Pawlenty vetoes safe toy legislation but isn’t sure why
Next time Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty should just have the chemical company lobbyists write his vetoes for him.
Pawlenty recently vetoed SF 651 because
prohibitions in the bill [banning flame retardants and certain other chemicals from products sold in Minnesota] are not based on established science, and banning the use of flame retardants in children’s clothing may increase burn injuries to children.
Odd, since Healthy Legacy’s Lindsay Dahl had offered to show Pawlenty peer-reviewed studies. Dahl says he didn’t want to see them.
Oh, and it seems that the flame retardants specified in the bill aren’t the ones used in children’s clothing.
When confronted with the facts, Pawlenty apologized but did not back down from the veto. He seems confused about what all these so-called “scientific” “studies” in “peer-reviewed” “journals” mean.
The governor added that the veto was because “I believe our state agencies should review all available research and make a recommendation. . . .”
Dahl said that the science is well established and broadly accepted by scientific experts. Also, she said, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has found safer alternatives to DECA [flame retardant] that meet fire safety standards and are currently on the market.
My city council member Cam Gordon has this crazy idea:
A more appropriate model for assessing the advisability of exposing people to these sorts of chemicals is the precautionary principle, which places the burden of proof on those who wish to expose people to these chemicals, not on those who wish to protect the public from them. Under the precautionary principle, the plastics industry would have to provide compelling evidence that phthalates are safe.
Meanwhile, the Consumers Union Action Fund is trying to raise $15,000 by Memorial Day to strengthen their fight against unsafe imports at the federal level.