Public health advocates warn that the Trump administration has stacked a top chemical safety board with scientists aligned with industry interests, alleging financial conflicts that could undermine public protections.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) reviews research on dozens of toxic substances.
A coalition of advocacy groups filed comments alleging at least 13 proposed appointees have conflicts related to chemicals under review.
Critics say these appointments aim to provide scientific cover for a broader deregulation campaign targeting national toxic chemical protections.
Appointees with Industry Ties
Among the appointees is Wade Barranco, an employee of Lyondell Chemical Company.
In 2024, his employer released nearly 1 million pounds of chemicals likely slated for SACC review, including acetaldehyde, benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and styrene.
Public health groups argue that appointee participation in such reviews may be illegal, citing federal law requiring the SACC to be “both balanced and free of members who have actual or perceived conflicts of interest.”
Erik D Olson, senior strategic director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the appointees “mouthpieces for the chemical industry, or consulting firms bought and paid for by the chemical companies.”
Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist with Public Employees for Responsibility, warned the board will “rubber-stamp everything” and “give them cover for bad science.”
The coalition reviewed EPA databases to identify companies making or releasing chemicals scheduled for SACC review, linking appointees to firms that stand to profit from upcoming decisions.
Nominee Michael Dourson, an industry-aligned scientist, led a 2024 effort to undo Biden EPA limits on PFAS in water.
He previously worked for the EPA but left to found Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), described by critics as an industry-friendly research shop.
Trump nominated Dourson to oversee chemical safety in 2017, but he withdrew after failing to secure Republican support.
Critics alleged he ran a “science for sale” operation allowing the American Chemistry Council to edit papers; Dourson cited procedural reasons for his withdrawal.
Dourson did not answer questions from The Guardian but shared Tera’s funding page, calling it a “science-neutral group.”
The new report states chemical makers paid him to work on substances SACC will review, including tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), acrylonitrile, styrene, and naphthalene.
His TBBPA work, funded by the American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance, contradicted the best available science on reproductive toxicity and developmental harms, the report claims.
Sarah Vogel of the Environmental Defense Fund said Dourson's appointment “is the definition of a conflict of interest,” citing his career taking money from tobacco and chemical companies to undermine public health protections.
Consultant Robinan Gentry chairs the board. Gentry works for Ramboll, an industry-aligned group that regularly attacks chemical regulations.
The EPA stated that some issues raised could be viewed as general scientific expertise gained through prior employment, grants, or consulting, and that past industry work does not disqualify someone under federal law.
Olson disputed the agency's stance, saying, “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.”
