Ximena Solorzano, Staff Photographer
“Mixed feelings.” “Worry and concern.” “Deep disappointment.”
These are the words that Yale experts told the News as they grapple with the implications of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s federal appointment.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a vocal critic of pharmaceutical companies and public health institutions. Now, as the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, he is in a position to reshape national healthcare policy.
Kennedy’s tenure at HHS marks a significant shift in federal health policy. His Make America Healthy Again — MAHA — movement focuses on preventing chronic disease, reducing corporate influence on public health policy and removing chemicals from food and water. However, his long standing skepticism toward vaccines and distrust of regulatory agencies such as the CDC and FDA have raised alarms among public health experts, who warn that his policies could weaken institutional trust, reduce immunization rates and hinder evidence-based policymaking.
“My biggest fear – like many of my colleagues – is that he will continue to promote an anti-
science rhetoric that undermines our most critical public health efforts and our incredibly talented
biomedical science workforce,” Nicola Hawley, professor of chronic disease epidemiology at the School of Public Health, wrote to the News. “Doing so would more than offset any potential gains from addressing chronic diseases.”
The state of U.S. healthcare and Kennedy’s diagnosis
The United States spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country, yet it ranks poorly in life expectancy, maternal health outcomes and chronic disease rates. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the United States spends more than twice the average of other high-income nations but sees higher rates of obesity, diabetes and preventable deaths.
In New Haven, one in five adults over 65 has diabetes. In Connecticut, nearly 33 percent of adults have high blood pressure, and heart disease is the leading cause of death.
Kennedy attributes these issues to a healthcare system that prioritizes expensive treatments over prevention and wellness. He contends that corporate interests — particularly those of pharmaceutical and vaccine companies, industrial agriculture and processed food manufacturers — have shaped public health policies in ways that encourage chronic disease rather than prevent it.
His MAHA movement seeks to address chronic disease at its root, through food policy changes, corporate transparency, and vaccine skepticism. However, experts caution that Kennedy’s ideological learnings may interfere with legitimate policy solutions.
“When we look at a HHS Secretary, we want someone who’s a healthy skeptic who’s willing to ask experts what the evidence is behind new technologies, behind how we should actually do healthcare,” Reshma Ramachandran, professor of general medicine, told the News. “But my worry is that RFK’s record does not reflect somebody who’s a healthy skeptic, but someone who has the kind of ideological views that he puts before science.”
Addressing the debacle of processed foods
One of Kennedy’s primary concerns is the rising prevalence of chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease. To address this, his administration has proposed banning ultra-processed foods in schools, nursing homes, jails and other institutional settings where food is provided.
According to Hawley, foods such as frozen vegetables and canned tuna are minimally processed — the more troubling foods are the ultra-processed. Chips, pretzels, sodas and breakfast cereals, for example, are processed by breaking down whole foods and adding chemicals and additives to make them look appealing.
Such foods are cheap, widely available and highly palatable, leading to overconsumption. Research has consistently linked high sugar, fat and calorie content in ultra-processed foods to obesity, heart-disease and metabolic disorders. Children consume the majority of their daily calories from these foods, making school food policies a critical area for reform.
Hawley agrees that many children, who get the majority of their daily meals at school, eat ultra-processed foods throughout the day. She suggests that removing ultra-processed foods from school cafeterias and providing access to healthy, affordable food alternatives will have a positive impact.
However, where Hawley doesn’t agree with Kennedy is his promotion of unsubstantiated beliefs around nutrition practices. According to Hawley, though some of his statements do have good intentions, Kennedy asserts misinformed science to back his claims. For example, Kennedy has suggested that food dyes, which Hawley does believe we should avoid, causes ADHD. Hawley also believes that RFK’s support of all natural alternatives will bring more harm than good. This includes the promotion of raw milk, which has been shown to induce foodborne illnesses.
In addition, RFK seems to have a bit of a narrow focus when it comes to addressing nutrition disparities.
“There is certainly evidence to suggest that our exposure to processed foods and environmental toxins has increased alongside chronic disease prevalence, and some studies are beginning to make causal links,” Hawley wrote. “What is problematic about his narrative though is the lack of attention to the more far-reaching structural issues that are also major contributors to chronic disease. ”
Kennedy’s focus on processed foods as the primary driver of chronic disease fails to address deeper systemic issues that make it easy to consume these foods in the first place. Low-income communities and communities of color face higher rates of obesity and diabetes, often due to limited access to fresh food, unsafe neighborhoods, and unstable housing.
While Kennedy’s push for dietary reform is well-intentioned, experts caution that his policies must be paired with efforts to address food insecurity and socioeconomic disparities—or they risk being ineffective.
Attacking corporate influence in public health agencies
One of Kennedy’s most contentious stances is his criticism of public health institutions. He has accused agencies such as the CDC, FDA, EPA and NIH of being influenced by corporate interests and failing to protect Americans from harmful products.
Some of his claims are based in fact.
According to Yusuf Ransome, professor of social and behavioral sciences at the School of Public Health, corporate agencies can influence federal agencies in various ways. This includes lobbying for favorable regulations, funding research to support their interests. For example, companies like Monsanto have influenced the EPA to downplay the risks of widely used pesticides. Coca-Cola has built relationships with the CDC to resist sugar regulations. According to Xi Chen, professor of health policy at the School of Public Health, some pharmaceutical industries have even altered experimental data on dementia treatment.
Howard Forman, professor of health policy at the School of Public Health, also highlighted the issue of the revolving door, where individuals move between leadership roles in regulated industries and positions within government agencies, like the FDA. While industry expertise can be valuable in agencies, the concern arises when former regulators use their government connections to benefit private interests.
“Corporate influence can create conflicts of interest, where the primary focus of federal agencies shifts from protecting public health to advancing corporate profits,” Chen said. “This can then exacerbate health inequities by prioritizing interventions and policies that benefit wealthier populations or specific industries, while neglecting the needs of marginalized and underserved communities.”
Chen believes that Kennedy should investigate corporate influence and bring about some transparency to the regulation and actions of federal agencies; he suggests Kennedy does this by creating a committee with scientists who can provide unbiased analysis of the corporate influence.
However, the way that Kennedy is currently “cleaning up” federal agencies has been up for contention.
Forman cautioned that while corporate influence in public health policymaking is an ongoing concern, dismantling agencies outright could have serious consequences.
“[Kennedy’s] rhetoric could weaken confidence in federal health guidance, making it harder to implement critical public health measures,” Forman said.
Chen mentions that Kennedy’s oversight of the purging of federal agency employees does more harm than good. Laying off professionals won’t reduce corporate influence; instead, it would make it more difficult to develop unbiased, evidence-based public health recommendations. This would impact efforts in chronic disease prevention, maternal mortality and other critical health issues.
The danger of anti-vaccine rhetoric
Kennedy’s stance on vaccines remains one of his most controversial positions. While he has not called for an outright vaccine ban, he has consistently opposed mandates and questioned vaccine safety. His claims that vaccines cause autism, that COVID-19 vaccines alter DNA, and that people of color should be on a different vaccine schedule than white individuals solely on race have all been debunked.
There is the potential of serious side effects of vaccines, like blood clotting issues with the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines and neurological disorders with the flu vaccines. However, these side effects are rare. And though RFK propagates the harm of vaccines, his own family is vaccinated, including from COVID-19.
Chen warns that loosening vaccine mandates could lead to declining immunization rates and the resurgence of preventable diseases. This will lead to a higher healthcare burden as medical resources will be strained on cases that could’ve been prevented. In addition, lower vaccination rates break down herd immunity, placing vulnerable populations who can’t take vaccines-like the elderly-at risk. Already, there are reports of measles outbreaks in Texas as childhood vaccination rates drop below herd immunity thresholds.
“Look, we’re down to 93 percent vaccination rates for childhood vaccines at the kindergarten level in this country,” said Forman. “That’s below the herd immunity rate for measles. There’s a consequential measles outbreak in under-vaccinated communities in Texas, and it’s already spilled over into a county in New Mexico.”
Currently, Kennedy is using his pseudoscientific beliefs of vaccines to promote vaccine skepticism. For example, he has ordered the CDC to half the flu vaccination ad campaigns. And though he promised to uphold existing vaccine schedules, Kennedy has announced plans to review these schedules.
A polarizing future for U.S. health policy
Experts have reached a general consensus that Kennedy has some innovative ideas that can improve the health of the country. However, his ideologies and deprioritization of scientific evidence will make it difficult for him to achieve those goals.
Chen points out that Kennedy is not a medical professional and has no experience leading a public health institution, much less one as large and influential as the HHS department. His lack of medical knowledge showcased itself in his Senate confirmation hearing, when he couldn’t explain the difference between Medicaid and Medicare.
“Despite his stated intentions about addressing these key issues, it just doesn’t seem like he’s the right person for the job,” Ramachandran told the News. “You want someone who’s willing to look at their agencies that are staffed with scientists, clinicians and engineers. You want him to say ‘I’m not going to be an expert at everything, because health is a huge topic, but I’m going to be willing to listen to people and talk to them about it.’ He’s not that.”
Chen notes that there are already gaps between scientific understanding of various public health issues and the public perception of these issues. Kennedy’s actions and beliefs can not only worsen the gap, but also worsen the trust many Americans have in federal agencies.
Though there’s grave concern about what Kennedy will do, he will be America’s HHS secretary for the next four years. Ramachandran suggests that those in Congress who have the power to stand up to Kennedy and keep him accountable should do just that. Others, like Hawley, hopes that Kennedy can begin to change his ways.
“I would urge him to center his health platform on interventions with robust scientific backing and to fulfil his promise of transparency and accountability without undermining the scientific consensus,” Hawley wrote to the News.
On Feb. 13, RFK Jr was sworn in as the 26th Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.