EPA Demonstrates Proper Judgment

Normally organizations whose titles contain the word "environmental" and "protection" make their way onto my prestigious "List of Objectionable People". I pretty much assume that such groups are in league with America's enemies, be they Communists, hippies, peaceniks, terrorists, Muslim extremists, communist terrorists, hippie extremists, Muslim communists, terrorist peaceniks, or any other mortifying combination of those terms.

But recently the Environmental Protection Agency demonstrated that it was willing to defy the snarling of left-wing lunatics, and start doing its job objectively and without influence.

Under pressure from the chemical industry, the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment.

Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry Council, the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a top-ranking EPA official that she was biased.

If there's one thing that scientists should be, it's objective. We conservatives understand that. That's why when a situation like this arises, we feel obligated to speak out. For too long our environmental policy has been shaped by the misguided notion that the industry should be wholly removed from the process of determining whether their products are potentially harmful to the American people. As if they have something to gain from manipulating the process in order to mask dangerous elements of their products.

The chemical, a brominated compound known as deca, is used in high volumes worldwide, largely in the plastic housings of television sets.

Rice, an award-winning former EPA scientist who now works at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, has studied low doses of deca and reported neurological effects in lab animals. Last February, around the time the EPA panel was convened, Rice testified before the Maine Legislature in support of a state ban on the compound because scientific evidence shows it is toxic and accumulating in the environment and people.

Chemical industry lobbyists say Rice's comments to the Legislature, as well as similar comments to the media, show that she is a biased advocate who has compromised the integrity of the EPA's review of the flame retardant.

Exactly. How are we supposed to trust the panels findings when they are chaired by individuals who have actively studied the effects of the chemical in question? It is absurd that we should expect the EPA to conduct a fair and unbiased investigation into deca when their scientists release scientific findings showing that it has the potential to cause serious damage to living organisms.

EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called "the perception of a potential conflict of interest." Under the agency's handbook for advisory committees, scientific peer reviewers should not "have a conflict of interest" or "appear to lack impartiality."

Luckily this system has its checks and balances. When the American Chemistry Council, a lobbying group representing the chemical industry, felt that their product might be getting a raw deal, they demanded that Rice be removed from the panel.

Think of it kind of like the Executive and the Legislative branches of our government, with
the EPA as Congress and the ACC as the President. When Congress looks like they might not agree with everything the President wants them to, the President just starts removing senators he doesn't like. This ensures that the whole process runs as smoothly as possible, and that there are no unnecessary conflicts of interest.

Because the only people truly qualified to determine impartiality in the EPA are the ones who stand to maintain millions in revenue based on their decisions. That's why we call America "The Land of the Free".