<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What LePage’s “reforms” mean for Maine parents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/what-lepage%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9creforms%e2%80%9d-mean-for-maine-parents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/what-lepage%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9creforms%e2%80%9d-mean-for-maine-parents/</link>
	<description>For a thriving New England</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:21:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cynthia Lyles</title>
		<link>http://www.clf.org/blog/clean-energy-climate-change/what-lepage%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9creforms%e2%80%9d-mean-for-maine-parents/#comment-674</link>
		<dc:creator>Cynthia Lyles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 13:39:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.clf.org/?p=2929#comment-674</guid>
		<description>Jane,

I completely understand your frustration as a responsible parent and unfortunately, much of the truth about this entire subject is being diffused, confused and irresponsibly reported because it does not serve the interests of a few select groups, who, without responsibility, and in their own self-interests, want to simply ban chemicals in Maine period. 

I worked on the original language of that important Maine bill, LD2048, in 2008, in an effort to have it do what it stated it was meant to do, protect children&#039;s products by limiting or eliminating toxic chemicals that had been scientifically proven to be harmful to children&#039;s health. Much of the original intention of this legislation has already been corrected; plastic water bottles, major offenders at the time, have been remanufactured with no utilization of BPA. Children&#039;s products are continually being modified to remove toxic chemicals or to reduce them to proven scientific levels that cause no harm. In our world today, we are inundated with chemicals, many of which actually protect us and most people would not enjoy the lifestyles they do without that component. Like it or not, chemicals are here to stay and we must use our resources and intelligence to have them integrated into our lives with minimal adverse effects. 

For example, the very BPA certain people want to have banned in Maine is used in making bicycle helmets for our children and actually is the very component that makes the helmet do its job of protecting your child&#039;s head against injury - BPA is a binder of plastics that strengthen the end product in this application. BPA in and of itself is not the enemy; how it is used is the issue that should be addressed and this is being done throughout the world as we speak. The development of this chemical for its myriad of uses enhances much of what we enjoy today and to ban it outright is irresponsible and needless. In many instances, there is no safer alternative and I, along with the scientific community believe it is more prudent to take the necessary time and complete the scientific testing on new alternatives than to simply scrap a known for the potential harm of unknowns. And many of the negative claims are simply untrue.

What actually has occurred and is posing a threat to a multitude of businesses other than the just big, uncaring chemical companies, as they are portrayed to be, is that as the rules are being implemented to manage the well intentioned legislation, another agenda is unfolding. On the pretense of protecting your children, many special interest groups are simply trying to be the first to say they banned a chemical in Maine. They used scare tactics to convince lawmakers to support it - who doesn&#039;t want to support a bill to protect our children, right? - and now that the truth has begun to be realized, they continue to scare consumers in an effort to obtain their true objective, a name for themselves, without regard for the potential harm their results may actually cause. And we don&#039;t fully know the extent of harm that might be caused because these special interest groups don&#039;t want to listen to reason, they refuse to accept scientific data that doesn&#039;t support their agenda and it&#039;s much easier to execute smear tactics against responsible people trying to do the right thing for all involved than work together to insure we all live in a safer world.

I am no expert, but this subject is near and dear to me simply because I can&#039;t tolerate subterfuge and outright lies that cause the very confusion and frustration you are experiencing. There is no reason for it and it will ultimately be us, the consumer, who makes the final decision! Consumers are the change-makers and the industries know this. They aren&#039;t going to be able to sell us something we don&#039;t want. We need to make our voices heard and demand the truth from both sides, demand that we be given the real facts so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves. It takes time to wade through the bull, but somewhere in the middle of the mess is the truth. 

I commend you for your vigilance and hope my humble thoughts expressed here provide a bit of balance in your thinking about this very important issue. I believe the new administration in Maine is doing the responsible thing; looking at issues from both sides and trying to determine the truth. I attended one of the fact-finding meetings this week and left with the belief that the legislators truly wanted to hear from the people. It is our responsibility to speak up and provide them the opportunity to truly serve the needs of all Maine citizens.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jane,</p>
<p>I completely understand your frustration as a responsible parent and unfortunately, much of the truth about this entire subject is being diffused, confused and irresponsibly reported because it does not serve the interests of a few select groups, who, without responsibility, and in their own self-interests, want to simply ban chemicals in Maine period. </p>
<p>I worked on the original language of that important Maine bill, LD2048, in 2008, in an effort to have it do what it stated it was meant to do, protect children&#8217;s products by limiting or eliminating toxic chemicals that had been scientifically proven to be harmful to children&#8217;s health. Much of the original intention of this legislation has already been corrected; plastic water bottles, major offenders at the time, have been remanufactured with no utilization of BPA. Children&#8217;s products are continually being modified to remove toxic chemicals or to reduce them to proven scientific levels that cause no harm. In our world today, we are inundated with chemicals, many of which actually protect us and most people would not enjoy the lifestyles they do without that component. Like it or not, chemicals are here to stay and we must use our resources and intelligence to have them integrated into our lives with minimal adverse effects. </p>
<p>For example, the very BPA certain people want to have banned in Maine is used in making bicycle helmets for our children and actually is the very component that makes the helmet do its job of protecting your child&#8217;s head against injury &#8211; BPA is a binder of plastics that strengthen the end product in this application. BPA in and of itself is not the enemy; how it is used is the issue that should be addressed and this is being done throughout the world as we speak. The development of this chemical for its myriad of uses enhances much of what we enjoy today and to ban it outright is irresponsible and needless. In many instances, there is no safer alternative and I, along with the scientific community believe it is more prudent to take the necessary time and complete the scientific testing on new alternatives than to simply scrap a known for the potential harm of unknowns. And many of the negative claims are simply untrue.</p>
<p>What actually has occurred and is posing a threat to a multitude of businesses other than the just big, uncaring chemical companies, as they are portrayed to be, is that as the rules are being implemented to manage the well intentioned legislation, another agenda is unfolding. On the pretense of protecting your children, many special interest groups are simply trying to be the first to say they banned a chemical in Maine. They used scare tactics to convince lawmakers to support it &#8211; who doesn&#8217;t want to support a bill to protect our children, right? &#8211; and now that the truth has begun to be realized, they continue to scare consumers in an effort to obtain their true objective, a name for themselves, without regard for the potential harm their results may actually cause. And we don&#8217;t fully know the extent of harm that might be caused because these special interest groups don&#8217;t want to listen to reason, they refuse to accept scientific data that doesn&#8217;t support their agenda and it&#8217;s much easier to execute smear tactics against responsible people trying to do the right thing for all involved than work together to insure we all live in a safer world.</p>
<p>I am no expert, but this subject is near and dear to me simply because I can&#8217;t tolerate subterfuge and outright lies that cause the very confusion and frustration you are experiencing. There is no reason for it and it will ultimately be us, the consumer, who makes the final decision! Consumers are the change-makers and the industries know this. They aren&#8217;t going to be able to sell us something we don&#8217;t want. We need to make our voices heard and demand the truth from both sides, demand that we be given the real facts so that we can make informed decisions for ourselves. It takes time to wade through the bull, but somewhere in the middle of the mess is the truth. </p>
<p>I commend you for your vigilance and hope my humble thoughts expressed here provide a bit of balance in your thinking about this very important issue. I believe the new administration in Maine is doing the responsible thing; looking at issues from both sides and trying to determine the truth. I attended one of the fact-finding meetings this week and left with the belief that the legislators truly wanted to hear from the people. It is our responsibility to speak up and provide them the opportunity to truly serve the needs of all Maine citizens.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>