Does ExxonMobil have your senator’s ear?

Facebooktwitterpinterest

If you live in Louisiana, the answer is yes. But even if you
don't, you might want to chat with the 5441_10151318977841744_40000980_npublic officials you voted into office.

We see a lot of chemical industry shenanigans in our
legislative efforts to protect people from toxic chemicals, both in Washington
and in statehouses. But this is too much:

Sen. David Vitter, a Republican from Louisiana, last year
opposed the Safe Chemicals Act, and pledged to write his own bill on chemical regulations. Based on reports of
who he's been meeting with—Dow Chemical, ExxonMobil—and who he's not—no health
or environmental groups, to our knowledge—this bill promises to be less about
protecting people from toxic chemicals than about protecting chemical companies
from regulation. 

Now Sen. Vitter is trying to drum up bipartisan support for
his "Pro-Chemicals Act." If you're not sure where your senators stand
on chemicals policy reform, now's the time to ask.

We suspect Sen. Vitter's bill will be introduced around the
same time as Sen. Lautenberg reintroduces the Safe Chemicals Act—a classic case
of strategic confusion. But make no mistake: the Lautenberg bill is the one
that protects our health.

In fact, a recent federal advisory committee report on
breast cancer
points to key elements of the Safe
Chemicals Act—safety standards that protect human health (and follow
recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics), required safety
reviews of new chemicals by manufacturers, action on chemicals found to be
toxic—in its recommendations for breast cancer prevention.

By contrast, Sen. Vitter has gone on record opposing both
the safety standard proposed in the Safe Chemicals Act and safety reviews for
new chemicals.

Email or call your senator's office now and ask him or her to steer clear of Sen. Vitter's bad bill and instead support
Sen. Lautenberg's Safe Chemicals Act. ExxonMobil and Sen. Vitter don't speak
for us.

Facebooktwitterpinterest

Leave a Comment

Give us a sign that you're human * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.