A national law firm is renewing pressure over the EPA chemical industry revolving door, saying it undermines trust in pesticide safety decisions. Wisner Baum, a Los Angeles-based plaintiffs’ firm, issued its call for reform on Sept. 14, 2026. The firm says former EPA officials often land jobs with chemical manufacturers. Meanwhile, industry executives frequently move into agency posts. Farmers and ranchers who use EPA-approved row-crop herbicides like glyphosate have a direct stake in this debate. Wisner Baum wants Congress and the agency to tighten rules on who reviews chemical safety.
A Pattern That Spans Both Parties
Wisner Baum says the revolving door between EPA and industry is not new. Officials have shifted from agency jobs to industry posts under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Because the pattern crosses party lines, the firm calls it a structural problem rather than a political one. Research reviewed by Wisner Baum found that seven of nine directors of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs later worked in the pesticide industry. They took jobs at companies including Monsanto, DuPont and Scotts Miracle-Gro.
In March 2026, Sens. Adam Schiff and Jeff Merkley pressed four EPA chemical-safety officials to extend their recusal periods indefinitely. The senators wanted those officials to avoid contact with former employers and clients. Records show EPA appointees met with representatives from at least 50 chemical and pesticide companies between February and May 2025. However, those same officials’ calendars showed no meetings with public-health or environmental groups during that period.
How Industry-Funded Science Shapes EPA Reviews
Michael Baum, a senior partner at Wisner Baum, argues that industry access skews outcomes before regulators announce a final decision. “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.”
Manufacturers often fund or supply the studies that support their own products’ safety. As a result, that research can end up inside EPA risk assessments and registration decisions. Companies then cite those same findings as independent confirmation, even though the evidence originated with the company itself. That dynamic raises broader environmental and public-health questions that industry-funded science leaves unresolved. Baum says the revolving door and industry-funded science reinforce each other because officials with industry ties help decide how much weight that evidence receives.
The Roundup Case and the EPA Chemical Industry Revolving Door
Wisner Baum points to its Roundup litigation as an example of the EPA chemical industry revolving door in practice. Internal Monsanto documents produced during that case revealed the company’s role in shaping scientific publications. The documents also showed Monsanto’s communications with EPA officials.
The pattern traces back to Roundup’s original approval. Fraudulent animal studies conducted at Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories helped support that approval decades ago. The toxicologist who ran those studies was later convicted of fraud and served prison time.
A 2000 study funded by Monsanto that backed Roundup’s safety faced retraction in 2025. Reviewers cited years of concern about undisclosed company involvement and questions about the authors’ independence. After the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015, internal Monsanto records describe a plan to ghostwrite a review disputing that finding. The company also lobbied Congress to cut the research agency’s funding, according to those records.
The fallout reached federal courts, too. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit vacated the human-health portion of EPA’s glyphosate registration decision. Judges found the agency’s cancer determination lacked substantial evidence and conflicted with its own guidelines. The EPA says it is still updating its evaluation in response. Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2026 that federal pesticide law can preempt certain state lawsuits over cancer warning labels. Wisner Baum says that decision makes an independent EPA review even more urgent.
What Wisner Baum Wants Changed
The firm is calling for longer, possibly permanent, recusal periods for officials with chemical-industry ties. It also wants full disclosure of communications between regulators and regulated companies. Additionally, Wisner Baum wants independent scientists and public-health groups to get the same access to regulators that industry representatives currently receive.
“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 asking Congress to increase funding for independent toxicology research. Furthermore, it wants manufacturers’ pesticide registration data made public.
Why the EPA Chemical Industry Revolving Door Matters to Growers
For farmers and ranchers, the fight over the EPA chemical industry revolving door touches agriculture policy decisions that shape which tools they can use each season. Herbicides like glyphosate remain central to row-crop weed control, so any shift in EPA’s review process could affect labels and availability. Growers should watch how Congress responds to calls for longer recusal periods and greater transparency. The outcome could shape how the agency evaluates the next generation of crop-protection products.
Readers can find more details on the firm’s position at Wisner Baum’s website. This story is based on a press release from Wisner Baum LLP.