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.

Toxic Toys Still on the Shelf: Governor Vetoes bill that would eliminate toxic chemicals from consumer products

Nancy Nord, acting chair of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, spoke to the National Press Club today about the CPSC’s “challenging year.”

Nord spent a lot of time letting listeners know that it’s not the CPSC’s job to inspect imports. Congress hasn’t given them the proper authority! Corporations are responsible for their products! I mean retailers! Retailers are responsible! And you should see the mess that Congress has made out of the current product safety legislation! It’s not Nord’s fault, okay?!

Plus someone, it seems, has blown this whole toy safety standards thing way out of proportion:

– it reached “near hysteria levels,”
– politicians “jumped on the bandwagon,” and
– the hazard to children was “distorted.”

Nord called the media concern over lead poisoning “hoopla,” citing that there have been no reported deaths, injuries, or illnesses from ingesting lead.

She must have forgotten about four-year-old Jarnell Brown (but I’m sure his family hasn’t).

Even though it is not the CPSC’s responsibility to inspect imports, Nord announced several exciting initiatives: improved import surveillance, a new cargo tracking system, and increased CPSC authority. But not to inspect imports. 

She’s right, of course — the CPSC isn’t responsible for the problems with toy safety in the United States. But I don’t think that’s what all the hoopla was about. We (press, Congress, parents, and consumers) were concerned that Nord didn’t want additional funding for the CPSC. And that the industries her agency regulates paid for her domestic and international travel. And that she might care a little too much about the how toy manufacturers will react to increased penalties for safety violations.

Maybe Nord should spend a little less time trying to explain away the agency’s PR problems.

She’s got some of her own.

It’s not just lead: fifteen hundred popular children’s toys tested for toxic chemicals are ranked in a new searchable online database, thanks in part to Minnesota’s own Healthy Legacy.

HealthyToys.org includes information on how the tests were conducted, chemicals to be concerned about, and lists of best and worst toys.

From the press release:

While some toys had high levels of dangerous chemicals such as PVC, lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury, others were free of these harmful additives. [Consumers] can now easily search by product name, brand, or toy type . . . to learn how the products tested rank from highest to lowest in terms of harmful chemical content.

Forty percent of the toys tested contained no toxins. It is possible to make safe toys. Even in China. We just have to ask for them and choose them over chemical-laden cheaper toys.

Here in Minnesota, Parents for Ethical Marketing will support the healthy children’s products bill (and other legislation) which will be introduced during the 2008 session. The bill calls for phasing out phthalates and bisphenol-A, two hormone disrupting chemicals from children’s products.