WASHINGTO, D.C. — When President Donald Trump selected Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for the role of head of health services, the administration took on a wide array of proposals aimed at enhancing public health. Among these suggestions were initiatives such as prohibiting television advertising for prescription medications and easing restrictions on the sale of raw milk.
While Kennedy’s unconventional ideas and his discredited stance on vaccines have garnered attention, more traditional health objectives have gained traction among legislators and citizens alike. These include advocating for healthier school lunches, prohibiting certain food additives, and addressing the prevalence of ultraprocessed foods that contribute to obesity and diabetes.
Public health organizations have long championed these initiatives, lobbying policymakers and launching campaigns to spotlight the dangers of an American diet rich in sodium, sugars, and unhealthy fats. As Kennedy prepares for his Senate confirmation hearings later this week, health advocates express a mixed response; they cautiously support some of his proposed improvements while expressing concern over the potentially dire implications of others.
“If there’s a chance to improve public health, we need to grasp it,” noted Dr. Peter Lurie, a former official with the FDA who now leads the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “You can’t completely disregard someone because you disagree with aspects of their agenda.” However, Lurie, along with many experts, contends that Kennedy’s history with vaccines disqualifies him from the health secretary position, expressing skepticism about his ability to realize his visions for nutrition and food standards.
Kennedy’s path to confirmation remains uncertain, as he is likely to encounter pointed inquiries from both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate health and finance committees. Although Kennedy has attempted to downplay his past in the anti-vaccine movement, experts argue that this should be the focal point of discussions among lawmakers. Dr. Tom Frieden, formerly at the helm of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, stressed the importance of vaccine policy, stating, “In medicine, our primary principle is to ‘do no harm.’ I remain unconvinced that RFK Jr. wouldn’t cause significant damage to our vaccination initiatives and to the wellbeing of our children.”
Despite such concerns, certain Democratic figures have found common ground with Kennedy. Former Representative Tim Ryan recently advocated for collaboration with Kennedy on enhancing America’s food system, stating his support in an opinion piece. Senator Cory Booker, a vegan, has mentioned that he and Kennedy share mutual objectives regarding dietary reforms, although his office did not provide comment on the collaboration.
The alliance between Trump and Kennedy, once a lifelong Democrat, mirrors a growing faction of Americans who express unease regarding food and water contaminants and harbor skepticism toward medical authorities and large corporations in the food and pharmaceutical sectors. Kennedy’s presidential campaign has attracted supporters from various backgrounds, including parents in California worried about harmful food dye in cereals and Midwestern factory workers frustrated by vaccine mandates during the pandemic.
However, many observers question whether the ambitious goals set out in the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative will come to fruition, given the conflicting views surrounding Trump’s deregulatory agenda and Kennedy’s stance against large corporations. Efforts to improve school lunches, for instance, have historically faced resistance from food and agriculture industries that predominantly supported Trump in the previous election cycle.
During Trump’s initial term, political appointees made significant alterations to school nutrition standards that were originally established under Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative, which emphasized greater availability of fruits and vegetables in schools. Achieving substantial revisions to federal food programs necessitates collaboration between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and Human Services, and numerous state educational systems.
“It’s a challenging task that requires both financial resources and cooperative efforts,” commented Dr. Georges Benjamin of the American Public Health Association. He added, “Discussions about enhancing the quality of school lunches have been ongoing for years, but aligning all the necessary elements at a national scale remains complicated.”
Addressing even minor goals like prohibiting specific food additives would involve implementing new regulations and staffing changes at the FDA, an agency Kennedy intends to “cleanse.” In the U.S., numerous food ingredients that are banned in Europe continue to appear because American companies can self-declare that new substances are “generally recognized as safe” without requiring FDA approval. Previous attempts to reform this outdated regulatory framework faced setbacks in court and were obstructed in Congress, largely due to lobbying by industry interests.
Even popular initiatives against ultraprocessed foods could be difficult to enact, as many Americans might not realize foods they enjoy—such as ice cream and fast food—fall into this category. “Are we truly prepared to change the entire American food culture?” questioned Benjamin.
As health professionals remain hopeful for possible positive outcomes, they are also bracing for adverse changes if Kennedy encounters obstacles in overhauling food systems. “What we’re looking at is a mix of promising goals that are unlikely to be realized alongside a set of detrimental policies that, while feasible, could cause considerable harm,” Lurie remarked.
While Kennedy has indicated intentions to cut back on FDA regulations related to various unproven treatments, he also poses a threat to the existing federal vaccine committees. His appointments could potentially lead to a revocation of insurers’ obligations to cover vaccinations recommended by experts, should those appointees fail to endorse updated immunization schedules.
For the time being, advocates like health attorney Larry Gostin remain cautiously optimistic. “If he proposes viable and constructive ideas, I will be eager to support their implementation,” he stated. “However, I maintain a healthy skepticism regarding the likelihood of that happening.”
