The Trump administration has loaded a pivotal EPA advisory panel with scientists tied to the chemical industry, raising alarms among public health groups who say the move could gut protections against toxic substances.
The Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, which reviews research on dozens of harmful substances, will include at least 13 appointees with probable conflicts of interest, according to comments filed with the EPA by a coalition of public health organizations. The panel operates as a gatekeeper, peer-reviewing the agency's chemical risk analyses that guide regulatory decisions.
Wade Barranco, employed by Lyondell Chemical Company, represents a concrete example of the concern. The company released nearly 1 million pounds of chemicals in 2024 that the committee will likely evaluate during his term, including acetaldehyde, benzene, and styrene.
The appointees' involvement in reviews where they have financial stakes could violate federal law and EPA guidelines requiring the board to be "both balanced and free of members who have actual or perceived conflicts of interest," the coalition argues.
Erik D Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council cut to the heart of the complaint. "They are mouthpieces for the chemical industry, or consulting firms bought and paid for by the chemical companies," he said.
Michael Dourson, another nominee, carries particular baggage. In 2024, he led efforts to overturn Biden-era water quality limits on PFAS. He runs Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, an organization critics characterize as an industry-friendly shop. In 2017, Trump nominated him to head the EPA's chemical safety division, but he withdrew after Republicans balked, partly over accusations that his firm allowed the American Chemistry Council to edit research papers. Dourson later attributed his withdrawal to procedural issues.
The coalition's analysis linked the proposed appointees and their employers to companies manufacturing or releasing chemicals the committee will review, creating a direct financial incentive structure. Dourson, for instance, has received funding from chemical makers to work on substances including styrene and naphthalene, both slated for the committee's attention.
Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist now with Public Employees for Responsibility, warned of the practical consequence. "The board will just rubber-stamp everything," she said. "It will give them cover for bad science."
The EPA's response downplayed the concern, arguing that prior industry work, academic positions, or consulting relationships do not automatically constitute conflicts of interest under federal law. "The mere fact that a scientist has previously worked in industry, academia, or for a nonprofit organization is not...a conflict of interest," the agency stated.
The committee's chair, Robinan Gentry, is a consultant at Ramboll, a firm known for challenging chemical regulations.
Olson framed the larger picture starkly. "The fox is not guarding the hen house: the fox owns the hen house, and is able to control any theoretical oversight of EPA science," he said. "When you have chemical industry people running the EPA's toxics office, and theoretically independent reviewers have these conflicts, it's pretty clear there won't be independent voices."
Author James Rodriguez: "This isn't subtle: stacking a safety board with people profiting from deregulation is how you justify rolling back protections and calling it science."
Comments