http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/proposed-chapter-26-reduce-exposure-to-pesticides Toxics Action Center and Environment Maine support the Board of Pesticides Control’s proposed rules Chapter 26 because it reduces exposure to pesticides through Integrated Pest Management techniques and through increasing Mainers’ right-to-know about pesticides used in their homes and their workplaces. Through requiring Integrated Pest Management, this rule will reduce pesticide use. Identifying conditions conducive to causing pest problems and implementing practical, cultural and non-toxic methods of pest control measures can go a long way to stopping the pest problem but also further protects the structural integrity and value of homes and buildings. Most importantly, by reducing pesticide use, we are reducing exposure. By increasing Mainers’ right-to-know about pesticides use where they live and work, this rule is further reducing pesticide exposure. Information about toxic chemicals used in homes is crucial to parents who want to protect their children from the dangers pesticides pose. By providing workers with the right-to-know about pesticides in the workplace, this rule further helps reduce exposure, providing Mainers, especially those with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, immune problems, and/or other health problems with information they need to ensure they are protected. While we recommend that this rule be enacted, we also propose two small changes to further protect Maine residents from toxic exposure. First, while the rule outlines what information applicators are required to provide, it does not spell out to residents and workers the type of information they can request. We recommend that in the applicators be required to identify in notification letters and postings, that residents and workers can request the trade name and EPA Registration number of the pesticide to be applied; the proposed date and time of the application; the location of the application; the reasons for the application; the re-entry interval listed on the product label; what IPM steps have been taken before application; and the name and phone number of the person whom further inquiry regarding the inquiry might be made. Secondly, we recommend that applicators post or provide (either through a paper copy or virtually) the material safety data sheets for the pesticides used to residents (in the case of residential applications) or the client (in the case of commercial applications). Simply stating that residents and workers have the right to ask for more information is not that useful for those who do not know what kinds of information to ask for or know what kind of information is available. By outlining what information is available and by providing the material safety data sheets, residents and workers will have even more information with which to protect themselves. Submitted by: Will Everitt, Toxics Action Center, 39 Exchange Street Ste 301, Portland, ME 04101, (207) 871-1810 and Matthew Davis, Environment Maine, 39 Exchange Street Ste 301, Portland, ME 04101, (207) 253-1965 http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/proposed-chapter-26-reduce-exposure-to-pesticides Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:13:48 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-1658-an-act-to-protect-pregnant-women-and-children-from-toxic-chemicals-released-into-the-home I would like to thank Chairman John Martin, Chairman Ted Koffman and distinguished members of the Natural Resources Committee for the chance to submit testimony in favor of LD 1658, An Act To Protect Pregnant Women and Children from Toxic Chemicals Released into the Home. Environment Maine is a statewide environmental group advocating clean air, clean water and open spaces on behalf of over 3,500 members statewide. Environment Maine fully supports the quick phasing out and banning of the toxic brominated flame retardant, deca-brominated diphenyl ether (Deca), in consumer products in Maine in favor of safer alternatives. Our colleagues at the Washington Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG) report that a bill banning Deca has passed both chambers of their Legislature. Maine should follow in Washington’s footsteps in banning Deca. Taking action now will decrease the build up of Deca in the environment and in our bodies, and safeguard public health from its effects. In light of our society’s experience with PCBs, we know enough to take action now, rather than waiting for the consequences to appear in the next generation of our children and in our environment. Over three years ago, our sister organization, Environment Maine Research & Policy Center, released a report, Body of Evidence: New Science in the Debate Over Toxic Flame Retardants and Our Health, making the case that Deca threatens the health of Americans. Even three years ago, the report highlighted research about the health effects of poly-brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), particularly decabrominated diphenyl ether (Deca), Deca’s presence in the environment and our bodies, and the breakdown of Deca into the more easily assimilated pentabrominated diphenyl ethers and octabrominated diphenyl ethers. Since then, even more scientific study has pointed to the dangers of this chemical and its widespread contamination of the environment. Maine has taken action to stop other PBDEs from completely polluting our environment and our bodies by banning the chemicals. Now is the time to ban Deca. Briefly, Deca is a common flame retardant used in hundreds of consumer products from cell phones to computers to televisions to upholstery. Deca has been detected in the breast milk of American women at higher levels than anywhere else in the world, and has been linked in laboratory tests to neurological effects such as permanent memory loss. Here are more reasons to pass a ban on Deca: Deca is pervasive Deca is one type of flame retardant called polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs. North American industry used more than 49 million pounds of Deca in 2001, which is far greater than half the world market for Deca. Deca is not chemically bound to the products it is used in and, as such, leaches out into water and air over time. People may be exposed to Deca in numerous ways. Scientists have found Deca in household dust, in both indoor and outdoor air, as well as in our food supply, especially in fish and dairy products. Scientists now know that Deca is also accumulating in our bodies. Scientific studies released this year found high levels of Deca in women’s breast milk. Deca is dangerous Scientists have linked Deca to serious health consequences in the lab, mostly due to its interference with thyroid hormone levels. Exposure to Deca, especially in utero and in early infancy, has been found to cause neurological impairment in laboratory mice that was both permanent and worsened with age. In addition, one early government study found a possible connection between exposure to low doses of Deca and cancer. Also, when products containing Deca are burned in an incinerator or a house fire, they release significant amounts of dioxins and furans, which are among the most toxic and dangerous compounds ever created. This property has led a few companies to voluntarily phase out their use in products. Ericsson, for example, has created a line of cell phones with no brominated flame retardants in its circuit breakers. Deca creates other dangerous PBDEs In addition to being bio-accumulative and connected to serious health effects, a third property of Deca points to the need for a widespread ban of the chemical. Under normal conditions, Deca easily breaks down into two related chemicals, octabrominated diphenyl ether, or Octa, and pentabrominated diphenyl ether, or Penta, which have been banned in numerous places, including Maine and California. These new studies point to a possible reason why the two other types of flame retardants are found most often in people’s bodies, even though Deca is the most widely used PBDE. That Deca breaks down in fish and in sunlight points to a host of additional health concerns. Scientists have done extensive health effects testing of Penta and Octa. In laboratory tests, scientists found immune system impairment, which increases susceptibility to infectious diseases. In addition, just this year scientists documented reproductive damage from low dose exposure, such as delayed onset of puberty in both males and females, as well as impaired development of reproductive organs. Clearly, the fact that Deca breaks down into chemicals that have already been banned, accumulates in our bodies on its own, and has been linked to a series of serious health consequences, are cause for a quick phase out and ban. In closing, we cannot sit back while the levels of Deca, a toxic flame retardant, continue to rise in our bodies: Deca should be phased out immediately. In addition, we should not repeat the colossal mistake of PCBs in the 60s and 70s, with PBDEs now. In the future, Congress and U.S. EPA should require extensive health testing of chemicals by industry before exposing the public to them and should protect us from any chemicals that are found to potentially cause harm. Sincerely, Matthew Davis Environment Maine http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-1658-an-act-to-protect-pregnant-women-and-children-from-toxic-chemicals-released-into-the-home Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:17:53 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-1256-providing-specific-information-to-the-public-about-pesticide-use-in-their-communities Thank you for allowing me to speak to the Committee. My name is Matthew Davis, and I would like to testify neither for nor against LD 1256 on behalf of Environment Maine. Environment Maine advocates for clean air, clean water and open spaces on behalf of 3,000 members statewide. I would suggest amending the legislation, LD 1256, to enact a simple step forward in providing specific information to the public about pesticide use in their communities. Specifically, I suggest that the amendment to LD 1256 replace all the language in the bill and simply amend MSRA 22 §1471-G Section 2 to read: “2. Applicators and firms to maintain certain records. All commercial applicators and spray contracting firms shall maintain, for a period of at least 2 years, records indicating the type and amount of pesticide used, the area of use and such other information as the board may require. Said applicators and firms shall provide such information, notification and reports as the board, by regulation, may require to the board. The board shall make such information, notification and reports easily accessible to the public.” This would require that pesticide applicators give application records to the Board of Pesticide Control (BPC) that are already required be kept by current law. It would then require the BPC to make this information available to the public. By amending current law in this fashion, the public would gain the right to know the specifics of pesticide applications, without requiring any extra paperwork on the part of licensed pesticide applicators. Currently, only general information about bulk amounts of pesticides used by licensed pesticide applicators is made public by the Board of Pesticide Control. This information has limited utility; a concerned neighbor would not be able to get information about what pesticides are being sprayed on abutting property, when they are being sprayed and in what amounts. This amendment would simply expand the availability of already established reporting requirements for commercial pesticide applicators and would ensure that this information was readily available to the public. Similar information from manufacturers and other facilities that emit toxic chemicals into our air, water and land is readily available to the public. Pesticide applicators should not be afforded special exception to this general rule. Concern among the public is growing around pesticides in our environment. “Pesticide” means any chemical used to kill or inhibit the growth of a target organism and includes, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides and insecticides. As such, these toxic chemicals have the potential to harm public health and the environment. Pesticides have been linked to a wide range of human health hazards, ranging from short-term impacts such as headaches, skin irritation and nausea to chronic impacts like cancer, reproductive harm, and endocrine disruption. Potentially more troubling is the vast amount that we still do not know about pesticides, pesticide use and the impact on people - especially children - and our environment. Right now, it is difficult for the public to get information about pesticide use. For example, concerned citizens or potential consumers who are trying to find out the public health impacts of lawn pesticides find TruGreen ChemLawn not forthcoming with information on the dangers of their products. According to a recent report by Toxics Action Center, when asked, TruGreen ChemLawn phone marketing representatives do not readily release the names of the pesticides they use and generally do not even know about the public health threats of products. Without a public agency providing detailed information about the types and amounts of pesticides being applied to their neighbor’s yard, concerned citizens are not able to get the information they desire. Other industries that put toxic chemicals into our air, water and land are required to report the specifics of these emissions. Manufacturing facilities, wastewater treatment plants, power generators, and other operations that discharge chemicals have to report monthly on the specifics of their emissions from each outfall pipe and stack to the Department of Environmental Protection. Information about the amount of benzene, arsenic and mercury released by facilities is readily available to members of the public on the Web. People should be able to easily access this same information for the pesticide industry as well. Again, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak neither for nor against LD 1256. Amending this legislation as suggested will take a positive step in providing the specific information that the public wants and deserves about the use of pesticides in their communities. http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-1256-providing-specific-information-to-the-public-about-pesticide-use-in-their-communities Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:12:20 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/des-applied-in-their-neighborhoods On behalf of Environment Maine and Environment Maine Research & Policy Center, I would like to submit this written testimony in support of the petitioned amendments to Chapters 22, 28 and 40 that are being considered by the Board of Pesticides Control (BPC). We support all of the proposed changes, because these changes will reduce toxic pesticides in our environment, reduce pesticide exposure and make it easier for people to know about pesticides applied in their neighborhoods. At the end of March, Environment Maine Research & Policy Center released a report I co-authored, Agribusiness and Atlantic Salmon: The effects of large-scale blueberry production on the endangered Atlantic salmon. The report reviews scientific studies and policy recommendations regarding Atlantic salmon, their habitat, and potential effects from pesticides, sedimentation, nutrient loading and water withdrawal. I have appended the full report, and excerpted some short, relevant summary sections of the report below. Some of the report’s findings include: • Nutrient loading is not extensive, but there is some potential for fertilizer application to fields to cause algal blooms and decreased dissolved oxygen in nearby streams and rivers; • Pesticides used on blueberry fields have limited acute toxicity to Atlantic salmon, and indirect and chronic effects may be severe; • Hexazinone, an oft-used herbicide is likely in high enough concentrations from drift, runoff and groundwater seep to change aquatic organismal communities, decreasing fitness of fry and parr; • Malathion and azinphos-methyl (two organophosphate pesticides) may have direct, acute effects on Atlantic salmon physiology and survival, even in low concentrations; • Sulfur applications to increase acidic soil conditions are infrequent and sporadic, yet may be of concern for all life stages of Atlantic salmon. Perhaps the largest obstacle to determining the impact of wild blueberry cultivation on endangered Atlantic salmon populations is lack of data. We are left to speculate about possible dangers without having the information needed to accurately assess these threats. Regardless, the blueberry industry has a legal obligation, along with other industries and agencies, to help protect the endangered Atlantic salmon. In order to better understand the effects of the blueberry industry on endangered Atlantic salmon and to mitigate and eliminate the negative effects, we recommend the following policies and actions: • EPA should require more extensive testing of pesticide toxicity, chronic affects and interactive toxicity of pesticides and inert ingredients as part of registration and establishment of standards; • BPC should ban aerial spraying and continue to monitor drift from other application methods; • BPC should restrict or eliminate the use of pesticides that directly or indirectly harm Atlantic salmon; and • DEP should monitor nutrient loading and fertilizer applications in Downeast watersheds. The review of the scientific community includes evidence that organophosphates could have an acute and serious impact on Atlantic salmon beginning their lives in downeast streams. The U.S. EPA’s review of these chemicals even admitted that “azinphos-methyl [an OP] also poses unacceptable risks to birds, aquatic invertebrates, fish, and terrestrial mammals.” Additionally, herbicides that drift into these same streams could alter the ecological communities that must be balanced and in tact to fully assist the growth of the salmon. Based on the evidence the BPC has collected on that drift from aerial spraying on blueberry fields has gotten into nearby streams, we conclude that these potentially harmful effects could be playing themselves out on the endangered Atlantic salmon. Since the BPC has discontinued drift studies, it has limited the amount of up-to-date information about the drift from ground spraying and aerial spraying from companies that have not agreed to give up the practice. The findings of our report alone should be enough to ban aerial spraying and the use of organophosphates (OPs), as the amendments to Chapter 22 and 40, respectively, would do. In addition to the harm to Atlantic salmon, OPs are acutely toxic, carcinogenic and cause neurological damage in humans. These nerve toxins are widely regarded as one of the worst classes of pesticides because of the public health threat that they pose to agricultural workers, their families, neighbors and consumers. I would also point out that many of the representatives from agricultural interests admitted that OPs are dangerously toxic and they would rather not use them. Furthermore, Dale Whitney recounted the story of his grandfather coming back from the fields applying arsenic and other toxic chemicals and knocking the chemical dust off his hat. He said something along the lines of “he didn’t know better, only knew what the manufacturers told us.” The same is true today with organophosphates. Some farmers realize that they are dangerous, but the pesticide companies still say the chemicals are fine, so most farmers continue to use them. For many applications, safer alternatives do exist. And, it is also true that organic growers are succeeding here in Maine within the same agricultural sectors. I will not go into further details about the risks surrounding OPs, other than to say that the testimony of my colleagues from the Environmental Health Strategy Center, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association and Toxics Action Center have detailed information about the public health threats posed by OPs. Aerial spraying causes drifts into nearby waterways, fields, forests and abutting property. Aerial spraying has generally triggered the largest number of complaints to the BPC from the public because of this drift. The BPC has conducted studies into the drift caused by aerial spraying. Although not exhaustive, these important studies have been enough to document drift into streams and other locations sometimes far removed from the target fields. And, the BPC drift reports have acknowledged that the studies are only capturing the tip of the iceberg of pesticide drift. With this in mind, it is clear that aerial spraying causes unacceptable pesticide drift and should be banned. Despite the threats that they would go out of business before switching to ground spraying, both Cherryfield Foods and Jasper Wyman and Son have ended aerial spraying on their 17,000 acres. These two companies have been able to continue their operations. Meanwhile, other companies offer the same unsubstantiated threats. As the BPC is seriously considering taking up the issue of drift and aerial spraying as its next task, and I hope that you use the amendment to Chapter 22 to do so. Modifying Chapter 28 sections 1 and 2 will broaden Maine residents’ right to know about pesticide use in their vicinity. The proposed amendments will also establish procedures and standards for better informing interested members of the public about outdoor pesticide applications and modernize the Pesticide Notification Registry information delivery system to take advantage of electronic mail and the internet. Specifically, the proposed changes are more equitable to Mainers by rescinding the fee for the Maine Pesticide Notification Registry. The current $20.00 fee for the Maine Pesticide Notification Registry is unfair because residents who are concerned about the threat of pesticides to their family and community are required to pay to get this public information. Currently, only 20 Maine residents are on the Pesticide Registry. We believe the $20 fee poses a real barrier to people signing up. Certainly, more than 20 people in Maine are concerned about pesticide use in their neighborhood; over 300 individuals signed the petition to change Chapter 28 and numerous people not on the Registry testified or have submitted comments. Concerned Mainers should not be singled out to pay for the registry; if anyone other than taxpayers should pay for the registry, it should be applicators that are using chemicals in our communities. Other industries that put toxic chemicals into our environment are required to report that information, whether to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Maine Department of Environmental Protection through the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and Toxics Release Inventory. Members of the public can easily go online to find out what major facilities violated their permits to discharge pollution into our waterways. We recently authored and released a report Troubled Waters that summarized that information for Maine. Also, the Toxics Release Inventory provides U.S. residents information for free, down to the zip code and facility level, about the amount of toxic chemicals released into the air and created as waste. These analogous programs’ publicly available permit violations and amounts of discharged chemicals provide important information for communities. Pesticides used in our community should not be any harder to find out about, and people should not have to pay to do so. Currently, the nominal BPC administration of the Registry is covered by the $20 fee on curious residents. All told, the BPC collects about $400 to administer the program- which consists of renewing interested residents and compiling the list of contact information for those residents on the Registry. It seems that the Board would likely be able to absorb this small cost into its budget, especially if the BPC were to update the Registry system to take advantage of electronic registration and renewals. If more residents signed up to be alerted as a result of eliminating the fee, there may be some increased cost to the Board if no changes were made to the program. But, any increased administration due to wider participation would be mitigated by an electronic and/or online registration and renewal process. Also, an increase in the Registry list is unlikely to be so large as to be burden the Board. If more financial support to the BPC was needed, the 3,000 licensed applicators could cover the administration of the program; even just $1 extra on their licensing fee would more raise more than seven times the current administration income from registrants. For example, the U.S. EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory is funded by the very industries that are required to provide information about the chemicals they release into the air and water of our communities. This sound policy theory of “polluter pays” is repeated in other federal programs like Superfund. The proposed rule also ensures that interested members of the public are supplied with material safety data sheets for the pesticide applications in their vicinity. It is important that residents be provided with as much information about the pesticides applied in their community as possible. Many residents wouldn’t know to ask for the material safety data sheet, so providing them will provide them with important information about the chemicals in their communities. The proposed rule modification allows applicators to send the application information and material safety data sheets via email in order to make it easier for them and to reduce mailing costs. Applicators could even provide a link to the material safety data sheet along with the email saying when they are spraying in a given neighborhood. This is a simple, yet informative way for residents to find out more about the chemicals being used in their neighborhoods. We expect that allowing applicators to use electronic notification will reduce the amount of work for applicators to alert those on the registry and will provide a wealth of information to citizens who might not know where to get information about pesticides. In summary, I would again like to emphasize Environment Maine’s and Environment Maine Research & Policy Center’s support for the pending amendments to Chapters 22, 28 and 40. Sincerely, Matthew Davis Environment Maine Environment Maine Research & Policy Center http://www.environmentmaine.org/des-applied-in-their-neighborhoods Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:22:07 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-526-recycling-assistance-fee-on-car-tires My name is Matthew Davis, the Advocate for Environment Maine, and I would like to testify in opposition to LD 526. Environment Maine advocates for clean air, clean water and open spaces on behalf of 3,000 members statewide. Eliminating the Recycling Assistance fee on car tires would eviscerate the Department of Environmental Protection’s ability to assist towns in disposing of solid waste, recyclables and sludge, monitor facilities to protect the surrounding environment and public health, and administer programs to reduce the generation of waste. This germane fee provides funding for core operations of a very important program essential to all residents in the state who flush the toilet, produce trash and buy tires. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the State Planning Office (SPO) provide essential services for reducing and disposing of solid waste. The DEP and the SPO create and administer programs that reduce solid waste in the state, encourage recycling, and take hazardous chemicals, such as mercury, out of the waste stream. For example, DEP licenses and monitors landfills, incinerators, transfer stations and composting facilities. Additionally, the Department provides technical assistance to these same solid waste facilities - over 700 across the state. The DEP staff works with sewage treatment plants to run safe programs to compost and dispose of sludge. Diverse education programs within DEP and SPO help the general public dispose of waste properly and help municipal employees operate solid waste facilities more effectively. A fee on tires to fund part of the solid waste program makes sense. These products have created environmental problems in the past when disposed of improperly. The continued need for education and assistance when disposing of these products and others necessitates that we keep this funding source. Expanding the recycling assistance fee to other products would more broadly spread the funding source and might provide better services for reducing and dealing with waste. All of these functions and others that DEP and SPO carry out as part of the solid waste program are essential to the state, its environment, and its citizens. Maine citizens get their money’s worth, perhaps unknowingly, when paying the fee on tires and batteries. Cutting this funding source would create a hazardous gap in critical programs that we all depend upon. Again, Environment Maine opposes LD 526, because the solid waste program housed within DEP and SPO is essential to preserving our environment and public health, and the fee is germane to the program it funds. http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-526-recycling-assistance-fee-on-car-tires Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:16:37 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-1968-bureau-of-remediation-and-waste-management-funding I would like to present testimony in support of Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) budget proposal before you as part of LD 1968, and especially dealing with funding programs in the Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management. The DEP has managed to continue doing its job to protect the environment through past rounds of state and federal budget cuts. Environment Maine believes that funding the DEP in all its important functions is key to clean air, clean water and clean land. In light of federal cuts to the State Waste Water Revolving Fund, the DEP is proposing covering 85 percent of a Public Service Manager with General Fund Land and Water Quality account. Creative solutions like these are important to keep the essential functions of DEP, and in my estimation, the staff have done well to maintain programs while shrinking staff. This track record is worthy of note as you look at their request for funding in hazardous waste. The Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management’s Hazardous Waste Site Emergency Fund provides an essential service to the environment and the public in Maine. Whether it is responding to emergency accidents or spills of hazardous waste, monitoring the clean up progress of hazardous waste sites, or ensuring that hazardous waste transport and disposal is done in an appropriate manner, the programs that draw upon the Emergency Fund provide services that would otherwise not exist and would compromise public and environmental health. The money from the General Fund in order to fund these programs will be well-spent; not having operational programs around hazardous waste is simply not a viable option. In order to deal with future funding of the program, DEP has developed a plan to increase certain fees dealing with hazardous waste which would help fund the programs response and clean-up programs. Until this increased revenue is approved and the revenues meet needs for staffing and programs, the Hazardous Waste Site Emergency Fund needs funding from the General Fund. Even after that fee increase, there may be the need of some General Fund money to keep the program whole. Using general revenue to protect the people of Maine from hazardous waste spills or other emergencies is worthwhile and should be supported. Again, I would like to emphasize the importance of continued funding of DEP essential programs, including, but not limited to, those emergency programs within the Bureau of Remediation and Waste Management. Sincerely, Matthew Davis Advocate http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-1968-bureau-of-remediation-and-waste-management-funding Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:14:57 -0500 http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-1790-an-act-to-reduce-contamination-of-breast-milk-and-the-environment-from-the-release-of-brominated-chemicals-in-consumer-products I would like to thank Chairman Martin, Chairman Koffman and distinguished members of the Natural Resources Committee for the chance to testify in favor of LD 1790, An Act to Reduce Contamination of Breast Milk and the Environment from the Release of Brominated Chemicals in Consumer Products. Environment Maine is a statewide environmental group working for clean air, clean water and open spaces by researching problems, advocating solutions and educating and involving the public. Environment Maine fully supports the labeling, quick phasing out and banning of toxic brominated flame retardants in consumer products in Maine in favor of safer alternatives. Taking action now will decrease their build up in the environment and in our bodies and safeguard us against the health impacts from the buildup of toxic brominated flame retardants, specifically polybrominated diphenyl ethers. In light of our society’s experience with PCBs, we know enough to take action now, rather than waiting for the consequences to appear in the next generation of our children and in our environment. Tomorrow our sister organization, Environment Maine Research & Policy Center, will release their new report, Body of Evidence: New Science in the Debate Over Toxic Flame Retardants and Our Health, making the case that Deca threatens the health of Americans and is symptomatic of a widespread failure to effectively regulate toxic chemicals in the U.S. The report highlights research about the health effects of poly-brominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), particularly decabrominated diphenyl ether (Deca), Deca’s presence in the environment and our bodies, and the breakdown of Deca into the more easily assimilated pentabrominated diphenyl ethers and octabrominated diphenyl ethers. Maine has the chance to stop PBDEs from completely polluting our environment and our bodies by banning the sale of products containing PBDEs, requiring labeling and establishing state-level monitoring of the chemicals. Briefly, Deca is a common flame retardant used in hundreds of consumer products from cell phones to computers to televisions to upholstery. Deca has been detected in the breast milk of American women at higher levels than anywhere else in the world, and has been linked in laboratory tests to neurological effects such as permanent memory loss. Here are more reasons, embargoed until our report release tomorrow, to pass a ban on toxic PBDEs (LD 1790): Deca is pervasive Deca is one type of flame retardant called polybrominated diphenyl ethers or PBDEs. North American industry used more than 49 million pounds of Deca in 2001, which is far greater than half the world market for Deca. Deca is not chemically bound to the products it is used in and, as such, leaches out into water and air over time. People may be exposed to Deca in numerous ways. Scientists have found Deca in household dust, in both indoor and outdoor air, as well as in our food supply, especially in fish and dairy products. Scientists now know that Deca is also accumulating in our bodies. Scientific studies released this year found high levels of Deca in women’s breast milk. Deca is dangerous Scientists have linked Deca to serious health consequences in the lab, mostly due to its interference with thyroid hormone levels. Exposure to Deca, especially in utero and in early infancy, has been found to cause neurological impairment in laboratory mice that was both permanent and worsened with age. In addition, one early government study found a possible connection between exposure to low doses of Deca and cancer. Also, when products containing Deca are burned in an incinerator or a house fire, they release significant amounts of dioxins and furans, which are among the most toxic and dangerous compounds ever created. This property has led a few companies to voluntarily phase out their use in products. Ericsson, for example, has created a line of cell phones with no brominated flame retardants in its circuit breakers. Deca creates other dangerous PBDEs In addition to being bio-accumulative and connected to serious health effects, a third property of Deca points to the need for a widespread ban of the chemical. Under normal conditions, Deca easily breaks down into two related chemicals, octabrominated diphenyl ether, or Octa, and pentabrominated diphenyl ether, or Penta, which were recently banned in California. These new studies point to a possible reason why the two other types of flame retardants are found most often in people’s bodies, even though Deca is the most widely used PBDE. That Deca breaks down in fish and in sunlight points to a host of additional health concerns. Scientists have done extensive health effects testing of Penta and Octa. In laboratory tests, scientists found immune system impairment, which increases susceptibility to infectious diseases. In addition, just this year scientists documented reproductive damage from low dose exposure, such as delayed onset of puberty in both males and females, as well as impaired development of reproductive organs. Clearly, the fact that Deca breaks down into chemicals that have already been banned, accumulates in our bodies on its own, and has been linked to a series of serious health consequences, are cause for a quick phase out and ban. We cannot sit back while the levels of Deca, a toxic flame retardant, continue to rise in our bodies: Deca should be phased out immediately. In addition, we cannot repeat the colossal mistake of PCBs in the 60s and 70s, or PBDEs now. Fortunately, Maine has the opportunity to take action to protect our health and environment, but in the future, Congress and EPA should require extensive health testing of chemicals by industry before exposing the public to them and should protect us from any chemicals that are found to potentially cause harm. Thank you, Matthew Davis Advocate Environment Maine http://www.environmentmaine.org/legislature/testimony/environmental-health/environmental-health/ld-1790-an-act-to-reduce-contamination-of-breast-milk-and-the-environment-from-the-release-of-brominated-chemicals-in-consumer-products Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:19:19 -0500