This is from Representative Chuck Isenhart, forwarded by Jane Clark Changes to toxic chemical law troublesome The United States has not updated its chemical safety law since it was first passed in 1976. Now that Congress is entertaining legislation to do so, tying the hands of state government should not be part of the deal. That's the message that I along with 57 other state legislators from 25 states sent to the leaders of a U.S. Senate committee working on the Chemical Safety Improvement Act. The topic was on the agenda of a chemical policy reform briefing in Atlanta, August 10-11, sponsored by the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL). I attended the meeting as ranking member of the Iowa House Environmental Protection Committee. The bill being considered by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee could prevent state action to protect the public from dangerous chemicals. For years, state legislators have been forced to address toxic chemicals in our daily lives because Congress has failed to do so. Action by state legislators has prompted the chemical industry to remove bisphenol-a (BPA) from baby products. Bisphenol-a is harmful to the endocrine system. Other states have successfully banned toxic flame retardants. For years, Congress has struggled to reform the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, empowering the Environmental Protection Agency to more vigorously review the health and environmental effects of new chemicals and track the 75,000 industrial chemicals already produced or imported into the United States. However, as written, this bill would also undermine states' ability to act. The legislation would prevent us from having own own laws on "high concern" chemicals once the EPA has listed it as such, whether or not the agency has actually acted to regulate the chemical. This would create a void that will allow those industries that are cutting corners on public health and safety to continue business as usual. The law also would prevent Iowa from addressing problems that may be unique to our state or region, by going beyond what EPA is doing. The bill also plays into a strategy by lobbyists that has stymied progress on a wide range of regulatory reforms. Lobbyists tell us that living by multiple state rules is unworkable. But they also don't want a so-called 'one-size-fits-all' national policy that lacks 'flexibility' or loopholes. So we end up protecting toxic chemicals rather than public health. NCEL officials have asked to meet with committee leaders Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator David Vitter to discuss state legislators' concerns about the bill. State Rep. Dan Kelley of Newton and State Rep. Sharon Steckman of Mason City joined me in signing the letter. I will send you a copy of the letter if you e-mail me at [log in to unmask] National surveys show that Americans overwhelmingly support stronger chemical safety laws. Public Opinion Strategies found: * Nearly 74 percent of those polled think the threat posed to people's health by the exposure to toxic chemicals is serious, with 34 percent saying they think the threat is "very serious." * 68 percent of respondents support stricter regulation of chemicals used and produced in the United States, with support across all demographic sub-groups, including those typically opposed to government regulation, such as self-described conservatives (54 percent) and tea party supporters (51 percent). * Description of a proposal that would require the chemical industry to prove that its products are safe and give EPA greater authority to restrict some or all uses of chemicals that may harm health or the environment garnered support from 77 percent of respondents. Public concern in Iowa is justified. A 2012 study conducted by the Frontier Group released by Environment Iowa noted that industrial facilities dumped over 6.2 million pounds of toxic chemicals into Iowa's waterways. Iowa ranks 15th in the nation for this kind of dumping. Studies also show that the chemicals used to take farm and other pollution out of drinking water are themselves contaminating the water. Problems can also be caused by the paints in children's toys, the ingredients in personal care products, as well the improper disposal of pharmaceuticals. Dubuque is not immune to these problems, our coal tar Superfund site being the most visible reminder. At the same time, we should support promising developments in "green chemistry" intended to use science to identify natural processes and create synthetics that are more benign to the environment and human health, as well as use less energy. The Ames Laboratory and the Institute for Physical Research and Technology at Iowa State are just two examples where our state is leading the way. These efforts merit greater investment. Other topics addressed at the NCEL chemical policy forum included: . The Hazardous Hundred Campaign led by the Washington Toxics Coalition; . The science behind toxic chemical policy; . Genetically-modified foods; . Chemical policy and international trade. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask] Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/