The Trump administration has stacked a top chemical safety board with industry-aligned scientists who have financial conflicts of interest and stand to profit from deregulation, according to public health advocates. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) is set to review research on dozens of toxic chemicals during the new members’ terms. A coalition of public health advocacy groups alleges that at least 13 proposed Trump appointees are likely conflicted on the chemicals that will be reviewed.
Conflicts of Interest Alleged
The appointment of these individuals, critics warn, is designed to provide scientific justification for the EPA’s broader campaign to dismantle protections against toxic chemicals. Among the appointees is Wade Barranco, employed by Lyondell Chemical Company, which in 2024 released nearly 1 million pounds of chemicals likely to be reviewed by the SACC, including acetaldehyde, benzene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, and styrene.
Public health groups argue that the appointees’ participation in reviews where they have a conflict could be illegal, pointing to federal law and EPA guidelines stating that the SACC must be “both balanced and free of members who have actual or perceived conflicts of interest or an appearance of a loss of impartiality.”
Industry Mouthpieces
Erik D. Olson, senior strategic director for health at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said it was “clear why they were put on the committee.” He described them as “mouthpieces for the chemical industry, or consulting firms bought and paid for by the chemical companies.”
The SACC comprises 20-23 experts appointed every three years by the EPA administrator. It peer-reviews EPA science and scrutinizes chemical risk analyses that underpin regulatory decisions. While the SACC typically includes experts from across the scientific community, the new board is heavily tilted toward industry.
Rubber-Stamping Bad Science
Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the industry-aligned SACC will likely ensure that scientific research supporting industry positions is used and “will just rubber-stamp everything.” She added, “It will give them cover for bad science.”
For its report, the public health coalition reviewed the EPA’s chemical data reporting database and Toxics Release Inventory, identifying which companies were making or releasing chemicals that the SACC will review. They then linked proposed appointees to those companies, showing concretely which appointees and their employers likely stand to profit from SACC decisions.
Michael Dourson’s Controversial Nomination
Another nominee is Michael Dourson, an industry-aligned scientist who in 2024 led an operation to undo Biden EPA PFAS water limits. He once worked for the EPA but left to set up Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), which critics characterize as a “one-stop shop” for industry-friendly research. In 2017, Trump nominated Dourson to oversee the EPA’s chemical safety division, but he withdrew after failing to get enough Republican support, partly because critics alleged he ran a “science for sale” operation. Dourson has said he withdrew for procedural reasons.
The new report states Dourson has been paid by chemical makers or industry groups to work on chemicals the SACC will likely review, including tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), acrylonitrile, styrene, and naphthalene. His work on TBBPA, funded by the American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance, contradicted “the best available science” on reproductive toxicity and harms to developing children, the report claims.
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 added, “The appointment of Michael Dourson, who 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, is the definition of a conflict of interest.”
EPA Response and Critics’ Rebuttal
The EPA said in a statement that some issues claimed as conflicts could be viewed as “general scientific expertise gained through prior employment, grants, or consulting.” The agency stated, “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 disagreed, 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. 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.”
