AUGUSTA — Environmentalists, health groups and parents came out in droves Tuesday to oppose a bill that they believe would gut the state’s Kid-Safe Products Act.
The proposal sponsored by Rep. James Hamper, R-Oxford, is supported by several Maine businesses, the toy industry, the chemical industry and the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. Each told the Legislature’s environmental panel that the law’s mechanism for identifying priority chemicals is so broad that it creates an uncertain business climate.
An alternative bill proposed by Sen. Seth Goodall, D-Richmond, also addresses the identification process by creating new criteria and limiting the number of chemicals that can be added to the list each year.
Goodall’s bill was supported by environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
But most businesses and the chemical industry supported Hamper’s bill, prompting claims from parents and environmentalists that the proposal doubled as a repeal of the Kid-Safe law.
The law was strongly opposed by the chemical and toy industry in 2008, as well as by the Maine State Chamber of Commerce. Despite that opposition, the measure passed 129-9 in the House and 35-0 in the Senate.
Prior to Tuesday’s hearing, the Chamber of Commerce issued an action alert telling members that the law “will have serious implications” on Maine’s ability to attract new investment and business.
Environmental groups said the chamber had misled its members about the chemical review process and the law itself.
Matt Prindiville of the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said the chamber had “ginned up” opposition to the law. Prindiville told the Environmental Committee that he’d been approached by a boat-builder who worried the law would prevent him from using certain epoxies.
The law exempts several industries, including transportation, pharmaceuticals, food and beverage, tobacco and forest products and pesticides. It’s designed to regulate and disclose the presence of chemicals in children’s products.
Smith & Wesson Corp., a gun manufacturer in Holden, and Louisiana Pacific, a wood products manufacturer, both testified Tuesday, saying the current law created uncertainty.
Advocates for Hamper’s bill cited the number of chemicals on the priority list, arguing that the prospect of their inclusion in the Kid-Safe law could be a problem for business.
More than 1,750 priority chemicals are on the list, including alcohol and aspirin. The presence of the latter was cited by proponents of Hamper’s bill.
Opponents argued that those chemicals would never undergo review in the law.
Two chemicals are regulated under the Kid-Safe law. One, bisphenol-A, is slated to be banned from certain children’s products beginning in 2012, following a lengthy review by the Department of Environmental Protection and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Other chemicals would undergo a similar review.
The Environmental Committee voted unanimously last week to regulate BPA.
Although the law initially included mandates to identify a certain number of chemicals in 2010, the requirement expired Jan. 1. Citizens can petition the Department of Environmental Protection to review other chemicals.
Goodall’s proposal would require the Department of Environmental Protection to name two more priority chemicals by 2013. Hamper’s bill appears to remove the citizen-petition provision.
Tuesday’s public hearing drew emotional testimony from parents who claimed Hamper’s bill would gut a law designed to minimize children’s exposure to harmful chemicals and to disclose their presence in certain products.
Hamper, one of nine representatives who voted against the law in 2008, urged the committee not to be persuaded by sentiment.
“Emotion drove this process in 2008,” he said. “Let’s not do that again.”
Moments later a tearful Hamper said he wouldn’t propose legislation that would “put my grandson at risk.”
Hamper said his bill had been written by “industry people.” Goodall said the environmental lobby helped draft his proposal.
Committee members hinted that the two bills could be consolidated. However, there could be several sticking points, including which scientific agency would be used to identify priority chemicals and which state agency would take the lead during the review process.
A work session had yet to be scheduled.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
