A plaintiffs' law firm is calling for changes to how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency manages industry ties among officials and evaluates manufacturer-funded scientific research, arguing that the practices can undermine public confidence in chemical-safety decisions.

Los Angeles-based Wisner Baum LLP said Sept. 14 that the EPA's use of officials with previous industry connections and scientific studies funded by chemical manufacturers raises questions about the independence of regulatory decisions. The firm's position comes as EPA continues to use its Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) to peer review chemical risk assessments under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

EPA describes SACC as its primary scientific peer-review mechanism for TSCA chemical assessments and says the committee provides independent scientific advice on risk assessments, methodologies and pollution-prevention approaches. The agency requires prospective members to disclose financial interests, including employment and research support, and evaluates those disclosures for potential conflicts of interest or an appearance of a loss of impartiality.

Wisner Baum cited a March 2026 letter from Sens. Adam Schiff and Jeff Merkley that called for EPA chemical-safety officials with previous industry relationships to extend their recusals and limit communications with former employers and clients. According to the firm, the senators cited EPA calendar records showing meetings with representatives of at least 50 chemical and pesticide companies or industry associations between February and May 2025.

The firm also cited research on industry-funded studies, including a 2016 systematic review that examined study sponsorship and potential bias in animal studies of atrazine exposure. Wisner Baum argues that regulators' reliance on manufacturer-funded research can create additional questions about the independence of the evidence used in chemical-safety decisions.

The firm's release points to litigation involving Monsanto and the herbicide glyphosate as an example of its concerns. Wisner Baum cited documents produced during litigation involving Roundup, as well as a 2000 study on glyphosate that was retracted in 2025. The firm also referenced a 2022 Ninth Circuit decision that vacated the human-health portion of an EPA glyphosate registration-review decision and remanded the matter to the agency.

EPA is currently reevaluating glyphosate. The agency says it is updating its human-health risk assessment and expects to complete that work in late 2026. EPA also said in August that it had released the results of a comprehensive open-literature search for public comment as part of the reevaluation.

Wisner Baum is calling for longer or permanent recusal periods for officials with chemical-industry ties, disclosure of communications with regulated companies, broader access for independent scientists and public-health organizations, and independent review of safety decisions that rely heavily on manufacturer-funded research. The firm also called for increased federal funding for independent toxicology research and greater public access to data submitted by manufacturers for pesticide registrations and chemical approvals.

Why it Matters

The issue has direct relevance to chemical manufacturers because EPA's scientific reviews can influence how chemicals are assessed and regulated under TSCA and other federal laws. In 2026, SACC has already reviewed or is reviewing chemicals including 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, TBBPA, ethylene dibromide and trans-1,2-dichloroethylene.

The concerns also echo Chemical Processing Editor-in-Chief Traci Purdum's Aug. 3 editorial, “Science For Sale,” which examined industry ties among SACC members and the implications for confidence in chemical-safety reviews. Purdum subsequently clarified that the column's focus was narrower than an accusation that the chemical industry is corrupt: Federal law and EPA guidelines require SACC to operate without conflicts of interest.

The discussion comes as EPA continues to emphasize independent peer review in its chemical assessments. In June, the agency said SACC's review of a draft D4 risk evaluation identified opportunities to make the assessment more complete and that the committee's comments would be considered alongside public comments in developing the final evaluation.