There’s a new bill proposed to ban phosphates from your dishwashing detergents here in Massachusetts, Senate Bill 536, proposed by Pamela Resor of Acton. For background, nitrogen and phosphates are two of the major culprits in coastal and aquatic pollution. Having grown up near the Chesapeake Bay and lived near Lake Erie, I’ve followed what a big deal these nutrients are in creating aquatic pollution. I was shocked to notice recently that I couldn’t find a dishwashing detergent that didn’t wasn’t 4-9% phosphates by weight in my local grocery store.
A little digging showed that while phosphates were banned from laundry products long ago (in the 80’s), the move to ban them from dishwashing detergents is new. There’s a national movement afoot that Forbes reports on to correct this problem (Maryland and Washington state leading the way), and in-state activists near Assabet River are concerned about eutrophication problems from phosphates as well and have a nice site describing this bill and comparing detergent phosphate content.
This is a no-brainer bill, Seventh Generation and Trader Joes and other companies have been making phosphate free dishwasher products for up to a decade. From a cape perspective, coastal pollution has serious economic implications to say the least. Yet my local paper, the Falmouth Enterprise says there “appears to be little interest on Beacon Hill” about the bill, although the article also quotes Matthew Patrick of Falmouth as saying it has a good chance of passing. The Cape Cod Times just put out an editorial on the bill. And the CCT as well as the Assabett River folks encourage people to write the committee chairman Sen. Steven Panagiotakos of the the Mass Senate Committee on Ways and Means to support the bill. It may not be glamorous, but this bill needs to pass.
…the fancy name for what the Italian farmers did along the Po River valley to kill off the Adriatic Sea, and for what the American farmers along the Mississippi River are doing to kill the Gulf of Mexico: over-fertilizing. The fertilizer run-off causes increases in aqueous plant life, which sucks out oxygen from the water, which, in turn, kills off fish and shellfish. It eventually leads to putrification, as the plant life eventually dies out–also from the lack of oxygen.
<
p>
On the subject matter of the post, two points. One, I had believed that phosphates had been banned from detergents for several decades. I don’t know about dishwashing detergents, but certainly for clotheswashing detergents. I have no information about nitrogen in detergents.
<
p>
Two, I question whether a per-state ban would pass federal constitutional muster. I suspect that any ban would have to be at the federal (EPA) level.
It’d be a ban on selling the product within the state lines. That doesn’t interfere with interstate commerce… and since dishwasher detergent sold within the state is almost certainly used within the state, and hence ends up in waterways within the state… why not?
…on the constitutional issue, I’m still dubious.
<
p>
It has long been the case that the federal government can regulate intrastate commerce that may affect interstate commerce. Do a google search for Wickard v. Filburn, and National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., both of which were US Supreme Court decision from the 1930s.
<
p>
As far as I know, the most recent Supreme Court decision on the federal government’s ability to regulate intrastate regulations that might affect commerce is the Raich case. That was the medical marijuana case from California, which didn’t even involve commerce–it was not disputed that the defendants in that case were not putting their marijuana into even intrastate commerce.
<
p>
Two points. One, the only constitutional issue on the per-state phosphate ban is whether the federal government’s environmental regulation regime could be read as to preclude state standards. It could go either way, since a determination by a federal to regulate or not to regulate can be–and has been–a determination that states cannot regulate.
<
p>
Two, you are incorrect in your assertion that a state’s forbidding the sale of phosphate-containing detergents does not interfere with interstate commerce. It such a ban would outlaw the importation of phosphate-containing detergents from other states, which is a clear interference with interstate commerce.
you just couldn’t retail it here.
I think raj’s argument is likely to be used by the Bush DOJ, who are corporate hacks.
<
p>
Still, it’s worth the effort to contact our Reps and Senators to pass it.
…but you might want to go to law school if you want to understand the constitutional issues.
are often up for debate. Courts can surprise us.
<
p>
One side might take up the argument you’ve provided, raj.
<
p>
But the other side might point out that California banned the sale of automobile with emissions below CA standards.
<
p>
A clever legal team might be able to convince a judge that Massachusetts, in the interest of water quality, could ban the sale of detergents with high levels of phosphates because California banned a kind of car for the interest of air quality.
has already banned it, along with a few other states, mentioned in the “national movement” link.
…that purports to ban the substance in dishwashing detergents sold in Washington state after July, 2010. That doesn’t mean that the ban would be upheld in federal court if the detergent companies chose to challenge the ban on constitutional grounds. Apparently, the companies haven’t chosen to do so–yet.
<
p>
However, if the companies are unable to come up with a phosphate-free alternative by July 2010, I could foresee a constitutional challenge to the Washington state law.
really banged up my knee. But, after excusing myself, I asked him about this. He knew exactly what I was talking about, and seemed confident that the ban would go through pretty easily. Didn’t mention a time frame.
And stomv, kneepads aren’t just for roller derby any more. 🙂