High-paid lobbyists and controversial amendments could doom a bill in the state Legislature aimed at protecting children from lead in toys.

Washington’s proposed “toxic toys” bill would create upper limits for lead, phthalates and cadmium in children’s toys and products. It also would authorize the state Department of Ecology to ban other chemicals deemed harmful.

“There’s some controversy around it, but we’re trying to work out some of the issues,” said Sen. Debbie Regala, D- Tacoma, one of the bill’s sponsors.

Regala said senators expect to hold a floor debate and vote on House Bill 2647 before today’s 5 p.m. deadline for passing nonbudget bills. But with more than six amendments, debating the bill would take up precious time that some lawmakers say could be better spent passing some of the dozens of bills on their list.

Doubts about Washington’s bill simmered even as the Democrat-controlled House passed the bill unanimously: Are phthalates, a plasticizer, really harmful? Is there a way to reduce lead in toys to near zero?

Lawmakers who have worked on the bill say the House passed the measure with the idea that any problems would be addressed in the Senate.

But then the toy industry dispatched three lobbyists, paid a combined $50,000 for three weeks of work, according to reports filed with the Public Disclosure Commission in February.

“The Toy Industry Association advocates reducing levels as low as possible, basing that on achievability and on science and on risk analysis,” said Rob Herriott, a spokesman for the association.

He said the levels proposed in the current bill are not achievable.

AMENDMENTS MIGHT DOOM BILL

Though their lobbyists have had influence on the process, some of the amendments tacked onto the bill might pose a greater threat. Among the most controversial is one added by Sen. Eric Oemig, D-Kirkland, that would require parents to be notified if vaccines given to their children contain thimerosal, a mercury-containing additive once commonly used as a preservative in vaccines.

Critics have alleged a connection between thimerosal and autism, though no conclusive scientific evidence exists. Thimerosal’s use is generally being eliminated or reduced to trace amounts as a precautionary measure, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control.

“Let’s be honest: The underlying bill and the amendment do very much the same thing,” Oemig said, adding that it doesn’t ban thimerosal, but gives parents the right to decide whether they want the vaccines used on their children.

But Nick Federici, who has lobbied in favor of the toxic toys bill, said children’s health advocates have opposed the amendment because they fear it could further erode Washington’s already low vaccination rate for children.

“Between heavy pressure from folks on the other side and the Oemig confusion, it’s put the bill in jeopardy,” Federici said. Without the amendment, he thinks there’s support for the bill.

Oemig, however, said he supports the toys bill regardless of whether it carries his amendment. “I would still vote for it,” he said.

DOES IT GO TOO FAR?

Even without the amendment, there’s disagreement among the majority Democrats over whether the toxic toys bill goes too far.

Sen. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, said the strict limits on chemicals could essentially prevent toy makers from selling toys in the state.

“I don’t think we want to get out there where the industry says, ‘forget Washington,’” he said.

They wouldn’t do that to California, which passed a similar law last year, because they have far more consumers, he added.

He voted against the bill in committee, but has since proposed an amendment that modifies the requirements.

“You might say it’s gutted or watered down, but that’s kind of how the legislative process is supposed to work – especially on one that’s this far-reaching,” Hatfield said. He said his amendment would provide “comprehensive and groundbreaking children’s product safety legislation.”

Herriott, the toy industry spokesman, said Hatfield’s amendment sets more reasonable goals.

“It would put Washington state at the forefront of this issue in a positive way,” Herriott said. He added that, if Washington failed to pass legislation, it could fall back on federal legislation that passed the U.S. Senate on Thursday. The federal proposal, which now goes to the U.S. House, would not be as strict as either Washington’s bill or the amendment proposed by Hatfield.

Federici said Hatfield is acting in the interests of the toy companies.

“I’m not sure that there’s such a thing as too high a standard in toy safety,” Federici said.

Millions of toys that have been recalled in the past year have left state and federal lawmakers looking for ways to eliminate lead from children’s products.

With hours until the deadline, lawmakers’ odds on whether the bill would pass ranged from dismal to hopeful.

If it fails, lawmakers and lobbyists have said they’ll bring it back up in the 2009 legislative session.

“There’s no business or policy reason to add lead to toys,” Federici said.

Niki Sullivan: 360-754-6093

blogs.thenewstribune.com/politics