Few would dispute that Americans now live in a toxic soup, with synthetic chemicals falling from the sky, leaching into drinking water, injected or absorbed in food, and emanating from materials in our homes and offices. It’s the price we pay for innumerable technological developments which arguably make life better, safer and longer than it was 100 years ago. But the big question looming over our alleged “better living through chemistry” is how it affects our health. Which cancers, developmental delays, behavioral disorders and allergies eventually will be linked to the toxins that end up in our bodies?

And those toxins do end up in our bodies. A study released in June that examined 13 Mainers found bisphenol-A, arsenic, perfluorinated chemicals, phthalates and mercury in some of their bodies, even those who ate organic foods and consciously avoided environmental sources of the health-threatening substances.

While gains have been made through air, water and food protection laws, the federal government has been less than vigilant when it comes to toxins in products. A good place to start, health advocates such as the Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine believe, are children’s toys or products that end up in the mouths of babies, such as baby bottles.

Rep. Hannah Pingree was one of the 13 tested for the 2007 toxins study. Despite growing up on pastoral North Haven island, among those tested she had the second highest level of total phthalates and mercury.

Rep. Pingree has sponsored LD 2048, “An Act to Protect Children’s Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children’s Products,” which is approaching a final vote in the Legislature. If approved, it would identify the chemicals most dangerous to human health, further narrow that list to those posing a threat to children and fetuses, then force manufacturers and distributors of products to notify the state if products contain these chemicals.

Under the bill, if the Department of Environmental Protection determines that a safer alternative substance is available, the manufacturer will be required to replace it. Finally, LD 2048 would have Maine join a chemical clearinghouse with seven other states.

A reasonable objection to the bill is that the state cannot effectively regulate the manufacture and distribution of products from national sources. At best, the disclosure and tracking process would be unwieldy and perhaps ineffective. This sort of regulation is more properly the responsibility of the federal government.

But the federal government has abdicated its responsibility in this arena. The public reaction at learning that some toys made in China contained lead-based paint – which could come off in a child’s mouth – indicates the need for action. And there are precedents for states, especially when they band together to twist the federal government’s arm – air emission and vehicle mileage standards are two such areas where it has been done successfully.

Still, the chemical gatekeeper process set out in LD 2048 could prove to be burdensome for businesses and state regulatory agencies. If the bill becomes law, its most important function may be to shame federal officials to action.