RFK Jr.'s Challenges to "Make America Healthy Again"

If confirmed, he will face a multiple-combatant battlefield populated by powerful lobbyists, well-armed consumer groups, and their allies in Congress, not to mention legal and regulatory hurdles.

One of the more fascinating confirmation processes for the new Trump Administration will be for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. This is not because he is not qualified—he is no less qualified than outgoing Secretary Xavier Becerra, a former California attorney general and Member of Congress. But that’s a low bar, given Becerra’s poor performance.

However, Kennedy has a long record of provocative comments about America’s health, from vaccine safety to nutrition, that have caught the attention of groups ranging from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) to the Consumer Brands Association of major processed food makers. Kennedy’s health passions seem to derive from his recovery from drug abuse and his mission to improve his health. At 70, he appears to be in remarkable physical shape.

During his quixotic race for the Presidency, he made tackling chronic disease and America’s healthcare infrastructure, with its emphasis on treating instead of preventing illness, his mission. But it wasn’t until he abandoned the race on August 23rd - a month after Joe Biden departed from the race himself - and endorsed Donald Trump that “Make America Healthy Again” became his singular focus and drew the attention he’d long sought.

He’s already on the march to replace seed oils with beef fat, at least in making fries. As I’ve written, he wants to turn the clock back on the late 1970s push to replace beef tallow with these same seed oils because of its high saturated fat content and heart health. They’re also easier to use and cheaper than beef fat. The oilseed industry has its trade association, which is happy to tell you more. So might vegetarians.

He also wants fluoride out of public water systems, supports dangerous raw milk consumption, and calls for a return to cane sugar to replace high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). He and others claim that HFCS is processed differently in the body than fructose and can cause insulin resistance. However, the science is not settled (ask the Corn Refiners Association). Why do food and beverage makers like HFCS so much? It’s sweet like sugar and cheaper than our heavily protected US sugar growers. The US pays the world’s highest prices, and food makers always seek more affordable, suitable alternatives.

He’s also all in on the latest food nutrition fad, eliminating “ultra-processed foods,” for which no agreed-upon definition exists. He seems to include “healthy” products like many flavored Greek yogurts. 

Kennedy’s long-standing target is artificial food calories and additives, despite the government’s stringent and years-long approval process for additives has stopped that industry. Kennedy and many consumer groups, such as the Center for Science in the Public Interest, have long pushed to eliminate artificial colors like Yellow 5 (tartrazine) and 6, which are petroleum products, and Red numbers 3 and 40. Potassium Bromate, derided as a “fire extinguisher” (so is water), has been driven out of the food supply despite decades of safe beverage consumption.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) touches every American in several ways, from prescription drugs to food safety, including pet foods. However, for many of the issues he wants to tackle, at least in the food space, much of the jurisdiction falls outside HHS or is, at best, shared with the US Department of Agriculture. And Congress always has a say. And other stakeholders, from doctors to farmers and especially all their lobbying groups have their tentacles everywhere.

Kennedy isn’t wrong about America’s health situation. Over 70 percent of us are overweight or obese. We have higher levels of chronic disease for everything from hypertension to type-2 diabetes, much of which is tied to being overweight or obese. Over 40 years of federal government nutrition advice through the Dietary Guidelines have proven an abject failure to help most Americans lead healthier lives. The Guidelines are revised every five years through an elaborate, inclusive process. The next revision is due next year and promises to be a focal point for Kennedy.

However, while most stakeholders acknowledge that American health has been declining (there has been some improvement recently), there are Tower of Babel-like disagreements about how we got here and how we can turn the tide. Here are just five of the warring interests that RFK Jr. will face if he’s confirmed and what his ultimate strategy must be if he’s going to make America healthy again.

The bottom line is that generations of failing to teach doctors, children, and adults basic nutrition information have consequences. Too many stakeholders are eager to point fingers, cast blame, or avoid responsibility instead of educating and empowering people to take responsibility for their and their families’ lives. Government programs and policies have made the problem worse. And nobody, it seems, understands that quick fixes won’t work. 

The road back—or forward—to a healthier America will be long and tedious. Most Americans are profoundly ignorant or misinformed about food and nutrition. Just go on Facebook’s “Bioengineered Food Awareness” group site, and behold. You will feel your IQ drop as you read the comments and questions. So many people don’t know how to read ingredient statements nor understand the nutrition facts panel, and they certainly are clueless about “bioengineering.”

Blame gaming and short-term fixes, a favorite of grifters and politicians, won’t do it. It starts with Americans eschewing a victim mentality regarding their health, embracing lifelong nutrition education and personalized testing, and getting the government out of the lobbyist-and-advocate-infected Dietary Guidelines business.

He and his team will also need patience and persistence to implement the longer-term strategy amid a cacophony of grifters, know-it-alls, and special interests trying to undermine him and drag him into regulatory, legal, and political quagmires.

Other Government Agencies

The federal government subsidizes millions of meals daily, primarily through school feeding programs that have expanded to include breakfast and are rapidly eliminating income tests for participation in “free” meals. That’s the trend, anyway. Sadly, the breakdown in family units and structures has led to the government school, not the home, where children can count on being fed. Some of these programs now extend into summer.

Over $13 billion is spent annually to provide free or reduced-price school lunches to nearly 30 million schoolchildren. Another 15 million get breakfast at school, and another 3 million participate in summer feeding programs.

So, the school lunch program is the best place for Secretary Kennedy to begin his work. He knows that the US Department of Agriculture, not HHS, directs and administers the program. And if he chooses to get involved with nutrition education in schools, much of that falls under another agency that might be on the chopping block - the US Department of Education.

Kennedy and his agency will have a say on the Dietary Guidelines and nutrition policy, but so will the others. While Kennedy may be able to direct research and launch efforts to ban products, he’ll have to do it through “notice and comment rulemaking,” which takes months, if not years, and is supposed to be based on science. The results might also result in court challenges that will take another few years.

Vested interests in the current food system and many federal programs have much at stake in how things are done. And no doubt, many of those interests are already beating down the door to USDA Secretary-designate Brooke Rollins and longtime allies in Congress, who just extended the current farm programs for an additional year after failing to pass a new five-year bill.

The Child Nutrition Act authorizes all these programs and more, including the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, which provides nutrition assistance to young moms and children under five.

The Corporate Stakeholders

The second largest federal feeding program is SNAP, or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which used to be called food stamps. It serves more than 40 million American families, roughly one in eight. Efforts are underway in Congress and the new Trump crowd to limit what low-income SNAP recipients can use them for. Kennedy and his allies want to excise “junk foods” and sodas - the single largest purchase of SNAP funds - from the program.

SNAP provides up to $292 monthly in monetary food assistance per person who makes less than $33,000 annually (130 percent of the official “poverty level”) in 2025. A family of four who qualifies can receive up to nearly $1,000 monthly.

But guess what’s the most popular product purchased with SNAP dollars? Sugar-sweetened beverages. From National Public Radio: “SNAP households spend about 10 percent of food dollars on sugary drinks, about three times more than the amount they spend on milk. In New York City alone, as we've reported, this translates into more than $75 million in sugary drink purchases each year that are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.”

Kennedy and a growing cadre of GOP lawmakers want to further limit on what products can be purchased with SNAP benefits, focusing more on promoting fruit and vegetables and other healthier products. The SNAP program spent $115 billion in 2023. That’s a lot of money.

You might think that lower-income Americans are the primary stakeholders in the program. That’s true, but there are at least three more—grocery stores, food makers, and the anti-hunger groups they support—that are loath to stigmatize the poor over their food choices. But the pendulum is swinging, and even some Democrats seem amenable to limiting SNAP purchases to healthier options. Same for the school feeding programs mentioned above - entire divisions exist at food companies to supply this market, given the billions of tax dollars being spent, and they certainly aren’t interested in walking away from it.

Corporate stakeholders have tentacles everywhere, from dairy price supports to federal program crops (wheat, corn, soybeans, and cotton). The only commodity that has relinquished its protectionist, price-support program is peanuts and, to a lesser extent and for other reasons, tobacco. There are also marketing programs that the USDA manages for industry, where it collects a “mandatory” fee (“Got Milk?”) to market a specific commodity to spur consumption.

For all the complaints about federal regulations, it’s essential to realize that the industry requests some of them, from “standards of identity” such as mayonnaise (don’t forget the eggs, or you can’t call it mayonnaise) to ice cream (versus sorbet versus gelato) to significant food safety regulatory programs like HACCP. Other regulations are carefully developed in close coordination with better-known food makers and other stakeholders, as happened after the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011. 

Consumer “Advocates”

Many non-profit organizations and activists, including a handful of grifters, peddle dubious advice and high-priced dietary supplements (the least regulated part of the food and beverage industry). These grifters are happy to sell you on their magic formulas and, more likely, demonize much of what you can find in your neighborhood grocery store. Some of the more notable alarmists in this space include the Health Ranger, Mike Adams, purveyor of NaturalNews. Dr. Joseph Mercola is another, along with Vani Hari, “The Food Babe.”

More reputable organizations that government regulators and policymakers pay attention to include the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Environmental Working Group. Others include Marion Nestle and her “Food Politics” blog. It will be fascinating to watch these “watchdogs,” whose missions include fomenting distrust in most food companies, navigate the new MAHA regime led by our fast-food-loving President.

Others in the non-profit space often side with food makers or at least counter some of the more dubious claims of other activists. The American Council on Science and Health is one. Then, there are endless journalists and authors in this space, from Michael Pollen to my friend, author, and former Coca-Cola executive Hank Cardello. Cardello does yeoman’s work by serving as a whisperer to food companies and activists alike, taking a rare middle-ground approach to helping combatants lay down their arms and understand and enlighten each other with a focus on consumer health. 

You might be surprised how little some of these combatants really care about consumer health and the truth about food and nutrition.

The Law and Regulatory Process

As Kennedy undoubtedly understands, he won’t be able to show up for work on January 21st (if confirmed) and start banning Red 40, Yellow 5, Potassium Bromate, or high fructose corn syrup from food products. Nor can he order McDonald’s and other fast food companies to replace seed oils from french fries with beef tallow. And you don’t want him to. Today’s Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might be tomorrow’s Michelle Obama or worse. And good luck directing the FDA to change its tune on the dangers of raw milk consumption. I’m all in with FDA on that issue, as anyone with a brain should be.

There is no shortage of laws that have not only resulted in our current bizarre and bifurcated nutrition and food safety systems but also govern the procedures for proposing and finalizing regulations and hiring, firing, and reorganizing agencies.

And then there are things he wants to do to other parts of the food system that his agency has no jurisdiction over - overhaul farm programs that heavily regulate, if not subsidize, our major US “program crops,” including corn, soybeans, wheat, and cotton. Congress extended the expiring farm programs another year, giving the Trump Administration and its likely new USDA Secretary, Brooke Rollins, a chance to recraft them. No doubt Kennedy will weigh in.

Pay careful attention to this space because farmers and their commodity groups are heavily invested in and highly protective of these programs, many of which date back to the Great Depression. At the same time, some agriculture programs, including those for peanuts and tobacco, have been successfully reformed over the past several years. Others, especially the sugar program, are Soviet-style supply management programs that beg for reform. Good luck with the primarily Republican rural areas in Iowa, Kansas, eastern Colorado, Nebraska, South Dakota (home to the new Senate Majority Leader, John Thune), and elsewhere. They and their allies in Congress won’t go silently into the night if Kennedy starts pressing for significant changes in these and other programs.

Kennedy might succeed in increasing farmers' flexibility in shifting from grain to vegetables. Still, many of these existing farm programs—including federal feeding programs for schoolchildren and the poor—are sacrosanct. The long-standing political reality of “Farm Bill” politics is the unholy alliance between rural farm groups and urban consumer hunger advocates. That won’t be easily broken up.

The Administrative Procedures Act, the Civil Service Reform Act, the Federal Food, Drug, and Safety Act, the Food Safety Modernization Act, the Federal Meat and Poultry Product Acts, and scores more are products of Congress and can’t be brushed aside. Expect plenty of lawsuits if Kennedy and the Trump Administration get too aggressive.

Congress

Congress will hover over all of these battles. New members, especially Senators facing tough reelections in 2026, are already working to raise millions in campaign contributions. Lobbyists, executives, and political action committees will be ready to help incumbents, from Big Pharma to Big Ag and Big Food, and of course no contribution comes without strings attached.

A good example of a challenge Kennedy will likely face is his desire to replace ingredients such as high-fructose corn syrup with cane sugar. US sugar producers, primarily located in Florida, are highly protected under federal law and generous contributors to Members of Congress. Among their most prominent champions, at least until now, is US Senator and Secretary of State-designate Marco Rubio (R-FL). The Fanjul Corporation, named after the Cuban exile brothers Alphonso and Pepe Fanjul Sr., spends nearly $1 million annually on lobbying and $2.7 million in 2024 campaign contributions to protect an estimated $65 million in annual federal subsidies. Not a bad rate of return.

The main policy tool the federal government uses to intervene in the sugar market is called the U.S. Sugar Program, which began in 1934. It supplies cane and beet growers with subsidized loans, and limits imports through tariffs and by setting local selling quotas if imports fall below a certain floor.

Guy Rolnik, writing for ProMarket.org in 2016.

Despite their massive political contributions, sugar growers have opponents, too, including US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and the Sweetener Users Coalition. But their efforts have run into the Fanjul brothers, Florida’s congressional delegation, and their sugar industry colleagues.

Let me conclude with a dose of reality and advice for Kennedy.

Food makers and regulators have been pushing for “cleaner” and simpler labels—foods with fewer recognizable ingredients—for several years. The FDA just announced changes to its rule on what food makers can claim to be “healthy,” removing refined grain products and adding salmon and eggs. The FDA is also about to ban several food colors and additives, which food makers have worked overtime to replace. This has been in the works since before I retired from the food world six years ago.

Kennedy does have one tool at his disposal—the bully pulpit. He can cajole food makers and consumers and disparage ingredients, but making things happen takes time, and the bully pulpit extends only so far.

Launch a new national nutrition and physical education campaign

The one thing he could do is realize that our schools, including medical schools, teach very little, if anything, about nutrition. Ask your doctor how many nutrition classes he or she took during medical school. My sons received all their nutrition education not from their schools but from their sports coaches.

Pushing nutrition education is not popular because the results aren’t immediate, and determining what to teach will be challenging amidst a cacophony of different views (see above). However, teaching people how to eat again would be the most critical contribution that Kennedy could make as our nation’s top health official.

Just ask the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines, which struggle to recruit soldiers, sailors, airmen, and women with obesity and related health issues. The good news is that it can be done.

A few years ago, organizations such as PE4Life, The American Council for Fitness and Nutrition, and food makers launched a pilot project, the Healthy Schools Partnership, in four inner-city schools in Kansas City, Missouri. It combined physical activity with nutrition education. The results were remarkable, with physical health improving among children, academic performance, and behavior. Truancy rates declined as attendance rose. Military recruiters took notice. Then Kansas City closed the schools, and the food industry diverted its eyes to less effective and less costly approaches.

There is a way to make America healthy again, but Secretary Kennedy will have his hands full. I wish him well.