N※N

Science and Technology
Source : (remove) : Novelando
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

Science and Technology
Source : (remove) : Novelando
^{RSS • JSON • XML • CSV}

RFK Jr. is waging a war against ultra-processed foods. Will almond milk be canceled?

RFK Jr. Sparks Debate by Challenging the Notion of Ultra-Processed Foods as Inherently Unhealthy

In a bold and controversial stance that has ignited widespread discussion among health experts, policymakers, and the general public, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the environmental lawyer and vocal advocate for public health reform, has recently argued that not all ultra-processed foods deserve the blanket condemnation they often receive. Speaking at a virtual town hall event organized by his nonprofit organization, Children's Health Defense, Kennedy delved into what he describes as the "nuanced reality" of modern food production, suggesting that certain ultra-processed items could play a role in a balanced diet if properly regulated and reformulated. This perspective comes amid his growing influence in national health conversations, particularly following his alignment with political figures pushing for sweeping changes in America's food system under the banner of "Make America Healthy Again."

Kennedy's comments, which were first reported in a detailed interview with a health podcast, challenge the prevailing scientific consensus that ultra-processed foods—defined by the NOVA classification system as formulations of ingredients like sugars, fats, and additives, often with minimal whole foods—are a primary driver of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and other chronic illnesses. He contends that the vilification of these foods overlooks historical context and potential benefits. "We've been eating processed foods since the dawn of civilization," Kennedy stated. "Bread, cheese, beer—these are all processed. The issue isn't processing; it's the industrial adulteration with chemicals, seed oils, and synthetic additives that Big Food pushes to maximize profits at the expense of our health."

To elaborate, Kennedy points to examples like fortified cereals or plant-based milk alternatives, which he argues can be "healthy" if stripped of harmful elements such as high-fructose corn syrup, artificial preservatives, and trans fats. He advocates for a reevaluation of food labeling and manufacturing standards, proposing that the government incentivize companies to produce ultra-processed foods with nutrient-dense profiles. This includes mandating the inclusion of whole grains, natural fibers, and bioavailable vitamins while phasing out what he calls "toxic" ingredients like glyphosate residues from pesticides or emulsifiers that disrupt gut microbiomes. Kennedy's vision aligns with his broader critique of corporate influence in agriculture, where he blames entities like Monsanto (now part of Bayer) and major food conglomerates for engineering addictive, nutrient-poor products that contribute to America's health crisis.

Health experts have responded with a mix of intrigue and skepticism. Dr. Marion Nestle, a professor emerita of nutrition at New York University and author of "Food Politics," acknowledges that Kennedy raises valid points about the spectrum of processing. "Not all processing is equal," she notes. "Fermentation, for instance, can enhance nutritional value, as seen in yogurt or kimchi. But the ultra-processed category, by definition, includes items like sodas, chips, and frozen pizzas that are engineered for hyper-palatability, leading to overconsumption." Nestle warns that Kennedy's stance risks downplaying robust evidence from studies like those published in The Lancet, which link high intake of ultra-processed foods to a 21% increased risk of mortality from all causes.

Similarly, the American Heart Association has reiterated its guidelines, emphasizing that ultra-processed foods often contain excessive sodium, added sugars, and unhealthy fats, contributing to cardiovascular issues. A 2023 meta-analysis in the British Medical Journal found that for every 10% increase in ultra-processed food consumption, the risk of heart disease rises by 9%. Critics argue that Kennedy's selective endorsement could confuse consumers, especially in a landscape where marketing already blurs lines between "healthy" and harmful products. For instance, breakfast cereals touted as "whole grain" might still be laden with sugars, undermining their purported benefits.

Kennedy, however, draws on historical and cultural analogies to bolster his case. He references indigenous food preservation techniques, such as drying meats or fermenting grains, which involve processing but retain nutritional integrity. In contrast, he lambasts modern ultra-processing for its reliance on cheap, subsidized commodities like corn and soy, which he claims are genetically modified and sprayed with herbicides that leach into the food supply. "If we reform the system—ban seed oils like canola and sunflower, which are inflammatory, and promote regenerative farming—we could have ultra-processed foods that are actually good for you," he asserts. This ties into his push for policy changes, including subsidies for organic farming and stricter FDA oversight on food additives.

Public reaction has been polarized. Supporters, particularly in wellness communities and among those disillusioned with mainstream medicine, praise Kennedy for highlighting corporate greed. Social media platforms buzz with hashtags like #RFKFoodRevolution, where users share recipes for "healthified" versions of processed snacks, such as homemade energy bars using dates and nuts instead of refined sugars. One viral TikTok video features a nutritionist demonstrating how to "de-process" store-bought granola by removing artificial flavors, aligning with Kennedy's call for consumer empowerment.

On the flip side, detractors, including public health organizations like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, accuse Kennedy of cherry-picking data to fit his narrative. They point to his history of promoting controversial views, such as skepticism toward vaccines, as evidence of a pattern that prioritizes anecdote over evidence. "While it's true that not every processed food is evil, the data overwhelmingly shows that ultra-processed diets correlate with poorer health outcomes," says Michael Jacobson, the center's co-founder. A study from the University of São Paulo, often cited in these debates, analyzed over 500,000 people and found that ultra-processed foods displace healthier options, leading to nutrient deficiencies.

Kennedy's position also intersects with economic considerations. Ultra-processed foods dominate supermarket shelves because they're affordable and convenient, especially for low-income families. According to the USDA, these items make up about 60% of the average American's caloric intake. Kennedy proposes tax incentives for companies that reformulate products to meet "healthy processing" criteria, potentially making nutritious options more accessible. He envisions a future where school lunches feature ultra-processed but fortified items like veggie-packed nuggets made from regeneratively farmed ingredients, rather than the current fare heavy on preservatives.

This debate extends beyond individual health to environmental impacts. Kennedy, with his background in environmental law, links ultra-processing to industrial agriculture's toll on soil health and biodiversity. He argues that shifting toward minimally adulterated processed foods could reduce reliance on monocrops and chemical inputs, fostering a more sustainable food system. Experts like Dr. Walter Willett of Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health partially agree, noting that sustainable processing—such as using upcycled ingredients to minimize waste—could align health and environmental goals.

As Kennedy's influence grows, particularly in potential advisory roles within government, his views could shape policy. Proposals under discussion include updating the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to differentiate between types of processing, rather than broadly discouraging all ultra-processed foods. This could lead to innovations like lab-grown proteins or AI-optimized formulations that enhance nutrition without the downsides.

In conclusion, RFK Jr.'s challenge to the ultra-processed food paradigm invites a reevaluation of how we define "healthy" in an era of mass production. While his ideas provoke necessary conversations about reform, they also underscore the need for rigorous science to guide decisions. As America grapples with epidemics of obesity and chronic disease—affecting over 40% of adults, per CDC data—the path forward may lie in balancing innovation with caution, ensuring that convenience doesn't come at the cost of well-being. Whether Kennedy's vision materializes into policy remains to be seen, but it has undeniably stirred the pot on what constitutes truly nourishing food in the 21st century.

(Word count: 1,048)

Read the Full USA Today Article at:
[ https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/07/26/rfk-jr-ultra-processed-foods-healthy/85337173007/ ]