Previous story:
«
Next story:
»
EDITORIALS

It’s time for a better federal chemical safety law

Seven-month-old Noorah Abdelmageed of Bangor chews on the corner of a sign held by her mother; Heather van Frankenhuyzen, owner of the Bella Luna women's clothing shop in downtown Bangor, during a 2009 protest on Union Street in Bangor of businesses selling products containing bisphenol-A, or BPA.
John Clarke Russ | BDN
Seven-month-old Noorah Abdelmageed of Bangor chews on the corner of a sign held by her mother; Heather van Frankenhuyzen, owner of the Bella Luna women's clothing shop in downtown Bangor, during a 2009 protest on Union Street in Bangor of businesses selling products containing bisphenol-A, or BPA. Buy Photo
Posted Nov. 15, 2011, at 6:15 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

When Maine lawmakers several years ago considered banning some chemicals deemed harmful to health that were used in products sold here, one of the first arguments made in opposition was that such action would result in a patchwork quilt of regulations among the 50 states. Such inconsistencies would make it difficult for manufacturers and ultimately cut Maine off from some products, which in turn would hurt businesses and consumers. Enforcement also would be a problem, critics of the proposal also charged.

And perhaps the most persuasive opposition argument was that Maine should wait for the federal government to enact a comprehensive approach to banning harmful chemicals. A bill now before Congress, the Safe Chemicals Act of 2011, would do just that. The bill would replace the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act.

Maine’s Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins could provide key support to that law, which is a reasonable and measured approach to protecting health, by co-sponsoring the bill.

In spite of the many naysayers in Maine, the Legislature acted last year to ban b isphenol A, a synthetic used in some plastics. There is strong scientific evidence that it is an endocrine disruptor, possibly causing serious developmental problems in infants and children.

The state action did not cause widespread economic harm. In fact, argues Mike Belliveau of the Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine, consumers actually were ahead of policy makers on the issue of BPA, demanding that food and beverage products eliminate the chemical.

Though the fight over BPA pit the new Republican governor and Legislature against health advocates — remember Gov. LePage’s “little beards” crack? — Maine has acted to eliminate other chemicals that cause concern, and done so in a deliberative, cautious way. In recent years, flame retardants were removed from foam cushions in furniture, pajamas and electronics, and 10 years ago, mercury thermometers were banned.

The connection between the burgeoning use of synthetic chemicals and disease is one the public understands. About 10 years ago a majority of Americans believed that the chemicals found in products on store shelves had been tested for health concerns. Today, there is widespread skepticism about product safety, no doubt driven by news stories about lead in toys and volatile chemicals in drywall made in China.

And most significantly, a strong majority of Americans and Mainers favor stricter regulation of substances. A recent poll found that 74 percent favor a stronger government hand in such regulation.

The Safe Chemicals Act would not be overly onerous; our retail products won’t be made solely of wood and hemp if it passes. Its advocates note that the law would have the Environmental Protection Agency sort chemicals into very high, high, medium and low concern categories. Rather than burden EPA with the scientific inquiry, chemical manufacturers would have to prove their substances are safe to come into contact with people.

On Thursday, Nov. 17, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works will host a hearing on the proposal. Sen. Snowe worries the law could create “needlessly burdensome reviews,” but a bipartisan compromise may be in the works, Sen. Collins’ office reports.

The effort is worthwhile. The weak economy should not be used as an excuse to put health at risk, especially when major consumer retailers are asking the federal government to lead.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Admirable stance but there are problems with it.  It’s impossible to prove anything safe, since nothing is perfectly safe.  The majority of chemical compounds in commercial use have been tested for various health concerns and allowable limits have been established.  Whether these limits are realistic is indeed debateable and should be under constant review, using good reliable science (often in short supply or misinterpreted by many).

    For example, mercury in thermometers is not a hazard unless the vessel is broken (granted, digital thermometers are far more convenient, efficient, and accurate).  However, the exposure from mercury thermostats was and is in all practicality zero.  Efforts should be concentrated on recycling and recovery of mercury from ALL fluorescent light fixtures, including the long, tube bulbs.  Being required to store them for up to a year before a large municipality chooses to recycle them is ridiculous.  These bulbs, including CFLs need to be controlled even though the exposure from coal combustion is most likely the primary source of mercury polution.

    An essential resource exists at the Maine State Library, “Toxic Chemicals: Risk Prevention through Use Reduction”.  Key data is given for ETF (effective toxicity factors) which incorporates the combined effects of toxicity, mobility, persistence, and bioaccumulation.  Not all of these factors are utilized by advocacy groups.

    Disclaimer:  I am not employed by the chemical, petroleum, or food industries.  I do not agree with spurious comments made by some who are against further regulation.  I do request better data and reasoning based on good, valid information and data by both sides of the issue.  I also believe that however admirable restrictive action may be on a state by state basis, such action is futile unless in concordance with federal policies given the fact that no state is an island (commercially at least).

  • Anonymous

    You sound like someone who must use something that makes you money and the heck with people. You a friend of LePage?

  • Anonymous

    Read the post again, including the disclaimer.  I don’t “use” things that make me money (how about you)?  I’m a semi-retired scientist.  I do care about people, all of us.  I do care about wise use of good information and data and unwise misuse of the same.  I’m no friend of the Governor (nor did I vote for him) and his response to the discussion trivialized and further polarized a key issue.  If you take issue with my statements direct them to the statement specifically and don’t stereotype.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business
  1. Glenburn art teacher killed in Friday morning collision in BangorGlenburn art teacher killed in Friday morning collision in Bangor
  2. Accidents involving 7 vehicles tie up Bangor traffic on Interstate 95
  3. Oregon police say mystery woman may have ties to Fort KentOregon police say mystery woman may have ties to Fort Kent
  4. Police say co-sleeping likely a factor in 6-week-old infant’s death in Bath
  5. Harvard student asked to leave bar for ‘bad behavior,’ not drunkennessHarvard student asked to leave bar for ‘bad behavior,’ not drunkenness

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business