RFK Jr.’s Food Fight: Can He Change America’s Diet?
If confirmed as HHS secretary, RFK Jr. faces entrenched forces, the chronic disease epidemic, and updated dietary guidelines opposing a number of his stances.
By Sheramy Tsai
|
December 10, 2024Updatedecember 10, 2024
With the new dietary guidelines for Americans still being finalized, President-elect Donald Trump has urged Robert F. Kennedy Jr., nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), to “go wild on the food,” signaling the potential for major shifts in national nutrition policy.
With diet-related illnesses costing the nation more than $1 trillion annually, the guidelines carry immense weight in shaping the eating habits—and health outcomes—of millions. Kennedy’s leadership could usher in significant changes, including stricter scrutiny of ultra-processed foods and a push to reduce corporate influence over federal health recommendations. As the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) prepares its report, Kennedy faces a rare opportunity to address America’s mounting diet-related health crisis.

Dietary Guidelines Defined
If you’ve ever eaten a school lunch, followed a doctor’s advice about healthy eating, or noticed public campaigns promoting nutrition, you’ve encountered the influence of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Updated every five years, these recommendations affect what’s on school cafeteria trays, hospital menus, and the foods covered by assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
But the guidelines don’t appear out of thin air. Behind them is the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), a panel of nutrition scientists and public health experts. Over two years, the committee reviews research, gathers public input, and compiles a report that informs the final recommendations.

The DGAC’s role is advisory.
“The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee reviews the science and makes recommendations,” Richard Mattes, a nutrition scientist and member of the 2020 DGAC panel, told The Epoch Times. Their report goes to the HHS and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which finalize the guidelines.
This dynamic has led to controversy in the past. In 2020, the DGAC proposed stricter limits on added sugars and alcohol, but those suggestions were ultimately rejected. Now, the DGAC is preparing its report, a process expected to continue into 2025. If confirmed as HHS secretary, Kennedy will oversee implementation of the guidelines and help shape their final form.

Less Meat and Potatoes
The DGAC has proposed notable changes since 2020, emphasizing a shift toward plant-based eating and reducing reliance on animal-based foods. The recommendations prioritize plant-based proteins such as peas, beans, and lentils, reclassifying them entirely as protein foods rather than vegetables. The committee also highlights soy, seeds, and nuts as key protein sources and suggests reordering the protein group to reflect this emphasis—placing nuts and seeds first, followed by seafood, with poultry, eggs, and meat relegated to the last position.


Americans are also advised to limit overall red meat consumption. For those eating 2,200 or more calories daily, the DGAC suggests further cutting weekly meat, poultry, and egg intake by an additional 3.5 to 4 ounces compared to previous recommendations—roughly the size of a deck of cards or the palm of a hand.

The recommendations have ignited debate. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association called the proposals “out-of-touch,” warning that they could harm groups like older adults, adolescent girls, and women of childbearing age by raising the risk of nutrient deficiencies.

“This advice does not consider that plant-based proteins are not as complete as animal proteins—and therefore, not as digestible to people,” Nina Teicholz, a nutrition expert and author, wrote on her Substack, Unsettled Science. She added that plant proteins often contain extra carbohydrates, which could complicate efforts to combat obesity and diabetes.

The DGAC also suggests reducing starchy vegetable consumption, a proposal the National Potato Council called “unsupported by nutritional science.” Instead, the council advocated boosting vegetable intake across all categories.

The committee recommends six daily servings of grains, limiting refined grains to three. Despite health concerns about refined carbohydrates, the DGAC retained them in the guidelines for their enrichment with nutrients like iron and folate.
Teicholz questions this decision, pointing out that red meat, a natural source of bioavailable heme iron and folate, is simultaneously being reduced.

The committee emphasizes a diet centered on whole foods—vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts, and fish—while also recommending water as the primary beverage and continuing to suggest low- or nonfat dairy products.

From Food Pyramid to Flawed Policy

For decades, the Dietary Guidelines have shaped how Americans eat, but their legacy is marked by controversy. Introduced in 1980, they shifted focus from overall nutrition to targeting fat intake, blaming dietary fat for heart disease and urging Americans to swap butter for margarine and adopt low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets.

Before the 1980 guidelines, Americans consumed about 45 percent of their calories from fat. The new recommendations reduced this to 30 percent while encouraging carbohydrates to make up 55 to 60 percent of daily calories—primarily from grains. This shift became the foundation for the now-debated food pyramid of the 1990s, emphasizing grains as the base of a healthy diet.

In response, food manufacturers reformulated products to align with the low-fat guidance, often adding sugar and refined grains to maintain flavor and appeal—a phenomenon dubbed the “Snackwell Effect,” referring to the rise of low-fat but highly processed snack foods. These changes fueled the increased consumption of processed foods, indirectly supporting trends that some researchers now link to rising rates of obesity and diabetes.
Although the food pyramid was officially retired in 2011 and replaced by MyPlate, its legacy persists, as the broad messaging it promoted about grains, fats, and sugars continues to influence dietary habits.

“Even though it meant to encourage consumption of whole grains and small portion sizes, the pyramid’s putting grains as the foundation of a healthy diet inadvertently induced the food industry to vigorously market highly processed grain products,” Marion Nestle, a food policy expert and former DGAC member, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Carlos Monteiro, a Brazilian researcher and expert on ultra-processed foods, faulted the food pyramid for failing to differentiate between food types.
“The problem with the food pyramid is not the emphasis on grains and grain products. It is the failure to distinguish whole grains from processed and ultra-processed products,” Monteiro told The Epoch Times in an email. While refined carbohydrates, such as sugars and sweets, are placed at the top to be consumed sparingly, the pyramid’s wide base for grains does not differentiate between whole and refined options. Monteiro added that this oversight extends to other categories like meat, dairy, and fruits and persists in newer models like MyPlate, which also overlook food processing.

[URL=www.My Plate.gov]food groups[/URL]



(Left) The USDA's original food pyramid, from 1992 to 2005. (Right) MyPlate guidelines launched in 2011. Public Domain, MyPlate
A 2015 meta-analysis highlighted foundational flaws in the guidelines, revealing that early dietary fat recommendations were implemented without evidence from randomized controlled trials.

“The guidelines were based on weak science—namely, epidemiological studies,” Teicholz told The Epoch Times. “With these studies, it’s easy to get a desired result.”

In an op-ed, she went further: “Americans aren’t growing fatter and sicker in spite of the government’s dietary guidelines but because of them.”


Ultra-processed foods make up nearly 60 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake, dominating grocery shelves and diets. These include packaged snacks, sugary cereals, frozen meals, and soft drinks, many of which are made with ingredients like high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, and artificial flavorings. While convenient and shelf-stable, they are strongly linked to obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Scientists disagree on how to define ultra-processed foods and why the distinction matters. The NOVA classification system, developed by Monteiro, is the most widely used framework for categorizing foods by the extent and purpose of their processing. It defines ultra-processed foods as those made with industrial ingredients like hydrogenated oils, flavor enhancers, and emulsifiers designed for convenience and long shelf life. While other systems exist, no universal standard has emerged, complicating efforts to assess these foods’ health impacts.
The DGAC declined to make specific recommendations against ultra-processed foods, citing limited research.

“To set national policy, you need robust evidence,” said Mattes. “Right now, there’s only one small randomized controlled trial on this issue; it’s just not enough.”

Monteiro criticized the lack of action. “A recommendation against these foods would be beneficial for public health but detrimental to the profits of major corporations,” he said in a previous interview with The Epoch Times.

Teicholz highlighted the challenges of focusing on ultra-processed foods, calling the term “poorly defined.” She cautioned that sweeping changes, such as removing processed meats—a key protein source in school lunches—based on limited science could backfire without addressing the more pressing problems of excess sugars and refined grains.

Countries such as Brazil, France, and Israel have adopted dietary guidelines that explicitly advise reducing ultra-processed foods. Advocates view these policies as models for the United States to follow in combating diet-related chronic diseases. However, the DGAC’s cautious stance indicates the United States may lag behind in adopting similar measures.
Kennedy has signaled that he is unwilling to wait for perfect science. During his campaign, he called ultra-processed foods a major driver of the obesity epidemic and hinted at stricter regulations to come.
Ultra-processed foods make up nearly 60 percent of the average American’s daily calorie intake. Joe

Confronting Corporate Capture
The DGAC has faced scrutiny over its ties to industry. A U.S. Right to Know (USRTK) report found that nearly half of the committee’s 2025 members reportedly have financial relationships with corporations like Beyond Meat and Abbott. Critics argue these connections compromise the committee’s objectivity and erode public trust.
Kennedy has been vocal about addressing what he calls the “corporate capture” of federal health agencies.

“Corporate interests have hijacked the USDA’s dietary guidelines,” he said in a social media video filmed outside the USDA’s headquarters on Oct. 30.

He pledged to overhaul the system, adding, “We’re going to remove conflicts of interest from the USDA dietary panels and commissions.”

Calls for reform are not new. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences urged stricter conflict-of-interest rules and full disclosure of committee members’ financial ties. Transparency advocates like Sen. Chuck Grassley have since criticized the lack of progress, saying reforms have largely stalled.

“Why should Americans trust a report produced by people with so many conflicts of interest?” asked Gary Ruskin, executive director of USRTK, in a prior interview with The Epoch Times.
Do the Guidelines Work? A Mixed Report Card
The Dietary Guidelines have a broad influence but limited success in improving Americans’ diets. On average, Americans score just 58 out of 100 on the Healthy Eating Index (HEI), which measures how closely diets align with the guidelines.

“We don’t follow the dietary guidelines well at all,” said Mattes.

However, Teicholz contends that Americans have largely followed the advice offered over the decades, citing government data on food consumption since 1970.

“Americans have made pretty large shifts in all food groups in the way that we’ve been advised,” she said. She also questioned the HEI’s accuracy, noting that it offers only snapshots in time and may overlook broader historical trends.

Although many Americans don’t follow the guidelines perfectly, their influence on food production, marketing, and public perception has shaped what’s widely available and affordable. Trends like the rise of low-fat diets and increased carbohydrate consumption reflect their broader impact.

Research suggests the guidelines may not effectively improve health. The Women’s Health Initiative, an eight-year randomized controlled trial of nearly 49,000 postmenopausal women, tested a low-fat diet rich in vegetables, fruits, and grains. Despite significant cuts in fat intake, the study found no substantial reduction in heart disease, stroke, or other cardiovascular conditions. Researchers concluded that more focused strategies may be necessary to tackle chronic disease.

Another concern is systemic accountability.
“Agencies like the USDA have little accountability for the chronic diseases linked to the dietary advice they give,” said Teicholz, adding that health care systems ultimately bear the cost of poor nutrition.

Complexity also hampers the guidelines’ effectiveness. With some editions exceeding 900 pages, they can be challenging to translate into actionable advice.

“The longer the guidelines have become, the worse our health outcomes are,” Mattes said, noting that improving adherence requires practical, relatable advice.

“We can’t just issue directives and expect people to comply. Effective change requires understanding the barriers people face and tailoring guidance to meet them where they are.”

As adherence to the guidelines remains low, Kennedy’s leadership presents a rare opportunity for reform—but systemic challenges loom.
Nestle believes Kennedy has significant influence over the guidelines, as their finalization rests with HHS and USDA leadership.

However, Nestle cautioned that food industry lobbying and the demand for unreasonable levels of evidence have long obstructed reform efforts. She acknowledged the difficulty of relying on incomplete or evolving science to drive policy change.

Nestle admitted uncertainty about how Kennedy will approach his role.

“I have absolutely no idea what he might do if appointed,” she said, noting the slow pace and resistance often accompanying federal processes.
On whether Kennedy’s ideas align with evidence-based solutions, she offered a nuanced view. “Some are, and some are not,” she wrote. “My plan is to support the ones that have some science behind them, and oppose the ones that don’t.”

Kennedy’s exact plans for the guidelines remain unclear. His outspoken criticism of corporate influence suggests he may push for significant reform. Still, it remains to be seen whether he will work within the existing framework or chart an entirely new course.

While Kennedy’s reforms could take years to materialize, there are steps individuals can take now to improve their diets and reduce disease risk. Focusing on whole, minimally processed foods while cutting back on sugary drinks and ultra-processed snacks is a practical starting point. Small, consistent changes like cooking more meals at home or swapping sodas for water can significantly reduce diet-related health risks.
The 2025 Dietary Guidelines may be a critical measure of Kennedy’s ability to influence federal nutrition policy. Will he succeed in reshaping federal nutrition policy and fulfilling his promise to make America healthier, or will he be constrained by the entrenched forces he seeks to challenge?

As Teicholz puts it in her Substack article, “The health of our nation depends on it.”

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...eyMeAHspy%2BR6sGI%3D


We eat food with ingredients banned in most Western countries. On any given day we read about a member's health issues. Most can be traced back to diet. If only we paid attention to this when we were younger and walked away from these low-quality highly processed food types...

Here's a great example. Bread ingredients should be Flour, yeast, sugar and salt. Nothing more. Grab your loaf and read the label!

quote:

Bread ingredients should be Flour, yeast, sugar and salt.

How about that?

cut out the sugar, salt and not food from all the packaged food.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Bread ingredients should be Flour, yeast, sugar and salt.

How about that?

No, you need 2 teaspoons of Sugar to activate the yeast....

^^^ Nope, you don't need to add sugar to make bread.

If you want your bread to properly rise, there needs to be some sugars to feed the yeast. Yes, you can do it without sugar, but the results are not what you’re used to eating.

For comparison, when I make a full sheet pan of focaccia bread, I use one tablespoon of sugar. That’s the same amount of sugar in 3 ounces of Coca-Cola. This is a 26”x18” pan. It’s a lot of bread. Without the sugar, it will be a flatter/dense bread and won’t rise as well.

A small amount of sugar isn’t bad for us. It’s the extreme over consumption in all our foods that is unhealthy.

That's all I'm saying. Adding sugar is not necessary to make bread. It might not be the bread you like, but it's still bread, and it's edible.

quote:

That's all I'm saying. Adding sugar is not necessary to make bread. It might not be the bread you like, but it's still bread, and it's edible.

If we're going down that road, you don't need flour or yeast to make bread either.

You can make bread with no flour, no yeast, and/or no sugar. It may also not be the bread you like, but it's still bread, and it's edible.

There's a lot of chemistry involved with cooking/baking where adding, eliminating, or adjusting ingredients will still result in an edible product drastically different from another.

And I would also add the thought that all the ingredients be non-GMO.

Reinstating the Presidential Physical Fitness Test, started under President Eisenhower and continued by JFK, would be a good start.
The results of that test guided your physical fitness program back in the dark ages when I was in school.
Later it was modified (watered down) until completely reassessed and renamed by Obama, so you know what that means

From the internet;
"President Barack Obama got rid of the test in 2012, replacing it with an assessment called the FitnessGram that is less about besting your classmates and more about improving individual health."

I'm not going to blame him too much as it had already become mostly meaningless but he sure could have done a lot better.

Let's hope RFK Jr. can do something like his uncle tried as it would be more meaningful to the average persons health and could cost almost zero if correctly implemented.

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
A small amount of sugar isn’t bad for us. It’s the extreme over consumption in all our foods that is unhealthy.

True! What you REALLY don't need to make bread (or Coca-Cola!) is 'High-Fructose' Corn Syrup', which shouldn't be in ANY food item! It's the extreme over-consumption of that substance that's a (the?) MAJOR health problem!

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
A small amount of sugar isn’t bad for us. It’s the extreme over consumption in all our foods that is unhealthy.

True! What you REALLY don't need to make bread (or Coca-Cola!) is 'High-Fructose' Corn Syrup', which shouldn't be in ANY food item! It's the extreme over-consumption of that substance that's a (the?) MAJOR health problem!

I agree with both of the quoted posts. When I've switched off from everything processed, avoid HFCS like the plague, I see and feel great results. I still put a couple teaspoons of raw sugar in my coffee in the morning, it isn't gonna kill me.

For much more on this subject suggest you listen to a few podcasts:

Joe Rogan Experience #2210. Calley Means and Casey Means, MD

Tucker Carlson. Dr. Mark Hyman from November 27.

Joe Rogan Experience #1999. RFK Jr.

quote:

We have a health system that pays no attention to food,
And a food system that pays no attention to health.
- Wendell Berry

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:
If we're going down that road, you don't need flour or yeast to make bread either.

You can make bread with no flour, no yeast, and/or no sugar. It may also not be the bread you like, but it's still bread, and it's edible.

There's a lot of chemistry involved with cooking/baking where adding, eliminating, or adjusting ingredients will still result in an edible product drastically different from another.

Sure, you have it your way, and I'll have it my way.

Peanut Butter: Peanuts, salt
1 jar of dry roasted, salted peanuts in a food processor + Peanut butter

Jif: From the Package
ROASTED PEANUTS, SUGAR, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF: MOLASSES, FULLY HYDROGENATED VEGETABLE OILS (RAPESEED AND SOYBEAN), MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES, SALT.

quote:

RFK Jr.’s Food Fight: Can He Change America’s Diet?
If confirmed as HHS secretary, RFK Jr. faces entrenched forces, the chronic disease epidemic, and updated dietary guidelines opposing a number of his stances.

There will be push back, of course.
There are $billions at stake.

But... he's already brought attention to the problem. Big Ag and Big Pharma work hand in glove and a lot of the people came out of the tobacco industry.

quote:

We have a health system that pays no attention to food,
And a food system that pays no attention to health.
- Wendell Berry

Or, worse yet, they compliment one another making you sick for which you will need drugs.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
RFK Jr.’s Food Fight: Can He Change America’s Diet?

Can he? Yes. But our problem is much bigger than the macro what we eat - it also is the micro, and I think he's zeroed in on that as well.

The first thing is to turn the Food Pyramid upside down (as much as it pains me to say, as "You can have my bread when you pry it from my cold dead hands")...but it needs to be done.

Second, is to address (and eliminate) the chemical additives to our foods, including HFCS.

Third is to eliminate the use of herbicides and pesticides in farming. I learned recently that many wheat farms will spray their crops with Roundup to kill the plants just prior to harvesting. Supposedly, the mature wheat berries do not take up those chemicals, but I'm not so sure about that. I threw out 100lbs of wheat berries that I had in prepper storage and am shopping for certified organic. This kind of stuff has to stop.

Regarding bread - While my everyday whole wheat sandwich bread does have sugar (honey) in it, many of the other breads I make do not require sugar at all. Flour, salt, water, and yeast. That's it. That's all you need for a wonderful and well-risen loaf of bread. The carbs in the flour are all the yeast needs to bloom.

Bottom line is, who would we rather have advising us on a healthy diet? A healthy man of 70 who is in better shape than most 30 year olds, or a morbidly obese tranny?

ETA: Calley and Casey Means that TMats referred to are brilliant with regard to this topic and I would urge everyone to search out and watch their presentations.

Different diets all can be effective to the individual, depending on their goals and needs.
It would be a mistake to push a specific diet over others.
The "Standard American Diet" SAD as it called was based on a false pyramid we are all familiar with.

However, regardless of the particular diet ~ sugar, processed food and seed oils are becoming now recognizing as the primary culprits.

Personally, I would add in grains, starchy vegs and fruits to that mix or in limited supply.

When they get to banning or discouraging meat ~ that is when there is going to be fight, huge fight.

But if JFK can make a dent in labeling, use of certain bad ingredients, promoting what is actually bad without a huge disruption in businesses, then it will be a good thing.

What we don't want is mandates on the mask mandate level hitting us on the head.

I would love that the awareness would make more Carnivore/Keto entries on the menu when I go to a restaurant.
Would be nice not to have everything cooked in toxic veg oil and also not picking through my food on the plate.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Reinstating the Presidential Physical Fitness Test, started under President Eisenhower and continued by JFK, would be a good start.

..or some variation. The reality is for all the talk about eliminating unnecessary ingredients in many food stuffs, people need to change their activity habits.

I'm all for someone holding a spotlight on how many ingredients are in pre-made items but, people need to also get out of the house and get active. American's are split in their activity-levels...there's a large segment that maintain gym memberships, are apart of various sport clubs and are very active, their weekend isn't just for sitting around eating easy food and watching ballgames. Get outside go take a hike, walk around the neighborhood, get on the saddle and peddle around for several hours, jump in the pool and do some laps. There's a lot of people that not only eat poorly but, they're not active.