Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spent his first year as health and human services secretary suppressing medical innovation, and now he’s turned his sights to another obsession: policing what people eat.
“We’re going to ask Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, ‘Show us the safety data that show that it’s okay for a teenage girl to drink an iced coffee with 115 grams of sugar in it,’” he said last week. “I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.”
Like a lot of what nosy bureaucrats say, this sounds almost reasonable. Yet the likely consequence is not to educate people but to restrict their choices. Don’t be surprised if this ends with businesses having to produce data that proves their products are not harmful, even though their ingredients have been recognized as generally safe for years. After all, Kennedy has promised to remove ingredients from the market that he and his trial lawyer pals claim are bad for you.
Kennedy on Thursday defended his remarks: “No one is taking away your Dunkin’. But isn’t it reasonable to ask whether a drink loaded with 180 grams of sugar is safe?”
No one thinks sugary and ultra-processed products are heathy choices. In fact, the government already requires companies and chain restaurants to display detailed nutritional facts. Browbeating private enterprises into divulging even more internal data won’t help people make informed decisions.
The bigger threat to the food industry is Kennedy’s proposed regulatory changes. Last year, he directed the Food and Drug Administration to eliminate a rule that allows food companies to “self-affirm” whether ingredients are safe. That means any company would need to notify the FDA of any new ingredient and seek approval. Kennedy, who spent most of his life as a big-government Democrat, surely knows that the best way to regulate something is to first demand a “study.”
Even if an ingredient deserves scientific scrutiny, the current HHS has lost credibility as a fair arbiter of such facts. Scientists have been debating the risks of additives for decades and rarely reach consensus because such research is notoriously difficult. Why should anyone believe Kennedy — who hawked cod liver oil as a measles treatment — has better insight?
Republicans used to be against nanny-state bureaucrats telling citizens what they can eat and drink. No doubt many still feel that way. Now would be a good time to stand up.
A few progressives already have. Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) dared Kennedy to “come and take” her Dunkin’. Ashish Jha, the White House’s covid-19 response coordinator under President Joe Biden, put it succinctly: “If there is too much sugar in some iced coffees, that’s between [Dunkin’] and the customer.”
Kennedy and his adherents argue in other contexts that they should be free to use products as they see fit. Just this week in Iowa, lawmakers advanced legislation that would make ivermectin available over the counter, among other MAHA ideas. That’s the medication Kennedy hyped as a cure for covid, even though multiple studies have shown the drug is not effective for the virus and its misuse can result in serious harm.
The MAHA movement has commendable goals: America would be a better place if more people exercised and ate well. But history makes clear government won’t be the force that effects that change.
The post In defense of sugar appeared first on Washington Post.
