This Earth Day, we’re not celebrating progress; we’re sounding the alarm. In today’s episode, EWG co-Founder and President Ken Cook sits down with Dr. Phil Landrigan and Dr. Adam Gaffney, co-authors of a landmark article in the New England Journal of Medicine that breaks down how the Trump administration’s sweeping environmental rollbacks are threatening the health of every American.
Landrigan is no stranger to these fights. As a young Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doctor in the 1970s, his groundbreaking research on lead poisoning in children helped drive lead out of gasoline and paint. This victory reduced childhood lead poisoning by 95% and raised the IQ of an entire generation.
Gaffney, a pulmonary and critical care physician at Harvard Medical School, has spent his career fighting to protect his patients’ lungs – and now the very protections that keep those lungs healthy are being dismantled one regulation at a time.
Together, the doctors share with Cook all the vital rules that the administration is undoing, who will suffer most, and what it will cost the public in health harms and lives lost – from weakened air quality standards and gutted climate policy, to the quiet destruction of the scientific institutions that keep Americans safe.
Disclaimer: This transcript was compiled using software and may include typographical errors.
Ken: Hi there. I'm Ken Cook and I'm having another episode. On the eve of Earth Day, I'm really thrilled to be joined today by Dr. Phil Landrigan and Dr. Adam Gaffney to discuss their recently published article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “The Dismantling of Environmental Protections, a Grave Threat to America's Health,” that published on March 25th, 2026.
Dr. Philip Landrigan is a pediatrician and a legendary public health physician who directs the global observatory on planetary health at Boston College. A prominent figure in environmental health and guest on this show, Dr. Landrigan spent 15 years at the CDC and is internationally recognized for his decades of research on the health effects of toxic chemicals, pesticides, and pollution, particularly on children.
And it's always worth mentioning because it is so important: in 1976 alongside the late, wonderful, great Dr. Herb Needleman, another longtime friend of EWG, Dr. Landrigan led the US government to mandate the removal of lead from gasoline and paint. That action reduced childhood lead poisoning dramatically in the United States by 95% — that's legendary.
My other guest today is Dr. Adam Gaffney, who's an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, a pulmonary and critical care physician at the Cambridge Health Alliance, a health policy researcher, and a writer and commentator on issues of medicine and policy. His research focuses on national healthcare reform, healthcare equity, and disparities in lung health.
The article was also co-authored by Dr. David Himmelstein, Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, and researcher Sancia Sehdev. This team collectively brings decades of expertise in public health, health equity, and environmental medicine. Now on Earth Day, we like to think we'd be celebrating the progress made in protecting our air, water, and the health of future generations.
Instead, this episode finds us at a deeply troubling moment, one where the very protections that Earth Day was created to champion are being systematically rolled back. Rather than marking another year of progress, Dr. Landrigan, Dr. Gaffney, and their colleagues have felt compelled to sound the alarm, documenting in painstaking detail what is being lost and what it will cost us in human health and lives.
This is not the Earth Day any of us hoped to celebrate this year, but it is one that demands our full attention. Dr. Landrigan and Dr. Gaffney, congratulations to both of you on this paper. One of my frustrations, and I think as public health doctors, it probably is one of your frustrations too, is that the public often doesn't understand the connection of the environment to their health. And so the first step is to get people to recognize that.
But clean air, clean water, pesticide policy, all manner of issues involving climate change, all of these can have very distinctly important, indeed, profound impacts on human health — that are unfortunately tragically being eroded severely in this administration. So let me just start off and ask both of you, what made you take this article on this research project?
Dr. Landrigan: Well, Ken, firstly, let me say how nice it is to be here. It's really great to be to be with you again. I think we go back to the early 1990s when we were working together on pesticides in their hazards to children's health.
Ken: Yeah. I was in high school at the time, if you'll remember. I was.
Dr. Landrigan: You were possibly middle school.
Ken: Otherwise the math would be bad for me right now I think.
Dr. Landrigan: Exactly. But why did, why did we take this on?
Well, this, this is actually the second time we've taken this on. We actually did a similar exercise during the first Trump administration and we tabulated the rollbacks. And we published a paper in The Lancet, which is the world's most widely read medical journal, published outta London, and we calculated that environmental and occupational health rollbacks during Trump one were responsible for, in the neighborhood of 20,000 unnecessary premature deaths per year in the United States.
Most of those deaths were due to increased levels of air pollution. And a smaller but still significant number were due to rollbacks of occupational health and safety safeguards. The administration talks about these rollbacks as freeing industry from the shackles of regulation and about driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion.
What they don't talk about is that those common sense safeguards that they're rolling back actually protect people's health. They save lives and, and speaking as a pediatrician, they especially protect the health of children. We reckoned, Adam and I reckoned, that we needed to shine a light on what was going on.
Dr. Gaffney: You know, for me clinically, I'm a pulmonary and critical care physician, so the lungs are near and dear to what I do each day, and so many of these policies will do harm to, not only the lungs of the patients I treat or adults, but of children whose lungs are still developing and may never achieve the health that they could have had had they not been exposed to, uh, unnecessary levels of pollutants — like soot pollution and so forth.
So it's near and dear to my clinical work. I would also add that sort of, as you said, Ken, it's very easy for a lot of these policies to be implemented with relatively little public knowledge because they’re so complex, because there's so many, because it's a death by a thousand cuts sort of approach.
Whereby even if you do care about the environment, even if you are worried about the cleanliness of our air and water, you might not realize what is happening. You may not realize that polluters are going to be allowed to put more mercury into the air, to put more pollutants in the water, to release more air pollution into the environment.
So that's part of why I wanted to collaborate on this is to actually systematically outline what is happening in the potential risks for Americans.
Ken: And you've, you've really put your finger on something important here. I like to think I keep up as a professional paid environmentalist, but I can't. With all of the changes that are taking place just at EPA, then if you were to add in changes at the Department of Interior, even the Department of Defense, uh, certainly the energy department, all of these changes that have been made in the name of, um, you know, cutting regulation.
What does, uh, Zelin, the EPA administrator, he, his little micro brand is, um, the Great American comeback. That's how he advertises all of his regulatory cuts. But for sure, just keeping up with them is, is difficult. And that was, I think that's part of the plan.
We had an author on David Graham from The Atlantic who wrote a book about Project 2025, and one of the most important elements that was embedded in that, not just the document, but the strategy was to go fast, go quickly, do a lot of things at once so no one can focus for very long on any one impact. And I'm gonna get a little nerdy here, maybe for some listeners, but I encourage everyone to read this article.
It's, it's open source, it's available. Right. There's no paywall. You can get it and read it, and it's written for, you know, a concerned layman. It's not, you don't have to be a scientist to understand the impact of this very thoroughly documented piece, but the, you know, just the, the title Selected Health Effects of Trump Administration, Environmental Policy, Actions and Proposals, and you go through air pollution regulation, power plant regulation, climate change, motor vehicle pollution, water pollution, occupational health.
We've talked to, uh, I've talked to a number of people about different aspects of this, but you've put it all together when you stand back and look at the scope of it. And the, the speed, I mean, we're, we're really just over a year in, right? As public health professionals and, and, and clinicians, what do you make of the overall assault, I think is the only term that can be put, it's, is it, is it literally breathtaking for you as it has been for me?
Dr. Landrigan: Yeah. It's, it's, it's massive, Ken. It's, it's massive. And what we'll do next, the next phase of our work, which is just now getting underway. Is that we will actually do our best to tabulate the toll of disease and death that results from these rollbacks.
So for example, we'll look at how much air pollution increases in each of the 50 states over the next couple of years.
Ken: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: And we know very well from previous research that we and others have conducted, that each increment in air pollution causes more heart attacks, more strokes, more lung cancers, more deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease in adults, in kids, more still births, more premature births, more children with asthma.
We'll tabulate those impacts. There's no way in the world we can ever do a full accounting, but we'll do our best to count how much disease and death is due to, to these rollbacks. And you know, one of my mentors, decades ago when I was working at CDC, told me that statistics are people with the tears wiped off.
And in our articles, we won't be able to tell the stories of individual people. We'll leave that to folks like you Ken, but we can certainly present the, the statistics and thereby enable Americans to understand the, the magnitude of what's going on.
Ken: Yeah. Adam, is there, is there any proposals or actions across these issue areas that really stood out for you as a public health expert and then also as a clinician where you, where you thought, oh wow, this is just gonna make my public health and my clinical jobs much, much harder?
Dr. Gaffney: Well, it is hard to say one, and I'll, and I'll add this to that discussion, which is that, the problem is even larger than what that table shows. In another paper that Phil and I and many other colleagues published recently, we look at additional policies that are gonna harm the lung health of Americans.
So even beyond environmental and occupational policies, we're looking at 10 million people losing health coverage as a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Right? We're looking at cuts and NIH funding. We're looking at cutbacks in research. We're looking at anti-immigrant actions that are going to have impacts on health and healthcare delivery.
So just to take a step back, this is actually part and parcel of a larger agenda for sure, that will for sure all be injurious to health. I think, you know, in terms of these specific policies, it is hard to pick it out. I mean, it's one, one year ago, Zelin, you know, had this press release where he declared the biggest deregulatory action in US history, quote unquote, and there were 31 different actions.
And some of the ones that we sort of described in this paper that I think I'll just highlight — one, rolling back the heightened standards for particulate matter 2.5 pollution, PM 2.5 pollution that the Biden administration in advance. Building on a huge body of science and knowledge that this pollution is harmful, it causes heart attacks, it causes strokes, it causes lung disease.
To go back into the past and undercut those protections to me is just mind bogglingly shortsighted. I also think the destruction of the endangerment finding, which is the policy that effectively allows the federal government to regulate climate pollution, uh, is going to have very harmful long-term effects.
We're basically taking away our own ability to do anything about climate change. So I could, I could kind of go on and on, but those two, I think, are worth highlighting at the outside of the discussion.
Ken: Yeah. No, I, I agree with you on those and it is hard to pick. I had, uh, Joe Goffman on, uh, the podcast a while back, who's one of the premier experts on Clean Air Act Policy and climate change policy ran the EPA programs, uh, under, uh, the Biden administration. And I said to him at the time, and you know, for me the Clean Air Act is the queen of environmental laws. That's the one that's really worked. And Phil and I have worked on pesticides and lots of other issues where we wish it worked as well as the Clean Air Act worked.
And I, I asked him if he didn't think, you know, the Clean Air Act and regulations around it really became kind of a, a bullseye, uh, for, you know, let's just be candid when, when Republicans take over and, uh, there's the kind of push there has been. And, uh, we have plenty of Republicans that support environmental protection, I don't mean that.
But there's an ideology here that really does seem to focus on what ends up in our lungs because they go after Clean Air Act regulations like the PM 2.5 standard, right? They wanna push those back. And Joe went into some detail about just the many ways they're trying to do that. And there are two elements here, and you touch on both of them in this paper.
One is a little easier to understand than the other. One is, I think one is the deregulatory steps are pretty easy to at least understand what they're doing. They're taking a specific regulation and they're gonna try and undo it — the endangerment finding or what they're doing on how our plant regulation, what have.
The, the more insidious and maybe the scarier element for me is the dysregulation that they're pursuing by reducing staff, reducing funding, getting rid of scientists. They don't have scientific debates in this administration, they just fire the scientists that disagree with 'em or sideline them or push them out. Talk a little bit about this long-term erosion of capability and capacity and how damaging that is going to be and hard to repair.
We might be able to reinstate a regulation and we might even defeat some of these efforts in court. The Trump administration's, you know, up against lots of litigation from folks in my community who are trying to stop these rules that they can, you know, I think in many cases are considered, you know, borderline if not illegal, and so they'll lose in court.
But the dysregulatory stuff — the long-term damage to these agencies and the staffs and the funding for extramural research funding that goes outside agencies to support academic institutions and children's health centers and so forth. That's really hard to tally up, hard to explain to people, but say, because you're both involved in it, say a little bit about how that hits.
Dr. Gaffney: Well, Ken, I think you are right, and the reality is, is that it's easier to destroy than to create. Institutions need to be built up over time, and it's very hard to put the net back together again. So, for example, the Office of Research and Development, the EPA’s internal research agency, which has been credited with all sorts of advances over time in terms of pushing forward our understanding of pollution, but also how to control it and how to regulate it.
That's, you know, being taken apart by the administration. And how does that get put back together again? I think you're seeing the same thing with research science at, say, the NIH. Congress rejected the administration's calls for cuts to NIH funding. But what happens to the know-how when people leave, when projects get defunded, when research gets interrupted when the clinical trials don't get completed.
That's harder to put back together again. I'll add one other thing though. I agree with you that there's the deregulation that's sort of easy to understand. It's sort of seen as pro-business say. Another thing that I truly can't understand is the assault on clean energy, which isn't even pushing business forward in America. It's really just favoring one specific sector and undercutting our ability to power America in a safe way, uh, for years to come.
Ken: I agree. And some of those forms of clean energy are also the cheapest forms of energy in terms of providing electricity now, and I'm really glad that I have solar panels on my roof and an EV out in the parking pad because, um, I'm not, uh, getting the direct hit from, uh the increase in gas prices we're experiencing now and the pollution that goes with it. But, you know, we have, we were inventing a new energy economy at the end of the Biden administration.
We were really just getting started and that's all been thrown in reverse and that's going to have big impacts on air pollution, our lungs, obviously on contamination of the environment with mercury from coal burning power plants, oil spills, all the rest.
Dr. Landrigan: And, and Ken, just think about the economics of it. I mean, this morning as I was coming into work, I passed a gas station. Gas was at $4 a gallon, 3.99 a gallon. At the same time, the cost of solar energy have come down by more than 90%.
Ken: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: The cost of wind energy has come down by 75 to 80%. The cost of battery storage have come down by 95%. We're turning our back on clean energy that is also affordable energy in favor of yesterday's energy source, which is oil and gas and coal.
Ken: Yeah. And turning the, all the advantage over to other countries, certainly China, uh, that's pushing ahead.
I mean, there's a global buildout on solar in particular that is mind blowing right now, both at the utility scale and rooftop and we're, we put the brakes on it, in fact, threw it into reverse. It's very discouraging because that will have. A great many environmental impacts down the road.
Dr. Gaffney: It's not only about taking away the subsidies that went towards battery production or electric vehicle purchasing, it's a direct attempt to undercut those sectors, you know, even on their own terms.
So for instance, the Trump administration, I don't know whether it stands now, tried to block a nearly complete wind farm, you know, in Rhode Island from being completed. That's just an example of using the power of the government to go after one sector of energy production. Meanwhile, they actually mandated that some fossil fuel power plants stay open even when the grid operators had already said, these are obsolete. That's a very stunning development.
Ken: Again, I think the, the, the boldness has always defeated my imagination when it comes to the Trump administration. Just things like the rep, last report I saw, I think it's, we might have the same wind energy proposal in mind, they were going to pay the company a billion dollars not to build the,
Dr. Landrigan: That's a different one. The one the, the one that Adam is mentioning is in Rhode Island. The one where they paid the billion dollars to the French investor was on Long Island, New York.
Ken: Yeah. I mean, I don't know how much dumber it gets, but that's right up there.
Unbelievable. So there's a really useful appendix, uh, with any number of tables that help people understand in detail. Where these proposals have landed. And one of the areas is occupational health, which I know is near and dear to you, Phil and I had a NIOSH scientist on, uh, on the program fairly early on in, uh, the last year, and she was third generation NIOSH scientist.
It's, NIOSH is the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. It's part of the Centers for Disease Control — and that agency early on, they've, they've made some rectifications, but mostly they just clubbed it in the early weeks and months of the Trump administration. Laid off a bunch of scientists, she told me that it was so bad that in some cases scientists had to kind of go into their labs and euthanize the animals, uh, in the experiments they were doing because they weren't gonna be allowed in to, to feed them.
The experiments were supposed to just stop, uh, but the animals were there in their cages. But we don't spend very much money as it is on occupational health and the, and the returns are enormous to protect our workforce. Say a little bit about what you learned when you looked at what, what is going on with respect to investment and in understanding occupational safety and health?
Dr. Landrigan: Sure. No, it's a, it's, it's such a big thing. Uh, I worked at NIOSH for, for six years. I was, I was a medical epidemiologist there, and when I was at NIOSH, what we used to do, which, we would go out to factories, where our work sites were, where problems were reported. We would investigate the problem, we'd figure out what was going on, and then we would work with the employee, we would work with the employees, we would work with the union if there was a union.
And collaboratively come up with solutions that protected the workers' health, saved lives, and generally made the businesses more profitable because they weren't having to pay large sums of money for workers' compensation or face liability suits.
It was basically a, a partnership for health rather than splitting people apart and, and fermenting divisiveness. So, and when people have done economic analysis on occupational safety and health, the, the returns are anywhere from six to one, to 10 to one, to 12 to one. For every dollar that's invested in protecting workers' health and safety, that's a six, 10, $12 return in the form of lower healthcare costs and increased productivity.
Ken: And I think I had, until I interviewed the scientist, I didn't realize just really how modest our investment at NIOSH is. She, she said there were like maybe 800 total employees at NIOSH.
Dr. Landrigan: There are many, many more game wardens across the United States protecting deer in the forest than there are occupational safety and health inspectors.
Ken: Yeah, well talk about priorities. Um, but yeah, I was startled. And so even with that modest investment that was savagely reduced, at least in the early days,
Dr. Landrigan: Something like the initial cut was in the neighborhood of 90% of the staff.
Ken: Yeah. Yeah. Say a little bit if you can, um, about what you're hearing. I don't want you to betray any confidences.
Actually I do, if you would, if it's, if it's interesting, please do betray them. But, um, what's your sense of what's happening at NIH and at CDC? I know you, you both have dozens and dozens of connections there. What's the mood of the people I talk to are, uh, you know, they're sticking by their guns in many cases, if they can, and they're trying to do the best they can under the circumstances, but it's grim, right?
Dr. Landrigan: Yeah. Well, you know, I was including my six years at NIOSH. I was a total of 15 years at CDC.
Ken: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: And I must tell you, the CDC workforce are among the most dedicated, selfless people in America. They will drop what they're doing on a moment's notice to fly to West Africa to deal with the Ebola outbreak.
They'll stop whatever research they're doing to go to Utah or Alaska or North Carolina or Maine to deal with an outbreak of rabies or measles. Often at great physical hazard to themselves.
Dr. Gaffney: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: What they're doing is, I think that those people are dedicated to the mission. Many of your doctors, others, or nurses, epidemiologists, public health scientists, they deeply believe in the mission.
They're just going to do their best to, to hang on and, and ride this crisis through. I'm sure that day to day it's not easy, but you know, they, they have a sense of fulfilling a noble mission and they're gonna stick with it.
Ken: That's been my total experience with the, the CDC scientists and professionals that I've dealt with over the past 40 or 50 years.
It's just, um, if, if there was one agency that I really held in high regard, maybe because they're fundamentally not regulatory, but they're, you know, they're, you get the straight science from them. At least that's been my experience. It's just, uh, heartbreaking to see, see that under assault. Uh, same with just generally the, you know, the NIH. I mean, my goodness, and I know the big funding cuts were rejected, true enough, but, uh, there was, there's still been enormous, enormous damage done.
And, and the morale, the hit to morale, you know, you know that we were on the right track, for example, to take on a specific issue and then to find that stymied or, you know, distractions brought in, like, working on lesser topics like Ivermectin or whatever it might be.
Dr. Landrigan: You know, for decades, American science has been the envy of the world. Nobody else in the world, not in Europe, not in China, not in India, nowhere has done science as well as we do, and, and the reason we do it is several fold. Firstly, the funding has been generous. Secondly, it operates on a meritocracy and everything is peer reviewed.
Only the best of the best science gets funded. It's not a buddy system, it's not a crony system, it's not corrupt, it's transparent. And, um, if you wanna succeed in the system, you have to be good and you have to make contributions and, and you have to be about helping other people. And it's because American science has been so good that scientists have come here to American universities, to American think tanks from, from countries around the world.
Sadly, we're now squandering that advantage and, and we're seeing really good scientists, especially the younger ones who have not yet established their careers taking jobs in Europe, in Canada, in Australia, in China, in India. And what we're seeing is a brain drain from the United States. That is not good. Not good at all.
Dr. Gaffney: And I would just add very briefly, this is not just about funding cuts, which are devastating. There's this broader politicization and pseudoscience.
Dr. Landrigan: Yeah.
Dr. Gaffney: RFK junior anti-vaccine rhetoric. The embrace of pseudoscientific theories, as you said around ivermectin and chem trails. I could go on and on.
It's almost embarrassing to even talk about, and there was even a shooting at the CDC this year. Right? And so I can only imagine that that sort of environment is very demoralizing.
Ken: Totally. One aspect of politicizing that you consider in this brief paper is the fact that many of these environmental harms are visited most harshly on disadvantaged communities, low income communities, communities of color, and of course, that was sort of the first filter that was put in that we should stop research, regulatory enforcement, anything that related to diversity, equity, and inclusion or however they define that.
And I've learned so much of this from from Phil. We've focused on kids 'cause they're especially vulnerable. And we really have only begun to just catch up on the necessary focus on communities that are really benighted by pollution much more than than the rest of us.
And they tend to be low income communities, uh, fewer resources, fewer medical resources, harder to manage healthcare costs, and tremendous insults from air, water, occupational pollution, neighborhood pollution. Can you say a little bit about how that stood out in your analysis? That the impact of, uh, politicizing around DEI and how that might have affected environmental policy?
Dr. Gaffney: Sure. I think on the one hand, as you said, many of these policies are going to strike hardest against communities that are already suffering from poor health, lack of investment, discrimination and so forth. So you take something like the deregulation of mercury standards for power plants. Yeah, well, who lives close to power plants — and disproportionately — lower income people.
You know, I think that makes this easier in a sense for them to do, right? Because they view these communities as, as not their constituents in many ways. On the other hand, many policies that they're pursuing will in fact, harm what they view as their constituents. So if you take something like the rollback or the lack of enforcement, lack of implementation of these silica standards that were meant to protect minors from deadly dust that they encounter in their workplace.
And that's a disease that I might see — silicosis is a potentially fatal lung disease — those communities are disproportionately in red states. Similarly, if you look at the cutbacks to Medicaid, the public insurance program for low-income Americans, uh, yes, it will certainly take healthcare away from many, uh, working class folks in blue states who may be disproportionately black or Hispanic.
On the other hand, it will be devastating to rural areas, and to rural white areas that have a lot of low income folks who, who rely on this as their primary healthcare. So they're really, these policies really are going to be harmful for working class lower income groups across sort of demographic categories.
Ken: Yeah.
Dr. Landrigan: Ken, it's also worth saying something about the disproportionate impacts on infants and children, and I, I speak here as a pediatrician. This administration came to power talking about their commitment to the right to life, and yet by allowing increased levels of pollution, specifically mercury pollution, which damages the brains of infants in the womb. Fine particulate air pollution PM 2.5 air pollution, which damages the brains, the hearts, the lungs, and other organs of infants in the wound.
They're actually belying their own words — if they really wanna protect children before they're born, the last thing this administration should be doing is rolling back environmental standards that protect children before they're born.
Ken: I couldn't agree more. There's been so much made dur, during the election and then during the transition of the Trump administration's interest relating to what you just said, Phil, to Make America Healthy Again.
And while I think the ideologues, uh, have, are locked into their position, there are a lot of rank and file a lot of, you know, everyday Americans who, it sounds good to them and it sounds, why wouldn't it sound good to make America healthy?
Uh, whether you think again is appropriate or not is another matter. But there were so many big promises that were made and in many ways, the Make America Healthy Again, agenda didn't include a lot of the issues that you address in this paper. People are upset about food additives. My organization works on food additives.
We take a backseat to no one in trying to do something about that, but, but to think that, if we make any progress on that, it's okay to make the cutbacks in clean air regulation or vehicular regulation or any of the other environmental policy assaults. What, what do you tell someone who, who believes in or adheres to just the general principles of making America healthy again.
Polling is showing us now that even people who believe in that don't think the Trump administration has done a very good job, but, but how do you get someone to expand their horizon and think about some of these other issues — let's say someone who's focused on vaccines and they feel like the vaccines are harmful.
It doesn't happen to be my position, far from it. But if that's their focus and they're not gonna move from that, it's one thing. But for many people I think they're uncertain and they just don't know about the other dimensions of environmental health that really should be part of any agenda properly called make America healthy.
How do you talk to folks like that? You probably, you probably come across them all the time.
Dr. Gaffney: So I think that actually when it comes to these policies, it's an easy case to make. I'm going to mention healthcare first, but from the healthcare perspective, the policies of cutting back on Medicaid, uh, cutting back the Affordable Care Act are actually already unpopular even with Republican voters.
Dr. Landrigan: Yeah.
Dr. Gaffney: When it comes to clean air and water, actually these rollbacks are unpopular. And I think the main barrier you have is what we already talked about, which is the complexity of the issues and the getting lost in the details. I think when it comes to the MAHA agenda, they did raise some important issues.
As you've mentioned, the food supply needs to be improved. There are problems with metabolic health. These aren't made up concerns. But what they've done time and time again is a very superficial attempt to talk about these issues — not taking on powerful corporations, not really going after those who are purveying harms.
You know, making these sort of voluntary agreements, getting Shake Shack to put beef tallow in their fries or whatever it is. These kinds of very performative stuff that's kind of made for the media, but then behind the scenes, what's really happening and that's what we have to talk about and that's what we came in.
What's actually happening in the realm of policy, putting aside this sort of media show. And it's the kinds of policies that we've outlined in this article. It's the rollback of pollution, of, of measures to protect our air. It's the rollback of protections against mercury in our water. It's rollback of protections that are keeping miners from getting deathly ill.
So I think we need to move the conversation away from the sort of catchy media issues to the real policies.
Ken: So you're saying wrestling a, a, a Twinkie, is, uh, great for Instagram, but not so great, uh, if you're really concerned about making America healthy. It's, you know, it's an Instagram post, and we don't make policy by Instagram post.
Would that we could, um, that's all I'd be doing, but, uh, turns out you have to actually get in there. Debate powerful industries, bring evidence forward, fight through for regulations. Phil and I have done this dozens and dozens of times over the year. It's never easy. And it's really, it's really not just something you can do from a podium. You have to dig in.
Dr. Landrigan: You know, glyphosate is a case in point. So glyphosate, Roundup, is the world's most widely used herbicide. 11 years ago, in 2015, the World Health Organization did a very careful independent review and came to the conclusion that glyphosate, marketed as Roundup, probably causes cancer in humans.
When this administration, when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. first came into power, one of the chemicals that they talked about controlling was glyphosate, and they mentioned it in the first edition of the MAHA Report. But curiously, glyphosate was absent from the second version of the MAHA report. Most recently, just a couple of weeks ago, president Trump issued an executive order saying that glyphosate was a national security matter, that we needed it for the safety and the security of the United States of America — which is the first I'd heard that despite many years in both the US Public Health Service and the US Navy.
So I think that MAHA people are very sincere. What MAHA people are all about is protecting their kids, protecting their families. I don't agree with everything that they stand for, but I certainly respect their sincerity. My plea to the folks in MAHA is look at the issues one by one.
Look at food safety. Look at glyphosate, look at vaccines. Look at clean air, look at clean water. Each of those is an important issue in its own right, and they've all gotta be properly balanced. If America's children are gonna be protected.
Dr. Gaffney: One thing I'd add to that list, which I think says a lot about the priorities of the administration is tobacco policy, right?
Is there one thing that we can all agree on is an absolute poison than cigarettes? Talking about making America healthy. They completely defunded the office, the CDC um, office that works on tobacco control. They're not pursuing it seems a nicotine reduction rule that would help get people to stop smoking.
I think the priorities become pretty clear there.
Ken: Yeah, I agree. Well, thank both of you very much for coming on and talking about this amazing article. It's called The Dismantling of Environmental Protections, A Grave Threat to America's Health. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
We're gonna encourage everyone to take a look at it. It's very readable, it's very brief, and it's a devastating assessment of what's happening now. And I know you've got more work to come, we'll have you come back on and talk about it. Thank you so much for your commitment to, to public health and human health.
We count on champions like you to tell us what the score is.
Dr. Landrigan: And to you, for yours, Ken.
Dr. Gaffney: Thank you, Ken
Ken: Thank you to Dr. Phil Landrigan and Dr. Adam Gaffney for joining me today. And thank you out there for listening. If you'd like to learn more, be sure to check out our show notes for additional links To take a deeper dive into today's discussion.
Make sure to follow our show on Instagram @KenCooksPodcast. And if you're interested in learning more about ewg, head over to ewg.org. Check out the EWG Instagram account @EnvironmentalWorkingGroup. If this episode resonated with you or you think someone you know would benefit from it, send it along.
The best way to make positive change is to start as a community with your community. Today's episode was produced by the extraordinary Beth Rowe and Mary Kelly. Our show's theme music is by Moby, and thanks again for listening.
