Yesterday's Press Herald contained an editorial suggesting that Maine was jumping the gun in requiring stricter standards for lead in toys. Apparently, a law taking effect later this year will require that toys sold in Maine contain less than 90 parts per million of the substance. The Press Herald is concerned that this legislation is premature, and that Maine would do better to wait for the federal government to set its own strict standards and means of regulation.

I have mixed feelings about this stance. I do agree that we would do better to have uniform legislation, rather than asking manufacturers to comply with numerous different state laws.

On the other hand, lead is dangerous. And it is especially dangerous to a very vulnerable (and voiceless) group: our children.

Here is the skinny on lead, taken from an article I wrote for the Parent and Family Newspaper in 2000:

"Lead poisoning can cause 'damage to the brain and nervous system, behavior and learning problems (such as hyperactivity), slowed growth, hearing problems and headaches' (from www.hud.gov). Pregnant women with high lead levels in their blood may not only pass these problems along to their babies, but they may become sick during pregnancy. Non-pregnant adults are not immune either. They may suffer from memory loss, an inability to concentrate, nervous disorders, high blood pressure, muscle and joint pain, stomach or bowel problems and difficulty getting pregnant. Some of these issues may resolve when a person’s lead level comes down, while others, like mental retardation, are more permanent in nature."

Scary stuff, eh?

Given that we've likely been exposing our kids to leaded toys for years--and that we've previously acknowledged the danger of lead by outlawing its use in paint and gasoline--I don't think it makes sense to wait any longer. And perhaps by taking a stand now, we will be encouraging the government (and manufacturers) to take action more quickly. The California emissions standards certainly have a had an impact on the way automakers approach clean air.

Maine is doing its part for clean air, too. In another May 28 article, the Press Herald reported that our state is joining ten other states (including New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island) in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. The lawsuit wants the EPA to be tougher on smog. In March, it lowered the maximum concentration of ozone from 84 parts per billion (ppb) to 75 ppb. According to an EPA advisory board, this is not adequate--they recommended a limit of 60 to 70 ppb, a limit necessary to protect (again) our most vulnerable (and still largely voiceless) citizens: children, elderly, and those with respiratory problems.

Ozone is particularly troublesome for Maine and other New England states, because we end up being exposed to smog from our more industrial and urban southern neighbors. Levels skyrocket in the summer, causing our public health officials to release repeated advisories against exercising outdoors. That can't be good for a state (or a country) struggling with obesity.

So I applaud Maine for addressing the lead and ozone issues. Sure, we could have waited. But as is always the case when dealing with unpleasantness, someone has to take a stand. When it comes to our health--and the health of our children--that someone might as well be us.

E-mail this entry to a friend