Proposed Bill Could Crimp Chem Usage | Lobbyists call for limits on what kinds of products can be distributed in the Bay State
Massachusetts lawmakers recently got an unusual gift from a lobbying group: small pieces of shower curtains wrapped in plastic baggies.
The group, a coalition of environmental and consumer health groups called The Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, wanted the legislators to get a sniff of the PVC vinyl material, which a recent report says contains more than 100 toxic chemicals.
The alliance pulled the stunt in support of a bill known as âSafer Alternatives,â which would allow the state to select certain dangerous chemicals, find substitutions and require companies that sell their goods in the Bay State to make the switch.
Advocates say it's a measured approach that takes companies' needs into consideration, but opponents argue it would harm Massachusetts businesses' ability to compete in global markets and would be largely unenforceable anyway.
The bill actually started as a more straightforward ban on 10 specific chemicals. That got a number of companies up in arms, including Boston Scientific Corp. of Natick.
At a hearing in July 2007, Dr. Edward E. Reverdy, the company's manager of corporate toxicology and biocompatibility services, testified against banning one chemical in particular, something known as di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate or DEHP that is used in medical devices like those the company makes.
Negotiated Settlement
Lawmakers listened and made some changes. As it stands now, and as it stood when the senate approved it in January, the bill wouldn't ban anything immediately. Instead, it would allow state officials to choose a few high-priority substances each year based on how dangerous they are, how widespread their use is and how crucial their use is. After that, the state would have to seek alternate chemicals that could do the same job and provide training for companies on how to change over. The bill has not been approved by the house.
But Robert Rio, senior vice president for government affairs at the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, said the fact that the bill leaves the selection of specific chemicals until later is part of the problem.
âIt's basically at the whim of bureaucrats who decide who and what is part of the bill,â he said.
Rio also argues that the logistics of enforcing the bill would be overwhelming. It calls on both manufacturers and distributors to make sure products containing the offending chemicals don't reach store shelves. Rio said most consumer goods bought in Massachusetts are made in other states or countries, and most products manufactured in the state are sold elsewhere.
âHow many state workers would it take to stop the shower curtains from coming in?â he said. âI don't even know how you'd do it.â
But Lee Ketelsen, New England director for Clean Water Action, which is part of the Boston-based Alliance for a Healthier Tomorrow, said it's not really that complicated. Under the bill, she said imports would be monitored at the distributor level. Ketelsen also said it would take at least three years from the identification of a problem chemical to a ban.
âThat's a lot more predictability than the companies have in the marketplace right now,â she said.
Ketelsen noted that the media firestorm over baby bottles and other plastic products that leach the chemical BPA had customers changing their buying patterns almost overnight. With the proposed law, she said, companies would know ahead of time what products they might have to reconfigure. At the same time, she said, the publicity attached to the state declaring a chemical dangerous would raise consumer awareness and help make sure the products weren't showing up on shelves.
Not Just For Factories Anymore
The Safer Alternatives bill is modeled on the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) of 1989, which requires manufactures that create a certain amount of toxic waste to work with the state to reduce their use of hazardous chemicals. But instead of factory waste, the new bill would concentrate on toxins found in consumer products and in non-manufacturing companies.
Ketelsen says TURA has been a big success, citing companies like AlphaGary Corp. in Leominster, which used TURA to reduce its use of lead compounds by 30 percent, and, at the same time, make its manufacturing process more efficient.
AIM strongly opposed TURA before it passed, but today executive vice president John Regan says that despite his âhard-core free marketâ convictions, âI'm also, I guess, honest enough to admit that there are times when appropriate regulation provides a push in the right direction.â
Still, Regan said the benefits of TURA wouldn't necessarily apply to Safer Alternatives. For one thing, he said, market forces already do a good job of discouraging companies from using toxic chemicals in consumer products.
But advocates of the law say Massachusetts is well-placed to be a national leader.
Carol Holley, clerk of an environmental group based in Acton, which testified in favor of the bill at the legislative hearing last year, said her group takes the dangers of toxic chemicals seriously because the town is the site of the W.R. Grace Superfund Site, where hazardous chemicals used in manufacturing contaminated local drinking water.
She said there are plenty of innovative green businesses that could benefit from the changes. And, she said, the state has a history of going first. âWe were the first a couple hundred years ago when we decided that being a colony of England wasn't working very well,â she said.n
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments