| |
Let’s be thorough when
considering
public policy on important flame retardant
State Rep. Bill Hinkle
For three years state
lawmakers have debated a particular flame retardant’s impact on the
environment. As we head into the homestretch of the 2007 legislative
session, I am hopeful we can resolve this issue that seems to be fueled
by paranoia and conflicting science.
First, some background. Decabromo diphenyl ether, or Deca-BDE, is one of
the most common flame retardants. It is included in furniture,
mattresses, automobiles, airplanes, electronics, and other items to
prevent them from catching on fire.
There are some special-interest groups that believe Deca-BDE may pose a
threat to our environment, including Puget Sound. These interests are
pushing legislation (House Bill 1024 and Senate Bill 5034) that would
ban the substance and then require the state to identify an alternative.
We would be the first state – or country, for that matter – to ban
Deca-BDE.
These special-interest groups simply have not convinced me, some other
state lawmakers, and many scientists of their case.
First, Deca-BDE is the most studied flame retardant on the market. From
the Environmental Protection Agency to the European Union, several
groups have looked at Deca-BDE and their science says it does not pose a
significant risk to the environment or humans.
Second, if we pass this legislation we would be trading the known for
the unknown. For example, would companies change their manufacturing to
make Washington-specific products with our designated alternative? Or,
would they choose to manufacture products for Washington without flame
retardants?
Our state has no required flammability standards, so products that
should be made fire-safe can be sold in Washington whether they are safe
or not. This increased fire risk is why our state’s fire district
commissioners continue to oppose the measures.
Another problem with the legislation is it has a pre-determined end. In
other words, it would establish a ban – and only then conduct a search
for an alternative. This is backwards. Keep in mind, too, our state
Department of Ecology has said it cannot identify an alternative to
Deca-BDE that is safer.
It is also important to ask why these measures would exempt airplane
manufacturers. If Deca-BDE is truly so dangerous to Puget Sound, as
proponents allege, why would they allow Boeing and other industries to
continue to use it in their facilities and products?
The bottom line is we know this common, yet vital, flame retardant saves
lives. Perhaps you know someone who has personally benefited. We also
must be good stewards of our environment. I am confident we can find a
balance that accommodates both areas.
The Deca-BDE legislation before us is simply not the solution. Good
public policy must be thorough, comprehensive and based on the best
information we have available – not reactionary and short-sighted.
State Rep. Bill Hinkle, R-Cle Elum, is the top ranking Republican on
the House Health Care and Wellness Committee.
# # #
|
|