraviolet (black) light under magnification.

Okay, wait, Steri-fab? A state that prescribes dry heat as a sterilization method also accepts spray disinfectants as an alternative?

I mean, this is a mattress oven:

A mattress sterilization oven, image from American Plant & Equipment.

Here is how the manufacturer of Steri-fab put it:

California law required that used/secondhand or renovated bedding be dry-heated in ovens, a sanitization process which takes two or three hours for each mattress, limiting the volume of used bedding that can be disinfected in a day.

Unlike the dry-heat method, the chemical disinfectant permits a tracing method to enforce compliance with the state’s sanitization laws. Steri-fab contains a fluorescent crystal suspension which, when exposed to ultra-violet light, can be seen, thus permitting inspectors to determine whether products have been properly disinfected.

With the alternative method the Bureau hopes that the less-than-honest renovators and businesses dealing in used/secondhand bedding will actually start sanitizing their products, rather than saying they had used the dry-heat process when in fact they had never done so. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, compliance… Using the heat, steam and fumigation methods outlined above must be a very expensive proposition. Steri-fab must therefore appear to be a cost-effective and efficient alternative. And when enforcement resources are limited, as they must be everywhere, a spray disinfectant, especially one with black-light inspection friendly qualities, must seem doubly attractive.

But, if you recall, the mattress dealer featured in the Dateline story had “boxes of Sterifab.”

I’m open to research findings on this matter, and I note that many bed bug sufferers and pest control technicians avail themselves well of Steri-fab and similar products, but it seems to me unlikely that a spray disinfectant is going to be the answer.

What sort of compromises emerge when complex used bedding sanitization regulations are actually put in practice?

In October 2006, when the State of Nevada’s Board of Health considered a variance request to the sterilization methods (link is a PDF of the minutes) from a hotel furniture dealer who wanted to use Steri-fab, the subject of bed bugs came up :

[Environmental Health Supervisor] Ms. Henderson feels that during the sterilization process it would be easy to miss the presence of bedbugs, especially their eggs and larvae. Sterifab is a surface treatment and bedbugs could be a problem inside the mattress and box springs. Sterifab dries in about 15 minutes and when this product is dry, the disinfectant factor is no longer active. Ms. Henderson indicated that it is unknown as to how deep the mattress and box springs are disinfected when using Sterifab.

The dealer cited employee worker safety concerns with the authorized methods and the previous issuance of similar variances. The fact the Steri-fab was approved for use in California was noted by the Board and they accordingly sought guidance from the lab at California’s Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation:

The lab employee clarified for [Environmental Health Specialist] Ms. Sylvas that the process of sterilizing the visibly soiled mattresses could not be determined; and clarified that the mattress’ visible outside fabric is sprayed not saturated with Sterifab, and was unsure of the depth of this treatment on the mattress. The lab employee indicated for Ms. Sylvas that CBHFTI had performed a test on the mattress and box springs disinfectant process using Sterifab and no information regarding the result of the test was currently available.

Just a note about the way everyone references the California regs. The Nevada Board of Health certainly did when ultimately approving the dealer’s variance request (“California has very stringent controls; and California has approved Sterifab as an acceptable product”). The Dateline NBC piece also noted California’s “strict laws and enforcement” with some surprise upon finding that all the mattress samples were contaminated, even the ones from mattresses made in California. Perhaps it’s time to adjust our perception of the California model?

It should be no surprise that New York vs Bed Bugs supports an outright ban on reconditioned mattresses. We do realize that this is a very complex problem and no one is saying that there is an easy solution. But perhaps we start by seeking to understand the depths of the challenges and by accepting responsibility.

Note: To find out what happened after the variance hearing, read this post about the Southern Nevada Health District’s mattress regs. This story has a happy ending.

Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.