The world has benefited immensely from chemistry and chemical manufacturing, so why is there such a negative and antagonistic feeling toward the chemical industry? The mere mention of the word "chemical" in many circles elicits a response of great concerns about dangers to health, environment, community property value, and personal safety. Even if the response were not about those serious concerns, as a minimum there would be at least an unqualified negative comment about foul odors, unsightly landscape, and poorer quality of life anywhere near the location of chemicals manufacturing.

Are such concerns well founded, or are they imagined? What would an unbiased presentation of statistical data say about the true record of the chemical industry in real events that impinged on these major social concerns? Where are the real facts and how can they be obtained for public disclosure? Who can be trusted to publish the information in an unbiased manner?

In this age, where every announcement from a center of authority seems slanted toward some personal agenda, how can credible information be communicated. It is not likely, for obvious reasons, that any spokesman associated with any chemical manufacturer would be considered credible. Likewise, any local politician that speaks out (either in favor or opposed) to the siting of chemical facilies in his district is surely owned either by the opponents or proponents. Both the lawyer defending the chemical firm in an action, and the lawyer presenting the case for the complaint will only disclose data that supports their private agenda and not present all relevant facts. This tainted status extends today even to the most highly respected of society, our doctors, university professors, military commanders, and even our religous leaders. It seems there is no one suitable to carry the message.

In such circumstances, the message will be carried by itself. The public opinion and public attitude will be formed as individuals experience the circumstances, good or bad, and relate these experiences to others. For the chemical industry to be perceived as "good", it must be visibly good in the local community of each chemical facility and in the broader public that uses the products of the industry in their daily lives. This cannot be limited to an external facade, but must exist in every facet of its operations. There must be a true dedication to protection of the environment and reduction to risk of accidents even when these things require large capital investments. There must be full undertanding and disclosure of the hazardous characteristics of a product. There must be an honest concern and real effective implementation for the safety of workers in the facility, even when this means further process research investment or delay in introduction of the process into the plant. For consumer products that are widely distributed and used by the general public not trained and knowledgeable in chemistry, they must be promoted, advertised, and distributed in the most responsible way. Their packaging, directions for use, cautions, and applications must be fully appropriate and drafted strictly to the needs of the consumer.

As an observer of the industry for many years, I believe there are firms that truly practice the principles for being counted as "good". I also believe there are some that do not. For many of these firms, the reasons are typically not unethical standards, but economic limitations. It is expensive to be good and sometimes the cost just cannot be supported. How can we establish a system for helping those firms that want to improve but are limited economically? For the other minority of firms that just do not value those higher standards, how can they be removed from the industry?