His Chemical Romance: Tom Udall Teams Up With the Chemical Industry, With Explosive Results
Enviros thought this senator was on their side. Now they accuse him of shilling for the chemical industry.
A lot of environmentalists are mad at Tom Udall. And they're surprised about this.
The Democratic senator from New Mexico has a long and distinguished record as an environmentalist, and two weeks ago he introduced legislation to reform the testing and regulation of chemicals. But his former green allies—including environmentalists, lawmakers, professors, and public health officials—oppose the legislation, and accuse Udall of becoming too cozy with the chemical industry, which spends over $60 million a year to lobby Congress. They claim that Udall is sacrificing public health for chemical-industry profits and that his bipartisan bill, which is cosponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), doesn't protect people from dangerous chemicals, such as asbestos, BPA, and formaldehyde, and, moreover, cripples the regulatory efforts of individual states.
"To be 100 percent candid and direct, [Udall's] bill has been generated by the chemical industry itself," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said at a press conference last Wednesday. Indeed, the chemical industry has been outspoken in its support of Udall. "This bill is the best and only opportunity to achieve a pragmatic, bipartisan solution to reform chemical regulation," said American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley last week in a press release.
Boxer has introduced competing legislation—supported by many environmental groups—that includes provisions that mandate a quicker turnaround time for testing chemicals for safety and grant states more power to regulate chemicals. Her bill is unlikely to win passage; last week, the Republican Senate leadership didn't allow Boxer to present the bill on the floor.
Udall and his allies insist that his bill, with nine Republican and eight Democratic cosponsors, has a chance for success. Udall aide Jennifer Talhelm tells Mother Jones that negotiations between Udall, Vitter, and the chemical industry were often strained and that on at least two occasions Udall's disagreements with industry reps nearly led to a collapse in the talks and no legislation. Supporters of the Udall-Vitter measure contend that the bill would give the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to control or eliminate dangerous chemicals. Its detractors argue that the chemical industry still has the upper hand.
