Few things are more frightening than dangerous chemicals that are everywhere, invisible, almost unpronounceable and near-impossible to spell. Few things are more difficult to legislate and regulate, too.

Maine is one of 29 states considering, or enacting, laws to control presumably harmful chemicals in children’s products, such as phthalates (pronounced “thah-lates”), which are chemical compounds that make plastics pliable.

Prolonged exposure to them – especially by children – is purported to cause serious developmental problems, particularly in the hormonal systems of young males. We say “purported” because great debate exists over whether the chemicals are as harmful as feared.

Some experts say chemicals are a serious problem. Others say they are not, and claim concerns are based on irrational fears. This makes for complex lawmaking. Without clear consensus, legislators must make the political choice of siding with ecological advocates or business. This is a common conundrum, but this debate has a vulnerable victim: children.

In the past, Maine has tackled chemicals case-by-case, like arsenic, mercury, or the recent ban of the industrial flame-retardant Deca, which was subject of a legislative battle last year. We supported the ban, because the evidence supported Deca’s harm.

LD 2048 abandons this measured approach, and empowers the Department of Environmental Protection to catalog harmful chemicals, and compel makers of children’s and consumer goods to use non-harmful substitutes.

Other industrial and manufacturing entities would be exempt from the law.

The entity with the real jurisdictional authority to do this, the Environmental Protection Agency, is standing on the sidelines of this issue. This is why Maine and 28 other states are pursuing laws: The federal government hasn’t budged.

Advocates hope this legislation, combined with others across the nation, will force the recalcitrant EPA into action. Two sizable governments, California and the European Union, have already banned phthalates from products.

In filling the vacuum of EPA inaction, though, states shouldn’t co-opt federal responsibilities. LD 2048 contains laudable consumer protections, but goes too far by proposing to extend DEP rules onto out-of-state manufacturers.

Allowing DEP to evaluate the harm of chemicals in a broad array of children’s and consumer goods is fine policy. The state should inform residents about dangers, and help them make informed decisions about their purchasing.

We support LD 2048’s aims in this regard: Developing a list of “priority” chemicals, sharing this information among states, and compelling manufacturers to disclose when these chemicals are present in their products sold in Maine.

These are needed, common-sense consumer protections, especially with a silent EPA.

But it is beyond Maine’s authority to extend its laws onto manufacturers beyond its borders. There must be better ways to rustle EPA from its slumber, and make it recognize the potential dangers of these chemicals.