Wisner Baum Calls for Stronger Barriers Between the EPA and the Chemical Industry
The revolving door between the EPA and chemical manufacturers has persisted for decades, across administrations of both parties. Wisner Baum is calling for tighter limits on personnel moves, industry access and corporate-funded science that skew chemical regulation.
LOS ANGELES, Sept. 14, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- The EPA cannot credibly protect the public from dangerous chemicals when its officials keep moving between the agency and the industries it regulates, according to Wisner Baum LLP.
"The question is not whether someone with industry experience understands chemical regulation," said Michael Baum, attorney and senior partner at Wisner Baum. "The question is whether the public can trust decisions made by officials who recently represented or worked for the companies that benefit from those decisions. The EPA must answer to the people exposed to these chemicals, not the industries selling them."
A Revolving Door Spanning Administrations
Chemical-company executives, attorneys and lobbyists move into senior regulatory posts, while former EPA officials go on to work for manufacturers, consulting firms and trade associations that lobby the agency. The pattern has held under both Republican and Democratic administrations, which is why Wisner Baum considers regulatory capture a structural problem rather than a partisan one.1
Research reviewed by Wisner Baum found that seven of the nine directors of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs who did not retire immediately after their tenure went on to work for the pesticide industry, including at Monsanto, DuPont and Scotts Miracle-Gro.1
In March 2026, Sens. Adam Schiff and Jeff Merkley urged four EPA chemical-safety officials to extend their recusals indefinitely and avoid communications with former employers and clients.2
The senators pointed to records showing EPA appointees met with representatives of at least 50 chemical and pesticide companies or industry associations between February and May 2025 — while their disclosed calendars showed no meetings with public-health or environmental organizations.2
"Access shapes outcomes," Baum said. "When industry representatives have a seat at the table while independent scientists, exposed communities, and public-health advocates do not, the regulatory process becomes structurally skewed before a final decision is ever announced."
Those officials had previous ties to the American Chemistry Council, the American Soybean Association, Syngenta and Scotts Miracle-Gro. The senators argued that standard recusal periods aren't long enough to keep former employers and clients from benefiting from EPA decisions.2
Industry-Funded Science Compounds the Problem
The same revolving door shapes the scientific record regulators rely on. Manufacturers frequently fund or supply the studies that support their products' safety, and that evidence can end up in EPA risk assessments and registration decisions — which manufacturers then cite as independent confirmation, even though the underlying research originated with the company.3
"The revolving door and industry-funded science reinforce each other," Baum said. "The company helps create the evidence, people with industry ties help determine how much weight that evidence receives, and the resulting approval is presented to the public as an independent government judgment."
Wisner Baum's Roundup litigation illustrates how that dynamic plays out in practice. Internal Monsanto documents produced in that litigation revealed the company's involvement in scientific publications, its efforts to discredit independent researchers, and its communications with EPA officials.4
The pattern goes back to Roundup's original approval. Fraudulent animal studies conducted at Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories helped support that approval, and the toxicologist who ran them, Paul Wright, was later convicted of fraud and served prison time after Monsanto paid for his defense.5
A widely cited 2000 study funded by Monsanto that supported Roundup's safety was retracted in 2025, after years of concern about undisclosed company involvement, questions about the study authors' independence, and reliance on Monsanto-generated data.6
After the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, as a probable human carcinogen in 2015, internal Monsanto documents describe two strategies the company pursued to counter that finding: ghostwriting an expert review disputing IARC's conclusion, and lobbying Congress to cut IARC's funding.4
At the same time, EPA scientists and an EPA-convened scientific advisory panel raised concerns about the agency's application of its carcinogen-risk guidelines.8 Separately, an internal Monsanto email reported that EPA official Jess Rowland contacted the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) about its planned glyphosate review and said, as relayed by Monsanto official Dan Jenkins, "If I can kill this I should get a medal." The available email supports the claim about the separate ATSDR review; it does not, by itself, establish that Rowland blocked EPA scientists from issuing their own findings.7
"The Monsanto Papers showed how chemical-industry influence can shape both the scientific record and regulatory decision-making in the United States," Baum said. "From fraudulent animal studies at Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories and Monsanto-linked ghostwriting of scientific reviews, to Monsanto's communications with EPA official Jess Rowland, who was described in the documents as helping to block or delay an agency review, the documents revealed years of back-door machinations. The consequences did not stop at EPA. The Ninth Circuit later rejected EPA's glyphosate cancer analysis and ordered the agency to revisit it, illustrating how compromised or improperly conducted regulatory reviews can reverberate through federal policy and the courts."
On June 17, 2022, the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of EPA's glyphosate interim registration review decision and remanded it for further analysis and explanation, holding that EPA's "not likely to be carcinogenic" determination was not supported by substantial evidence and was inconsistent with parts of the agency's analysis and its own carcinogen-risk guidelines.8 EPA states that it is still updating its evaluation in response to the decision.9 On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Monsanto v. Durnell that federal pesticide law preempts state-law failure-to-warn claims that would require a cancer warning different from the label approved by EPA.10 Wisner Baum maintains that the ruling gives added urgency to an independent, scientifically sound EPA reassessment.
Wisner Baum's Call for Reform
Wisner Baum has long called for permanent or substantially longer recusal periods for officials with chemical-industry ties, full disclosure of communications with regulated companies, balanced access for independent scientists and public-health organizations, and independent review of safety decisions that rely heavily on manufacturer-funded evidence.
"The public should not need cancer victims, subpoenas, and years of litigation to discover that supposedly independent science was shaped behind the scenes," Baum said.
The firm is also calling on Congress to increase funding for independent toxicology research and to require public access to the data manufacturers submit for pesticide registrations and chemical approvals.
"EPA ethics rules should prevent conflicts, not simply manage their appearance," Baum said. "Until the government closes the revolving door and independently verifies the science placed before regulators, the public has every reason to question whether chemical-safety decisions are protecting health or protecting markets."
About Wisner Baum
Wisner Baum is a nationally recognized plaintiffs' law firm with offices across the United States. For decades, the firm has represented individuals harmed by corporate misconduct, dangerous products, environmental exposure, and systemic failures. Wisner Baum is known for its trial experience, investigative rigor, and leadership in complex, high-impact litigation involving some of the world's largest companies. For more information, visit www.wisnerbaum.com
References
1. Millstein, S. (2024, December 16). "How Revolving Door Politics Corrupt Food Systems." Sentient Media. https://sentientmedia.org/revolving-door-politics-food-system/
2. Office of U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley. (2026, March 26). "Sens. Schiff and Merkley Demand Extension of Ethics Guardrails on Trump EPA Chemical Appointees, End to Conflicts of Interest." https://www.merkley.senate.gov/sens-schiff-and-merkley-demand-extension-of-ethics-guardrails-on-trump-epa-chemical-appointees-end-to-conflicts-of-interest/
3. Bero, L., Anglemyer, A., Vesterinen, H., and Krauth, D. (2016). "The Relationship Between Study Sponsorship, Risks of Bias, and Research Outcomes in Atrazine Exposure Studies Conducted in Non-Human Animals: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis." Environment International, 92–93, 597–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.011
4. Wisner Baum. (2019, August 15). "New Release of Monsanto Documents: Monsanto Papers Part III." https://www.wisnerbaum.com/blog/2019/august/new-release-of-monsanto-documents-monsanto-paper/
5. United States v. Keplinger, 776 F.2d 678 (7th Cir. 1985). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/776/678/443220/
6. Williams, G. M., Kroes, R., and Munro, I. C. (2000). "RETRACTED: Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans." Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 31(2), 117–165. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715
7. Internal Monsanto email concerning the planned Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry glyphosate review. (2015, September 16). U.S. Right to Know document archive. https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/ificankillthis.pdf
8. Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 38 F.4th 34 (9th Cir. 2022). https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/06/17/20-70787.pdf
9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026, May 5). "Glyphosate." https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/glyphosate
10. Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, 607 U.S. ___ (2026) (slip op. June 25, 2026). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1068_n7ip.pdf
Media Contact:
Karla Jo Helms
JOTO PR
727-777-4629
www.jotopr.com
SOURCE Wisner Baum
Share this article