Chemical regulation: Pick your poison

loading...
Good public policy comes from a healthy debate, preferably founded on facts. Sen. Doug Smith ignores many facts while advising that Maine should go slow in regulating chemicals that could harm your child or kill you, “Chemical regulation a risky path” (BDN, April 1). Smith…
Sign in or Subscribe to view this content.

Good public policy comes from a healthy debate, preferably founded on facts. Sen. Doug Smith ignores many facts while advising that Maine should go slow in regulating chemicals that could harm your child or kill you, “Chemical regulation a risky path” (BDN, April 1).

Smith claimed “Maine is trying to lead the way.” The fact is other states are ahead of Maine. Just this week, Washington state signed into law an even tougher version of the bill Maine is now considering. Washington has also banned the flame retardant Deca-BDE. A similar ban being considered in Maryland is currently under attack from the chemical industry.

Smith claimed that the European Union affirmed that the flame retardant Deca-BDE does not pose a risk. Actually, Deca-BDE was banned there in 2003. The chemical industry tried to overturn the ban but the European Court of Justice found last week that there is plenty of evidence the flame retardant is dangerous and upheld the ban.

Smith cited 2005 statistics from the State Fire Marshall’s Office as proof that Deca-BDE should not be banned because the chemical prevents fires. He stated that in 2005 some of the 22 fatalities and more than $16 million in property damage could have been prevented if Maine had not banned Deca-BDE, which is nonsense, of course, because the ban wasn’t in effect then nor did it take effect until January of this year.

The claim also ignored the pesky fact that the State Fire Marshall’s Office adamantly supported the ban, finding that safer flame retardants are available and that Deca-BDE produces a toxic smoke hazardous to firefighters. The Minnesota Professional Fire Fighters have thrown their support behind a similar ban in that state.

Maine does not seek out a leadership position on chemical regulation. Rather, the role is too often thrust upon the state because Maine is downwind of everyone else. Maine has the highest asthma rates in the nation.

Maine became a leader on regulating mercury because Midwestern coal-burning plants dumped so much of it on us. In a study released just one month ago, scientists discovered crisis levels of Deca-BDE, along with 100 other contaminants in the eggs of all 23 species of Maine birds tested. Among those contaminants are PCBs, another carcinogenic flame retardant in the same elemental family as Deca-BDE, that was banned long ago but still persists in the environment.

Against this backdrop, Smith advises the state to rely on the federal Environmental Protection Agency. Maine sees a lot of the EPA, mostly in court. Just last week, Maine joined 17 other states in taking the EPA to court to require the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions – something the U.S. Supreme Court told the EPA to do a year ago. Maine is one of 15 states suing the EPA for not upholding a law on auto emissions. Maine was one of a dozen states suing the EPA over a failure to review smokestack emissions. To rely on the EPA is to be outrun by a snail.

So it’s no small wonder that the EPA’s oversight of federal chemical policy has been equally unimpressive. The Toxic Substances Control Act, administered by the EPA, is more than 30 years old. Of the 62,000 existing chemicals in commerce that were “grandfathered” when TSCA was passed, the EPA has ordered health and safety testing on fewer than 200 and restricted only five.

With the federal government asleep at the wheel, leadership on safer chemicals has been forced upon the states. The U.S. has become a dumping ground for electronics, cosmetics and toys that contain toxic chemicals illegal to sell in Europe. Now 29 states, including Maine, are taking policy action to protect children’s health from unnecessary and dangerous chemicals found in everyday consumer products.

Smith and I both serve on the Legislature’s Natural Resources Committee and our philosophies are not far apart. He advocates caution, preferring that the chemical industry itself and the moribund EPA be trusted to protect Maine citizens. I advocate prudence, preferring that Maine proactively study and choose its own fate. Pick your poison.

Bob Duchesne, D-Hudson, represents House District 13 in the Maine Legislature.


Have feedback? Want to know more? Send us ideas for follow-up stories.

comments for this post are closed

By continuing to use this site, you give your consent to our use of cookies for analytics, personalization and ads. Learn more.