We Need a Strong Environmental Protection Agency: It’s About Public

Health!
Published online 2017 May. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.303728
PMCID: PMC5388973
PMID: 28398776
Gina McCarthy, MS and Thomas A. Burke, PhD, MPH

Public health is rooted in recognition of the environment’s role in human health and
development. From the cholera outbreaks of the 19th century and the Great Sanitary
Movement to today’s global threat of climate change and the Paris Agreement, the protection
of public health depends on the protection of our environment.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is a public health agency and a cornerstone of our
nation’s environmental public health infrastructure. The core mission of the EPA is the
protection of public health and the environment. Former Republican president Richard Nixon
established the EPA in 1970 with strong bipartisan support from Congress. Since then, guided by
a framework of national laws, the EPA has led national progress in improving air quality,
cleaning up our waterways, reducing harmful pesticide exposures and industrial emissions, and
providing support for states and communities to advance environmental health

Today, as we move forward with the new Administration and Congress, there are troubling signs
that the future of the EPA and the future of public health will be affected. The leader of the new
Administration’s EPA transition team has recommended elimination of the EPA’s scientific
research efforts and cuts in the agency’s expert staff from 15 000 to as low as 5000. In Congress,
legislation (HR 861) has been introduced to terminate the EPA. It behooves all of us to sit up,
take notice, and make our voices heard.

The EPA is a science agency. Our nation’s efforts to protect the environment are guided by
science to spur innovation, support community infrastructure, respond to emergencies,
characterize exposures and health effects, and communicate, prevent, and manage risks. The
EPA Office of Research and Development is the heart of a national network to provide scientific
support for EPA programs, regions, and our states, tribes, and communities.
EPA scientists work with other federal programs and agencies, including the National Institutes
of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration,
the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the
Department of the Interior, and NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
The EPA Office of Research and Development has also built partnerships with the American
Public Health Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the
Environmental Council of the States, the National Association of County and City Health Officials,
the National Environmental Health Association, and the Association of Public Health
Laboratories. In addition, EPA grants support our national academic infrastructure, including our
schools of public health, for world-class research and the education of our future leaders.

EPA science benefits all Americans and communities around the globe. Working with the
Department of Energy, the EPA Energy Star program has brought energy efficient appliances to
our homes, empowering consumers to save billions of dollars in energy costs while fueling our
economy. The Brownfields Program has revitalized blighted communities. Community assistance
grants help provide safe drinking water, supporting infrastructure from small systems in rural
communities to our largest cities.
Working with NASA, EPA scientists track harmful algal blooms to protect our recreational and
drinking water resources. And together with the Department of Defense and the National
Institutes of Health, EPA toxicologists are working with the Cancer Moon Shot initiative to
understand and prevent risk factors for cancer in our troops.
Internationally, cookstove smoke contributes to a wide range of illnesses and four million
premature deaths annually. The EPA is working with international partners to reduce harmful
emissions and develop cleaner, sustainable cooking technologies.

Amid the current zeal for less regulation as justification for attacks on the EPA, it is important to
emphasize that a healthy environment, healthy communities, and a healthy economy go hand in
hand. Since the inception of the EPA 46 years ago, the United States has enjoyed significant
progress in reducing public health effects from exposure to pollution, and our gross domestic
product has tripled.
In the past eight years, this country recovered from the greatest recession since the 1930s while
pushing down pollution, including carbon pollution that fuels climate change. It is a success
story that deserves to be touted, celebrated, and supported to ensure that our collective
success is sustained and enhanced.

The Clean Air Act has proven to be one of the most successful public health laws ever enacted,
driving down air pollution by 70%. The revised national ambient air quality standard for ozone
finalized in 2015 is projected to result in up to $5.9 billion in public health benefits by avoiding
up to 660 premature deaths, 230 000 asthma attacks, and other adverse health effects each
year the standard is met.
The Clean Power Plan, finalized in 2015, will drive down carbon pollution from the energy sector
32% below 2005 levels, sulfur dioxide emissions by 90%, and nitrogen oxide by 72%. The Clean
Power Plan alone will prevent up to 3 600 premature deaths in 2030 and each year that follows,
with net benefits of up to $45 billion in health care savings. It will enhance investment in clean
energy technology and jobs. Today, clean energy is a driver of our economy, not a burden.

From extreme weather events to emerging infectious diseases, the public health community is
on the front line to respond to the threats from our changing climate. Actions taken by the EPA
to reduce carbon pollution using the Clean Air Act have clearly signaled to the international
community the seriousness of the US commitment to addressing climate change.
That commitment fueled momentum that contributed to more than 195 nations coming
together in Paris, France, in December 2015 to reach a historic agreement. It is disconcerting at
best to hear signals coming from the new Administration that it questions the human
contribution to climate change and, as a result, this country’s support for the Clean Power Plan
and the Paris Agreement.
The science is clear and robust. Climate change is perhaps the greatest long-term threat to our
environment, public health, economy, and national security.

Science is the bedrock that supports and drives our public health progress. The transition in the
White House has already brought troubling signs not just for the EPA but also for the broader
scientific community. Cuts or elimination of research grants and contracts will weaken science
capacity at the state and local levels, erode or eliminate university research, and devastate
support for the education of our future science leaders.
Political interference in conducting scientific investigations, communication and publication of
research findings, participation in scientific meetings, and the independence of the peer review
process threatens scientific integrity and public trust. Most importantly, rollbacks of science-
based rules on clean air, clean water, pesticides, and toxic chemicals have direct effects on
public health, particularly of the most vulnerable. Public health professionals everywhere
depend on scientific evidence to identify health risks and make science-informed decisions to
keep our communities healthy. Attacks on science and denial of scientific evidence undermine
the very core functions of public health.

Although we have made tremendous progress on addressing many environmental threats,

today’s challenges are increasingly complex. From climate change to the protection of our air,
water, and food, public health effects range from the global scale to our local communities.
Environmental protection and public health are inextricably linked.
Shortsighted efforts to roll back environmental protection have lasting effects on our ecological
resources and the health of our communities. Our nation needs strong support for our
environmental health professionals at the local, state, and federal levels. We also need a strong
EPA. It’s about protecting public health!

Critique
The purpose of the article was to raise awareness of strengthening the implementation
of an environmental organization which is the Environmental Protection Agency. It claimed that
not just one country, but also the whole world, can benefit from this. The title of the article
precisely stated the subject of the journal and the manner of the sequencing of the statements
in the introduction leads to the objective of the agency. The methods that were used in the
article to persuade are valid and appropriate for the readers to comprehend. The flow made by
the authors was empirical and has clarity. They provided relevant information to define the
subject of the article, highlighted its mission, visions, impacts, and contribution to the
environment and public health. Specifically, to climate change mitigation and adaptation and
our planet’s conservation. Some of the information they used were from related studies and
research. The text complement the statistical data presented. The discussion doesn’t just repeat
the results but explains it. The topic and format are appropriate for the journal. The subdivision
of the subject is logically organized under appropriate paragraphs. . Moreover, the authors were
able to present their ideas in a clear, persuasive, and logical manner.
Learning Insights
The Environmental Protection Agency of the United States of America which sought to protect
and conserve the natural environment and improve the health of humans by researching the
effects of and mandating limits on the use of pollutants should serve as an example to countries
who are battling all types of pollution such as the Philippines to promote environmental
protection and sustainable development.

Whether people are healthy or not, is determined by their circumstances and the environment
they live in. Human beings are part of natural ecosystems and depend on them for their survival.
In a rapidly changing environment and with increasing urbanization, this dependence is
challenged. Natural environments affect human health and well-being both directly and
indirectly, thus, how we treat our environment could either promote sustainable development
or unsustainable growth. The biological and physical environment of the planet is changing at an
unprecedented rate as a result of human activity, and these changes may have an enormous
impact on human health. One of the ways to preserve human life and improve its quality is to
protect the environment in the face of rapid change. Protecting human health in a changing
world requires us to take steps to minimize harmful change wherever possible, and at the same
time to be prepared for surprises. We need social policies that convert economic growth into
human development. Wider application of sustainable development concepts is part of the
solution.

Sustainability is not a new concept, it has been at the forefront of community and regulatory
consciousness since 1987 when the Brundtland Report was published. The term ‘sustainable
development’ was defined in the report as ‘development which meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The
fundamental aim of sustainable development is to reduce the environmental footprint of
humans and thereby protect natural ecosystems so that they are able to provide the support
mechanisms needed to maintain a good quality of life, not only for humans, but also for all
other organisms that live on this planet.

It has been proven by countless of studies that poor environmental quality and human health
and well-being are significantly linked to each other. We humans greatly contributed to the
planet’s change, that’s why we are as greatly responsible for its protection, care, and encourage
sustainability.

.
 REFERENCES
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5388973/

http://www.swedishepa.se/Environmental-objectives-and-cooperation/Swedens-
environmental-objectives/The-environmental-objectives-system/

https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/epas-role-united-nations-economic-and-
social-council

https://www.epa.ie/mobile/irelandsenvironment/environmentandwellbeing/

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=importance+of+environment
+protection+2017&btnG=

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929/full/html