One of the incoming Trump administration’s more polarizing cabinet picks, prospective HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has drawn praise and criticism from the left and the right in equal measure. So is his potential appointment cause for alarm or a huge win for public health?
AgFunderNews caught up with nutrition and food safety experts to get their take, starting with David Acheson M.D., associate commissioner for foods at the FDA between 2002-2009, and now president at food safety consultancy The Acheson Group.
While some of Kennedy’s recent media statements and social media posts have raised eyebrows, he said [in a recent speech RFK outlined plans to fire “every nutritional scientist at FDA because all of them are corrupt and all of them are complicit in the poisoning of our children”], we “shouldn’t overreact just yet as we’ve got to see where all this goes and we have to be ready for change.”
And as for RFK’s basic contention that poor diet and lifestyle is contributing to an epidemic of chronic disease, few would dispute that, he said. What is less clear at this juncture is how Kennedy plans to address this beyond attacking certain ingredients such as seed oils, synthetic food dyes such as yellow #6, Red #40, and antioxidants such as BHA and BHT.
Similarly, for health advocates that have been saying for years that the billions we spend on drugs to deal with chronic disease would be far better spent on healthy eating and lifestyle changes that would prevent people from getting sick in the first place, he said, RFK’s rhetoric is hugely refreshing.
But what would such programs look like in practice, how will they be funded, and is the rest of the Trump administration—which last time around cut food assistance programs, rolled back school lunch nutrition standards and opposed Michele Obama’s Let’s Move initiative to improve child nutrition—on board?
EU vs US food safety regulations
While it’s unclear what specific plans Kennedy has to reassess the regulatory status of certain food additives, he is right to ask why some additives permitted in the US are not permitted in other countries, said Acheson. But the devil, as always, is in the detail, he noted.
“It isn’t the case that Europeans are inherently stricter about food. It depends on what you’re talking about. RFK Jr is right that the Europeans have a different attitude towards some things versus the US, but they actually have less stringent standards on things like an allowable amount of listeria in ready to eat foods, which in the US is zero.
“Should we simply adopt what their standards are and apply them here, without assessing the risk ourselves? Many people would argue that we shouldn’t just do what other regulatory agencies tell us; we should do our own assessments.”
And this, he said, will require greater regulatory scientific scrutiny, and in turn more resources, which again, doesn’t seem to square with an administration committed to slashing funding to federal agencies, replacing subject matter experts with political appointees, and deregulation.
“On the one hand, you have an administration that broadly wants to deregulate, but a [pending] HHS Secretary that wants to regulate more. And the only way to ban food ingredients or pesticides or other things and enforce those bans is to increase regulatory scrutiny and funding.”
He added: “If you look at what the previous Trump administration did in terms of food and health meanwhile, it seemed to be more going down the deregulatory route on things like school lunch nutrition standards. In fact, it was a relatively quiet period for food regulation.”
‘Is the FDA perfect as is? Absolutely not’
Another factor to consider when banning additives is the impact this could have on food affordability and availability, he added. If you ditch synthetic preservatives or replace them with ‘natural’ alternatives, for example, this can both reduce shelf-life and raise costs.
If ingredients are demonstrably unsafe, of course, that is a price worth paying, he said, but if this is more about banning things with chemical-sounding names, it will just make packaged foods more expensive for people that are already struggling to make ends meet.
As for raw milk, which is getting a lot more attention following praise from RFK Jr, meanwhile, the devil, once again, is in the detail. “If there’s a move to undermine confidence in the milk pasteurization process, I think that would be a significant retrograde public health step without clear health benefits.
“Can you make raw milk safely? I believe you can, but it requires a lot more resources, because you have to make sure the animals are clean and you’ve got to have more testing of the finished product, which drives up the price, which again, is contrary to one of the fundamental principles of this administration; they want to drive food prices down, not up.”
Is the FDA perfect as is? “Absolutely not,” said Acheson. “We’ve had some very unfortunate situations around things like infant formula over the years. But I just hope we have a process whereby there is some sort of scientific balance in all of this, where the data are looked at objectively by people with expertise and we don’t make knee jerk decisions that aren’t evidence-based.”
‘He appears inclined to emphasize his personal beliefs over data-driven, scientific analysis’
Kantha Shelke, PhD, CFS, principal at food science and research firm Corvus Blue and senior lecturer, food safety regulations at Johns Hopkins University, told us that she will be watching appointments at HHS closely: “Whether RFK Jr’s tenure leads to a fundamental overhaul of the country’s food and health systems will depend significantly on his choice of advisors and decision-makers. It is crucial that he selects individuals who are well-educated, experienced, and committed to making evidence-based decisions.”
While RFK’s focus on the links between poor diet and health is refreshing given the lack of interest in this in Trump’s first administration, he “appears inclined to emphasize his personal beliefs over data-driven, scientific analysis,” claimed Dr. Shelke.
“For example, if he surrounds himself with advisors such as Dr. Mehmet Oz [Trump’s pick to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services], whose health claims have been questioned, he may undermine the expertise of seasoned scientists and policy makers. These professionals are essential to safeguarding consumers from potentially harmful and poorly vetted policies.”
That said, RFK Jr’s pledge to curb the pharmaceutical industry’s “regulatory capture” of the FDA “could pave the way for meaningful regulatory reforms, potentially benefiting public health by encouraging healthier consumer behaviors,” she speculated. “This approach might also resonate with segments of the food and health sectors that advocate for more responsible dietary practices and lifestyle choices.”
However, undermining public confidence in vaccination programs “could lead to a resurgence of preventable diseases such as polio and measles,” she cautioned.
Grains and seed oils
But what about some of RFK’s statements about specific ingredients?
“While moves to cut excessive sugar, unhealthy fats, and salt are commendable, some of his specific targets, like grains and seed oils, raise concerns,” claimed Dr. Shelke.
While many unhealthy foods contain refined grains, “whole grains are a valuable source of vitamins and minerals, and many seed oils are healthier alternatives to saturated fats,” she said. “Demonizing these ingredients could confuse consumers and harm long-term health efforts.”
On a positive note, however, “policies aimed at limiting processed meats and junk foods in children’s meals could encourage food manufacturers to create more nutritious options,” noted Dr. Shelke.
‘Addressing conflicts of interest, transparency, and how research is funded, are worthy pursuits’
Rachel Cheatham, Ph.D, founder and CEO of nutrition strategy consultancy Foodscape Group, added: “I believe he [RFK Jr] believes in nutrition, and he believes in soil health and regenerative agriculture, which may help support nutrition if it leads to more nutrient dense plants. But MAHA [Kennedy’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ pledge] and MAGA [Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ slogan] don’t really seem to square.
“How does a desire for more affordable, accessible, nutrient-dense foods square with tariffs, which will make food more expensive? How does a belief in regenerative ag and soil health [which are within USDA’s remit rather than HHS] square with an administration that looks set to cut funding into sustainability programs?”
She added: “If you axe the FDA’s nutrition departments [as Kennedy has said he plans to do in media interviews] how will that make America healthy again?
“That said, the more hopeful me would like to think that some of the things that he has called out, such as conflicts of interest, transparency and how research is funded, are worthy pursuits,” she added, echoing comments from former CDC director Tom Frieden about “reining in undue corporate influences, and getting junk food, including soda, out of supplemental nutrition programs.
“My concern is that putting it nicely, he seems to be anti-science when you hear what he has to say about the causes of gender dysphoria, health dangers from WiFi, and vaccines.
RFK Jr frequently references scientific studies, “but pushes science aside when it doesn’t support his narrative,” she claimed. “It’s a case of cherry-picking studies because they align with your world view and ignoring all of the others.”
The FDA’s reputation
As for seed oils, which RFK has blamed for the obesity epidemic, she said, “There is some truth to the idea that we are over consuming omega-6 fatty acids [found in plant oils such as sunflower and canola] in relation to omega-3s [found in fish oils and algae], but the idea that you improve things by switching from canola or safflower to beef tallow does not make any sense to me as a nutritionist.”
Stepping back, she said, it will be interesting to see whether RFK’s appointment, should he make decisions that are not seen as science-based, will impact the reputation of the FDA among regulatory agencies in other jurisdictions.
“If an agency aiming to reflect the gold standard of science becomes driven by a mix of science and emotion, I imagine that other equivalent agencies around the world might look at anything coming out of the FDA with some hesitation.
“It doesn’t mean its decisions will be seen as automatically bad, but the idea that US food safety regulators can be basically trusted as credible could go away, which is ironic, as if you take him at his word, this is the opposite of the Trump administration’s stated goal [to “restore these agencies to the traditions of gold standard scientific research”].”
Dave Friedberg: ‘deep trepidation about RFK’
Speaking on a recent episode of the ‘All In’ podcast, which he co-hosts with VC heavyweights David Sacks, Chamath Palihapitiya, and Jason Calacanis—agtech investor and CEO of gene editing startup Ohalo Dave Friedberg told listeners that there are “a lot that RFK brings up that resonates with me.”
That said, he feels “very deep trepidation about RFK” taking the helm at a science agency, said Friedberg. “There’s a lot that RFK brings up that resonates with me. There are things I’ve pointed out, particularly around microplastics in the environment, around chemistry that we use in our food and our systems of food and production. And I believe very strongly that we have real issues that have compounding effects on our health… I think fluoride is an interesting conversation to have. What are the merits, what are the risks?
“But I will say that there are a number of things that RFK has said that I’m very troubled by because I think that he has said things that are factually wrong. And I want him to be open to debate and open to review of objective truth.”
He added: “Science is meant to be a process of skepticism, interrogation, and the search for objective truth, which means that you should be constantly questioning whether you are right or wrong. And I do think that that is a necessary part of the process. Science is not meant to be a dictatorial regime. And so resetting the framework for how we operate some of the agencies and authorities that are supposed to be rooted in science, to have the necessary process of skepticism, review, and transparency could reassert faith and reassert trust by the public in how these agencies are operating.
“And I hope that that happens, I really do, because I do think that there are very good people in all these agencies who do very good work. And there’s a lot of very important advances that have come out of the United States of America and have gone through processes through the federal government that have actually done really great things for Americans and for humanity.”
