If it was the intention of the Alliance for a Clean and Healthy Maine to give life to the idea that the federal chemical review program needs an overhaul, it succeeded recently by releasing the results of chemical tests on 13 Maine citizens. As research, testing such a small number of people might not mean much (except to the subjects of the tests themselves), but the event does highlight what the Government Accountability Office last year described as a costly, time-consuming and often ineffective way to ensure chemical safety.

The alliance, made up of nine health care, environmental and citizen-action groups, pointed out that 46 different chemicals of the 71 hazardous or potentially hazardous chemicals it tested for could be found in the Maine environment. Those chemicals were absorbed by people in contact with everyday products and materials. The people in the study included a farmer, legislators, writers, a nurse, instructors and a student, among others – they generally weren’t in professions that would expose them to an unusual number of chemicals. Yet they were found to be walking around with traces of phthalates, which the alliance says can be found in flame retardants in televisions and furniture; Teflon chemicals, found in nonstick pans; and bisphenol A, found in reusable water bottles and baby bottles.

It is important to note that none of those tested face the kind of toxic chemical assault endured by those recently reported on who depended on products from China that turned out to have unlawful mixtures of poisons. Instead, the Maine tests could be said to be protecting against this possibility in the United States by eliminating the use of the most dangerous of everyday chemicals and demanding more evidence that chemicals in use be proven safe.

The way to do that is through the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a 30-year-old law that needs new vitality. Last year, for instance the GAO noted that TSCA’s authority to obtain data to assess existing chemical is inadequate because the current process is costly and time-consuming, with the responsibility on the Environmental Protection Agency to get the data rather than the chemical industry to provide it. The year before, the GAO noted the dearth of TSCA rules requiring tests on new chemicals “provide limited assurance that health and environmental risks are identified before the chemicals enter commerce.”

With Congress slow and uncertain and the Bush administration less-than-friendly toward concerns about industry safety, according to the alliance, the best place to push for new regulation is at the state level.

As a strict matter of regulation, state rules are an inefficient way to proceed, but for getting badly needed political attention the alliance makes a lot of sense. The threat of a score or more of different sets of chemical-safety rules as states craft their own policies will get the industry’s attention, which in turn will move Congress to act.

Given years of warnings from reports Congress itself has asked for, Washington should have updated and strengthened TSCA years ago. Perhaps if the alliance could get members of Congress tested for hazardous chemicals, they would move the process along.