Key facts
- Public health advocates accuse Trump administration officials of appointing industry-aligned scientists to the EPA's Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC).
- These appointees allegedly have financial conflicts of interest and stand to profit from deregulation.
- At least 13 proposed appointees are believed to have conflicts regarding chemicals scheduled for review.
- Critics suggest the appointments aim to provide scientific backing for the EPA's deregulation agenda.
- Appointees include Wade Barranco, employed by Lyondell Chemical Company, and Michael Dourson, who leads a research group funded by industry.
- The EPA maintains that prior industry experience does not inherently disqualify individuals from serving on the committee.
Public health advocates have accused officials from the Trump administration of appointing scientists with significant financial conflicts of interest to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC). These appointees, critics allege, are aligned with the chemical industry and stand to profit from deregulation, potentially compromising the board's ability to provide impartial scientific reviews.
The SACC is responsible for peer-reviewing EPA science and scrutinizing chemical risk analyses that inform regulatory decisions. Advocates claim that at least 13 proposed appointees have conflicts related to the dozens of toxic chemicals the committee is scheduled to review. This move, they argue, is intended to provide scientific justification for the EPA's broader efforts to dismantle environmental protections.
Among the individuals cited is Wade Barranco, an employee of Lyondell Chemical Company, which reportedly released nearly one million pounds of chemicals likely to be reviewed by the SACC during his term. Another nominee, Michael Dourson, leads Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), a group critics describe as a provider of industry-friendly research. Dourson previously had a nomination to oversee the EPA’s chemical safety division withdrawn in 2017 amid allegations of running a "science for sale" operation.
Public health groups assert that the participation of these appointees in reviews where they have conflicts could be illegal, citing federal law and EPA guidelines that mandate a balanced committee free from members with actual or perceived conflicts of interest or an appearance of a loss of impartiality. Erik D. Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that the appointees are "mouthpieces for the chemical industry." Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist, expressed concern that the industry-aligned board would "just rubber-stamp everything" and provide "cover for bad science."
The EPA, however, stated that issues raised by the public health groups might be viewed as "general scientific expertise gained through prior employment, grants, or consulting." The agency emphasized that prior industry affiliation does not automatically constitute a conflict of interest or disqualify individuals from serving as Special Government Employees. Olson countered that this situation places "the fox" in control of "the hen house," suggesting that independent voices will be absent from the EPA's toxicological oversight.