Last week, while LD 2048, An Act to Protect Children’s Health and the Environment from Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children’s Products, was being debated in the Legislature, a hearing was held before another committee on LD 1977, recommending statewide screening that would lead to intensive treatment of autism. How shortsighted it is that identification of the chemical triggers of autism is not part of that discussion. It’s only a matter of connecting the dots.

Scores of chemicals of high concern in consumer products – and-or the synergistic reactions among them – could be implicated in autistic syndrome disorders, now affecting one of every 150 children. When legislators calculate what it may cost to implement LD 2048, they would do well to take into account the astronomical expense of medical care for children with autism and learning disabilities.

The “Body of Evidence” survey conducted in Maine last year – testing for the presence of certain hazardous chemicals in human tissue – confirms that we are all routinely exposed to industrial toxins in air (both inside and out), in water, food, cosmetics and cleaning products. We owe a tremendous debt to researchers who have determined that toxic chemicals are linked to learning and developmental disabilities, neurological and endocrine-system damage, reproductive harm and some cancers. The “plastic” chemicals surveyed, which are produced in high volumes and-or persist in the body and bioaccumulate in the environment, are designated as chemicals of high concern on numerous lists compiled by environmental-health scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies.

Evidence of the harm these substances cause, especially to children, is compelling: Bisphenol A is a hormone-disrupting chemical that leaches out of polycarbonate bottles, pacifiers, toys, etc.; phthalates are absorbed from vinyl products, including toys and a wide range of cosmetics, causing reproductive and neurological damage; polybrominated flame-retardant additives in computers, TVs, mattresses and bedding cause neurodegenerative diseases and put babies at risk for SIDS (crib death); and perfluorinated chemicals for nonstick coatings and stain-water resistance (Teflon, Scotchgard and Gore-Tex) persist for years in the body, leading to damage in all organs, including cancer.

Inasmuch as many of the items made with plastic are novelties and inessential consumer goods, they head the list to be targeted under LD 2048, part of a comprehensive-chemicals policy being reviewed in Augusta.

We cannot rely on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration or any other federal officials to enact protective regulations. They are controlled by powerful corporate interests – the same lobbyists who have shown up in Maine to oppose LD 2048: the American Chemistry Council, the Toy Industry Association, the Personal Care Products Council and Chamber of Commerce representatives.

The industry arguments ring hollow in the face of ongoing recalls of Chinese-made toys. As a result of the scandal, some toy makers (including the top two: Wal-Mart and Toys “R” Us) are voluntarily reducing lead and phthalates. Pending federal legislation advocates lowering lead content but not phthalates, so this is an important moment for Maine to step out ahead, setting standards for phthalates as well as other high-volume priority chemicals. Proactive policies here, honoring consumers’ right to know of harmful additives, will motivate change on the part of other states and federal agencies (likely to undergo staff turnover in the next administration). At the least, it will generate publicity that can spur reform within the toy industry, which is now on the defensive and anxious to avoid more recalls.

A precedent in Maine will have another kind of domino effect: Any argument for disclosing or removing, say, phthalates from PVC-plastic products like baby car seats will eventually persuade consumers that phthalates don’t belong in auto interiors either, to the benefit of adults as well as children who occupy them. (Motor vehicles are among a number of chemical uses exempt from the requirements of LD 2048, as drafted.)

Historically the process of restricting use of notorious chemicals like PCBs, CFCs, dioxins, asbestos and hexavalent chromium at the federal level has been abysmally slow because EPA’s analytical procedure under the Toxic Substances Control Act gives greatest weight to the economic consequences of regulation. The risk-assessment methodology that industry opponents of LD 2048 are demanding (paralysis by analysis, some call it) is designed expressly to thwart its passage and to marginalize a certain percentage of the population as not worth protecting.

An alternatives-assessment framework, by contrast – at the heart of LD 2048 – is an appropriate way to evaluate and prioritize the most hazardous consumer products and make substitutions that do not pose unacceptable risks to vulnerable subgroups such as children.

Jody Spear lives in Harborside.