Lori L. Mavrigian

Managing Editor

Since joining Modern Tire Dealer in 1979, Lori Mavrigian has held several key positions leading to her current title as managing editor. In addition to handling the day-to-day operations of magazine production, Lori writes features, contributes photography and is in charge of several of the magazines departments. She also works with the magazine's National Advisory Council for the exclusive Ludwig Report surveys. She earned a B.A. in Mass Media-Communications from the University of Akron.

» More

With antifreeze, bitter is better

By: Lori L. Mavrigian

At one of the last tire dealerships I visited, there was a big puddle of green antifreeze shimmering in the parking lot in front of a service bay.

I wish I could say that during the interview it was cleaned up. That wasn't the case. And when I asked the dealership's owner about it, he said, "Oh, it evaporates quickly."

Yeah, it will. But before a thirsty bird or wandering dog laps up some of the poison? Less than two ounces worth of ethylene glycol in antifreeze can lead to an agonizing death in an animal that consumes the sweet-smelling, sweet-tasting stuff. 

As many as 90,000 animals per year are sickened or die from the effects of drinking antifreeze, according to one veterinary survey I read. And across the nation, hundreds of children are also poisoned because they drink the deceptively sweet liquid. And there have been several recent reports on people using antifreeze to murder. The TV program 20/20 just last month broadcast a show on people killing their spouses by putting antifreeze into their drinks.

Now is the time to get behind H.R. 615 -- the Antifreeze Bittering Act of 2009.

H.R. 615 was introduced in the House of Congress on Jan. 21, 2009. It calls for any engine coolant or antifreeze that contains more than 10% ethylene glycol to “include denatonium benzoate at a minimum of 30 parts per million and a maximum of 50 parts per million as a bittering agent within the product so as to render it unpalatable.”

The bill has 17 sponsors and was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. This is the first step in the legislative process. The committee will deliberate, investigate and revise it before it goes to general debate.

Seven states have already passed their own laws that require an aversive agent be added to antifreeze products sold in their state. They are Arizona, California, Maine, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington. Georgia also has pending legislation.

The maddening thing is that state by state legislation was introduced following the accidental poisoning of a child or pet. I’m saying stop the senseless pain, suffering and death now and put the bittering agent in all antifreeze. Research shows it will not change the beneficial properties. 

Who could be against the bill? The antifreeze companies say they aren’t. (So why don’t they just add the bittering agent? Charge an extra three cents per gallon. Who would complain? I don’t believe the consumer would notice the increase. The automakers wouldn’t like it? I know they’re having a tough time right now, but would adding another 25 cents to the cost of a car push all of them into bankruptcy?)

Some “special interest” groups are maintaining that the cure could be more harmful than the antifreeze. What does the denatonium benzoate do to the environment if the antifreeze is spilled and it gets into the ground water? Until research shows the effects could lead to no negative consequences, we should be wary and “wait for a safer solution,” they say.

Come on! Denatonium benzoate has been used in household products for years! You mean scientists don’t know everything about it by now? I don’t believe it.

We should not wait any longer. We need to contact our U.S. senators and representatives and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 615. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee. And in researching this topic, I saw similar legislation was introduced in 2007, 2006, 2005, even as far back as 2001. I know there are big issues to be handled, but why after all this time are we still debating this topic? Just how many children and animals have to die before antifreeze companies are forced into doing the right thing?

And yes, I know there is a product on the market, Sierra antifreeze, which uses propylene glycol instead of ethylene glycol, so it is less toxic yet performs comparably. It’s in my car right now.

Let me know your thoughts, I’m listening.

Related Topics: Antifreeze, H.R. 615, Legislation

comments

1. JERRY | May 05, 2009 at 02:30PM
   GREAT IDEA, LORI!

2. Tito | May 07, 2009 at 08:27AM
   I agree. It wouldn't cost them anything to do this

3. Doug | June 05, 2009 at 02:00AM
   I'd like to see the statistics on anti-freeze poisoning. It doesn't make headlines like a gun killing because it's less sensational, but I'll bet there's a whole lot more deaths because of it.

4. John | October 05, 2010 at 02:37PM
   Wow, that is absoutley amazing to me as well. It seems that simple common sense is extinct on capitol hill and the fact that this legislation hasn't happened already is, unfortunately, not really that surprising.