Change at the EPA
Evaluation and Summary
Public Health On Call examines recent deregulation efforts at the Environmental Protection Agency with Tom Burke, an emeritus professor at Johns Hopkins and former deputy assistant administrator of the EPA under the Obama administration (2015–2017). Host Dr. Josh Sharfstein, a distinguished professor of health policy and pediatrician, leads the conversation. The episode focuses on Burke's concerns about recent policy shifts at the agency while exploring his perspective on the long-term resilience of environmental health protections in the U.S. The EPA's historical role in safeguarding clean air and water, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and protecting public health serves as context for understanding the significance of current changes. The show notes reference related episodes on pesticide approvals (March 2026) and the EPA's future under Trump (December 2024), suggesting this is part of an ongoing series examining environmental policy shifts. The episode is relatively brief at 17 minutes, positioning it as a focused conversation rather than an exhaustive deep dive. Burke's credentials as both an academic and former agency insider provide direct experience with EPA operations and policy-making, lending credibility to his analysis. The episode appears designed to balance concern about deregulation with cautious optimism about environmental health's future trajectory.
Verdict: A timely, credible conversation on EPA policy changes that delivers on its title but lacks depth, opposing perspectives, and detailed sourcing for a stronger impact.
News rubric
-
Accuracy and sourcing 3/5 20%
Guest has direct EPA experience (2015–2017) lending credibility; one external source cited (Inside Climate News article on EPA staffing); lacks detail on specific policy changes or additional sourcing for claims.
-
Balance and context 2/5 20%
Guest is explicitly from Obama administration with stated concerns about deregulation; no indication of opposing viewpoints or counterarguments presented; framing appears one-sided toward skepticism of recent changes.
-
Timeliness and relevance 4/5 15%
Published October 2026 during active EPA policy debates; directly addresses current deregulation efforts; clearly relevant to ongoing environmental policy discussions.
-
Substance 2/5 15%
17-minute format limits depth; show notes provide topic outline but no indication of specific data, case studies, or detailed policy analysis; appears conversational rather than information-dense.
-
Delivers on its title 4/5 15%
Title 'Change at the EPA' is directly addressed through discussion of deregulation and policy shifts; episode clearly covers the promised topic of EPA transformation.
-
Value for time 3/5 15%
17 minutes is appropriately tight for a focused conversation; reasonable length for the scope, though limited time may constrain depth of exploration.
Worth it if you want a quick, insider perspective on EPA deregulation from a former agency official, but expect a conversational overview rather than comprehensive analysis.
Based on the episode description. AI-generated; it can be wrong.
Show notes
More from Public Health On Call
Public Health On Call examines the case against eating lettuce with Washington Post food policy columnist Tamar Haspel. The episode explores three main angles: the environmental cost of lettuce cultivation, its surprisingly limited nutritional value despite its reputation as a health food, and its outsized role in…
Worth it if you're interested in food sustainability, public health, or want a quick, contrarian take on why lettuce might not deserve its health-food reputation.
Public Health On Call explores the history and impact of vitamin A supplementation, tracing its evolution from a critical public health intervention to a widely oversold supplement. The episode features four Johns Hopkins experts: Brian Foster (cardiovascular biochemistry), Amanda Palmer (international health), Alfred…
Worth it if you're interested in global health policy, the history of nutrition science, or how evidence-based interventions get distorted by commercial interests.