A federal panel investigating the safety of bisphenol A has been irredeemably compromised, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report has made clear, which leaves the U.S. Food and Drug Administration with no choice but to replace the committee and its chairman to ensure credibility.

The problem is a $5 million donation from retired medical supply manufacturer and longtime regulatory critic Charles Gelman. That money flowed to the University of Michigan Risk Science Center, run by Martin Philbert, around the same time Philbert was named chairman of the FDA panel investigating the chemical. In an interview with the Journal Sentinel, Gelman's biases were clear: Bisphenol A is "perfectly safe," he said, and concerns were fanned by "mothers' groups and others who don't know the science."

But it's Gelman who doesn't know — or chooses to ignore — the science. A Journal Sentinel review last year of 258 research papers showed that the vast majority found bisphenol A to be harmful to laboratory animals. The papers that did not find such were mostly those funded by the chemical industry.

Bisphenol A is used in many products, ranging from baby bottles to dental sealants. Studies have linked it to cancer, heart disease, obesity, reproductive failures and hyperactivity in lab animals.

Gelman made his views clear to Philbert in "several conversations," he said. Philbert denied this.

Philbert didn't disclose the donation to the FDA, which didn't learn of it until questioned by Journal Sentinel reporters.

The public deserves an unbiased answer, one based on science alone. Philbert cannot render such a verdict, and neither can the committee he helped select, which is scheduled to rule later this month.

Before that happens, the FDA should replace this group and start over. And this time, this supposed watchdog should pay closer attention to the entanglements of its appointees.