Public health groups flag conflicts among EPA chemical-safety appointees

EPA defends appointees’ industry work as impartial expertise

The Trump administration has appointed at least 13 scientists to a key EPA advisory panel who hold financial ties to chemical companies that stand to be affected by the panel’s upcoming reviews, according to a coalition of public health groups that filed formal comments with the agency. The groups said the appointees’ participation in reviews where they have conflicts could violate federal law and the EPA’s own guidelines requiring the committee to be “both balanced and free of members who have actual or perceived conflicts of interest or an appearance of a loss of impartiality.”

The Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals comprises 20 to 23 experts appointed every three years by the EPA administrator. It peer‑reviews the agency’s chemical risk analyses, which underpin decisions on whether to regulate substances. The panel typically includes experts from across the scientific community, including those affiliated with chemical makers, but the public health groups said the new board will be heavily tilted toward industry.

Among the appointees is Wade Barranco, employed by Lyondell Chemical Company. The company released nearly 1 million pounds of chemicals in 2024 that are likely to be reviewed by the committee during his term, including acetaldehyde, benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene and styrene, according to the groups.

The coalition reviewed EPA chemical data reporting and toxics release inventory databases to identify which companies were making or releasing the chemicals the SACC will review. It then cross‑referenced those companies against the publicly available backgrounds of the proposed appointees. “We believe the information we provide in these comments is sufficient to find that actual or potential conflicts of interest or an appearance of a loss of impartiality,” the coalition report states.

Another nominee is Michael Dourson, an industry‑aligned scientist who in 2024 led an effort to try to undo the Biden‑era EPA PFAS water limits, according to the groups. Dourson once worked for the EPA but left to set up Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), a research firm that critics characterize as a “one‑stop shop” for industry‑friendly science. In 2017, Trump nominated Dourson to oversee the EPA’s chemical safety division, but he withdrew his name after failing to secure enough Republican support, in part because his Senate critics alleged he ran a “science for sale” operation that allowed the American Chemistry Council to edit papers. Dourson did not answer questions from the Guardian but sent a link to Tera’s funding page. He has previously called Tera “impartial” and “science‑neutral.”

The committee is chaired by Robinan Gentry, a consultant from Ramboll, an industry‑aligned group that regularly attacks chemical regulations, according to the coalition.

Erik D. Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the appointees are “mouthpieces for the chemical industry, or consulting firms bought and paid for by the chemical companies.” Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist now with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the industry‑aligned committee “will just rubber‑stamp everything” and “give them cover for bad science.”

Sarah Vogel, director of healthy communities for the Environmental Defense Fund, called Dourson’s appointment a “blatant attack on the scientific independence and integrity” of the SACC. She said Dourson “has spent his career at the helm of firms that have taken money from the tobacco industry and dozens of chemical companies to undermine public health protections.”

The EPA said in a statement that some of the issues the groups claim are conflicts could be viewed as “general scientific expertise gained through prior employment, grants, or consulting.” The agency said that “the mere fact that a scientist has previously worked in industry, academia, or for a nonprofit organization is not, under federal law, a conflict of interest, and does not disqualify them from serving as Special Government Employees.”

Olson rejected that defense. “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.