Get tougher on toxic chemicals

Using chemicals to protect consumers from the spread of fire, a three-decade-old strategy, produces only a tiny gain in safety but an increased risk of cancer -- especially for kids. So the New York State Legislature did the right thing this session in banning a form of a chemical called Tris, used in a range of products for children. But there's a lot more to be done.

The use of Tris in children's pajamas ended in 1977, when the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission banned it for that purpose after the chemical caused cancer in laboratory animals. But it is still widely used as a fire-retardant in furniture -- a category broadly defined to include such baby products as changing table pads, nursing pillows and crib mattresses. Over the past few decades, other ways of protecting against fire -- including the slower-burning cigarettes that New York pioneered and more widespread use of smoke detectors -- have reduced the need for these nasty chemicals. Still, their use persists.

But ridding the marketplace of toxic chemicals is a frustrating game of whack-a-mole: Prohibit one and another soon takes its place. What we need in New York and the nation is a more comprehensive approach.

Assemb. Robert Sweeney (D-Lindenhurst), the sponsor of the new Tris ban, is also working toward a bill that would set up a list of "chemicals of high concern" and ultimately ban sale of new apparel and other children's products containing them, instead of doing it one chemical at a time. That's the right strategy, and action by a state as influential as New York can help in the drive for better control of toxic chemicals nationally. But his broader bill is likely to be the target of heavy industry lobbying, just as his Tris bill was.

The prospects for national reform are slim. The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 was supposed to create a system for the Environmental Protection Agency to protect people from dangerous chemicals. But the law grandfathered in about 60,000 chemicals, and for the future, its language made EPA's regulatory task ridiculously difficult. Adverse court decisions and constant industry lobbying over the years haven't helped. So the law has been ineffective, and movement to strengthen it has been stalled for months.

In the current anti-EPA mood, many in Congress don't want to do anything that would empower an agency that they'd just as soon see vanish. And, of course, some elements of the industry are lobbying against a new federal toxic substances bill. But there is some tenuous reason for hope: Other segments in the industry actually want reform, because without a consistent national standard, they face the costly uncertainty of a patchwork of state laws. That's why state bans are useful: They put pressure on the industry to accept better national regulation.

New York is just one of nearly 20 states to have passed legislation on dangerous chemicals in the past decade. Industry lobbying and the resulting Senate reluctance did narrow Sweeney's bill, by keeping the most prevalent form of Tris, TDCPP, out of the legislation. But it was still a step in the right direction. Sweeney, known for persistence, should keep trying to pass his broader approach, and keep adding to the national pressure to protect our kids from toxic chemicals.