To the editor:
I’m writing in support of the Safe Chemicals Act (S. 847) and to thank Bettie Kettell of Durham for her excellent letter to the editor (“Update toxin safeguards,” June 12) published recently in this paper.
I commend Bettie and others who have been advocating tirelessly for reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), our country’s outdated and ineffective toxic chemical safety law.
TSCA fails to protect public health and provide businesses and consumers accurate information about chemicals in products used every day.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, DN. J., has introduced the Safe Chemicals Act (S. 847) that would take meaningful steps to protect American families from harmful chemicals used to manufacture everyday items such as baby bottles, water bottles, toys and even frying pans.
To ensure the health and safety of our families today and for future generations, the Senate needs to pass the Safe Chemicals Act. It takes a measured, science-based approach to fixing this broken system. It is the type of practical common sense solution that Maine is known for, and that children and businesses around the country are waiting for.
Bettie Kettell was one of 22 Maine moms who recently traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet with Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins to ask them to co-sponsor the Safe Chemicals Act (S. 847).
I urge you to call Snowe and Collins and ask them to cosponsor this bill for the health of Maine families and families nationwide.
I thank Sen. Snowe for her service during her tenure in the Senate. I believe that her co-sponsorship and support for the Safe Chemicals Act would be a significant part of her legacy because it would protect Maine families for generations to come.
I saw a picture of a poster from the Maine moms trip to D.C. It says it all: “Safe Chemicals Act, practical common sense, mom approved.”
Please take action today by making a phone call to our senators and let your voice be heard on this important, common sense issue.
Nancy D. Bliss
Brunswick
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less