Scary-sounding acronyms and warnings that thousands of pounds of toxic chemicals are released into the environment in Maine each year are sure to get people’s attention, as they should. But a recent report by three environmental groups fails to mention even once in its 71 pages that these chemicals are released legally.

That omission, certainly intentional, leaves readers with the impression that the companies named in the report are doing something illegal. The groups are right that efforts should be made to reduce, and if possible, eliminate, the use and discharge of hazardous chemicals. In the meantime, however, it should be recognized that the companies named are simply doing what the law allows.

According to the Maine People’s Resource Center, Environmental Health Strategy Center and Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine, more than 300,000 pounds of long-lasting toxic chemicals were released into Maine’s air, water and ground over the last two years. Collectively, these are known “persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals” or PBTs. PBTs, they say, remain in the environment and human bodies for years and can lead to cancer, learning disabilities and other ailments.

The industries that release the most of the chemicals, not surprisingly, are pulp and paper, waste incinerators and manufacturing facilities. Although it does not give them a pass on making improvements, most of the industries named in the report are struggling. Salmon farms, targeted for releasing fish feed and feces, as well as escaped salmon, into the ocean, have drastically scaled back their operations in Maine. Likewise, paper mills have downsized, laying off workers and reducing production to compete with their counterparts in other parts of the country and world.

While they may want to, it is unlikely that such industries will volunteer to invest a lot of money in new pollution-control technologies. John Dieffenbacher-Krall, executive director of the Maine People’s Resource Center, recognizes the industries’ struggles but sees it as an opportunity for innovation. A small paper mill, he suggests, could make dioxin-free paper in a closed loop process (nothing is discharged) and market it as Penobscot Paper to environmentally conscious consumers.

While this is an interesting idea, sawmills have not found a real market for “green certified wood,” timber that is grown and harvested under practices that meet stringent environmental and socio-economic criteria. Faced with a choice between a regular two-by-four or one with a green label that costs more, most consumers are choosing the regular one.

Ideally, tougher regulations would allow less of these chemical emissions. But, Mr. Dieffenbacher-Krall acknowledges, such new laws are unlikely given the current makeup of Congress. The numbers they have gathered deserve public attention. Mixed with doses of reality, however, the story is not one of good and bad guys but of complex sets of policies, economics, societal demands and environmental awareness. The groups that can successfully navigate these will make the biggest difference in the health of the state, and the planet.