Latest posts by Taylor Smith (see all)
- Heartland Joins Coalition Opposing Federal Gas Tax Hike - January 28, 2015
- Reject the E15 Mandate - December 11, 2014
- Reducing Ohio’s Renewable-Power Mandate is Progress, Not Regression - November 2, 2014
Environmental advocacy groups such as the Safe States Alliance, the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, and the InterstateChemicals Clearinghouse, are pushing states to enact legislation to create “chemicals of concern” lists. What these lists do is target chemicals widely used in industry for what will be unnecessary, and cost-heavy regulations.
For the simple cost to society in the form of lost jobs, higher consumer prices, and diminished product effectiveness, your child can be safe from chemical substances such as silicone. The same inert, low-toxic silicone that has been in production and played a major role in many industries for generations. While it is important that the most vulnerable members of society are safe from harm, there needs to be a clear, precise limit to how far government can intervene in between the chemical elements that make up the world around us.
Instead of basing regulation policy on hypothetical risk deduced from biomonitoring, they should based on real epidemiological research that passes the quality standards set by the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. This shouldbefollowed up with strict cost-benefit and comparative risk analyses so appropriate legislative action can be taken if needed at all. This will reduce unnecessary burdens placed on the economy while more efficiently protecting society from unintended harm.