Coalition for Chemical Safety Blog
Distractions from the Mission
Yesterday, The Huffington Post featured a post authored by Holly Lohuis of the Ocean Futures Society (OFS), who claimed she was “duped” into joining the Coalition for Chemical Safety. I responded to Ms. Lohuis’ post directly and would like to post my response in this space as well.
As Executive Director of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, I applaud Holly Lohuis for her commitment to our environment and for highlighting the fight to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. I do want to take issue with her critique however.
CCS is very clear on its website about its principles. The Coalition for Chemical Safety is for a comprehensive yet balanced reform of our nation’s chemical safety laws.
We believe the law should be such that protecting public safety is its top priority. The EPA should have the power to determine chemical safety and restrict chemicals that are deemed not safe for use as intended.
It also means, however, that the law should promote the kind of chemical innovation that leads to better solar cells (powered by chemically based films), electric cars (powered by chemically based batteries), more powerful microchips (etched by chemical compounds) and so much more that makes America a technology leader. It should also promote the American jobs those chemical innovations provide, rather than sending them overseas.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety is also very clear on who its members are – ranging from large trade associations (yes, including the American Chemistry Council) to small businesses and individuals across the country. They’re all listed on our website. No one is duped.
If Holly Lohuis is fighting for a law that protects public safety while preserving American innovation and supporting American jobs, she may not be a CCS member but she shares our goals.
Furthermore, Ms. Lohuis’ post was picked up by Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund on his blog, and I took the opportunity to respond on his post as well to clarify a few things.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety did not approach OFS to join. In fact, OFS approached the Coalition and signed up as a member via our website. As is often our practice, a representative of the Coalition contacted OFS and very clearly stated who we were, who our members were and what we were about.
After hearing us out, OFS opted to withdraw its membership.
In other words, the Coalition was open and transparent and lost a member for it, and that is fine with us. That in no way comports with my definition of someone who was “duped.” In fact, it is quite the opposite.
What this kind of soap opera has to do with the urgent business of reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, I do not know. If you agree that reform is needed, and you agree that it must protect public safety, promote American innovation and preserve American jobs, then you agree with the Coalition – irrespective of what group you choose to join.
March 24, 2010 at 2:44 pm | TSCA Modernization, TSCA Reform | No comment You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
-
Share This
