The EWG found that seventeen members of these seven panels were “employed or funded by the chemical industry or had made public statements that the chemicals they were reviewing were safe. In one example, an Exxon Mobil Corp. employee served on an EPA expert panel responsible for deciding whether ethylene oxide, a chemical manufactured by Exxon Mobil, is a carcinogen.”

From what I could find, these members of these seven boards have not been removed from their positions due to their biased positions.

As stated earlier, the American Chemistry Council complained to the EPA that Deborah Rice’s biased position on banning a chemical had "the perception of a potential conflict of interest.”

If so, then these seventeen biased members (who are biased on not banning similar chemicals) should also be viewed (under the EPA's handbook for scientific peer reviewers within advisory committees) as having a “conflict of interest” and a “lack [of] impartiality.”

Since these seventeen members are biased in their viewpoints, then they should be removed from their position, just like Rise was removed.

What is appropriate for one side is also just as appropriate for the other side.

It seems to me that one side has more power than the other side. If Deborah Rice is found to be biased and is removed from an EPA safety board, then these other members should be removed, too. Both sides should be treated the same way. These actions reek of inappropriateness.

Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at EWG, stated, “This is clear evidence of a blatant double standard where, the interests of the chemical industry come before the public’s health. The government removes top scientists from positions because they express concerns over potential health risks from industrial chemicals – at the same time leaving dozens of scientists with direct ties to the chemical industry on review panels – something is very wrong.”  [EWG article]

Houlihan continues, “Under this logic the only people eligible to sit on science advisory panels at EPA are individuals that have never uttered a single remark or written a single word expressing concerns over the chemical in question, or people with financial ties to the chemical industry. This bias in favor of the chemical industry places our most vulnerable populations at even greater risk from chemical exposure.”

I’ve always been told that scientists need to have an unbiased view when performing an experiment in order not to sway the results one way or the other. They should also be unbiased when reviewing chemicals for the EPA.

Even though personal or professional viewpoints are present, they should not be considered when reviewing the appropriateness of chemicals. Only the facts should be considered, and a decision made with no biases or prejudices.

The chemical industry needs to be unbiased with regards to reviewing the safety of products. It is in their best interest to be manufacturing only products approved in an unbiased manner by the EPA.

The other side, the environmentalists, also needs to be unbiased with regards to reviewing EPA products. There is no reason to ban a product that is really safe based on perceptions, opinions, guesswork, and hearsay.

It works both ways. If Rice is biased in her viewpoints and is not performing her job in an unbiased way, then she should be removed. But, if other members are also biased in their actions, then they should be removed, too.

Of course, that is difficult when you are employed with one side. If you vote in favor of the other side (whether it is pro or con), you job is in danger of being discontinued.

If a chemical is found to be dangerous by an independent (unbiased) committee, then maybe a chemical company is better off not to be manufacturing it so as to not to endanger the health and safety of the public and come under risk of lawsuits and large monetary damage suits brought before it.

If a chemical is found to be safe by a non-independent (biased) committee, and then found later to be dangerous, then the safety and health of the public is unnecessarily at risk. The integrity of the EPA is also at risk from such inappropriate actions.

The EPA should not be swayed by either side. It should remain an independent agency of the federal government, not in the grips of lobbyists on any side of any issue.

The EPA should find members of both sides of the issue that will decide the safety or dangerousness of chemicals based only on the facts and not let their biases interfere with the decision. And, companies and organizations on both sides should respect those decisions and not jeopardize a person’s job based on those decisions.

We need logic, common sense, unbiasedness, and integrity when making such decisions.

Dishonesty, biasedness, and lack of respect and integrity have no part in making decisions that will affect millions of people.

Just remember back at companies that have made bad decisions with respect to the public’s health and safety or products that were used deceptively:

The entire tobacco industry (cigarettes),

Enron (accounting fraud in the energy industry),

Exxon (oil dumped by the tanker “Exxon Valdez” off of Alaska),

“Agent Orange,”

“Silicone breast implants,” and

“Ephedra” weight loss product.

A myriad of products are deceptively advertised on television and other mass media sources each and every day.

We need unbiased people reviewing the safety, effectiveness, and integrity of our goods and services. If we don’t, we will continue to manufacture and use dangerous products and the safety and health of people will be compromised.

On Thursday May 24th, 2007, the Maine Senate voted 29-5 to support a bill that would phase out the toxic flame retardant known as “deca,” in favor of safer alternatives. The bill, "An Act to Protect Pregnant Women and Children from Toxic Chemicals Released into the Home", was approved by the Maine House on May 16, 2007. [Natural Resources Council of Maine: "Maine Legislature Voes to Ban Toxic "Deca" Flame Retardant"]

The European Union banned deca-BDE on July 1, 2006. [Washington Toxic Coalition: "Widely Used Toxic Flame Retardant Banned in Televisions and Computers Sold in Europe”]

Please decide for yourself. Read up on deca. Do a Web search on “deca flame retardant.”