RFK Jr. Offers An Unhealthy Dose Of Bureaucracy
epartment of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is on a mission to wrap red tape around every last inch of America’s food and drug supply. He is now strong-arming food companies to remove artificial dyes from their products, even when there is little evidence that the dyes pose a harm. He is seriously considering banning drug commercials on television, even though consumers rely on this advertising to make informed choices. He is even using his clout to expel soda and sugary snacks from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
This array of misguided actions betrays a misplaced confidence in the U.S. regulatory system and will certainly not “Make America Healthy Again.” Taxpayers and consumers need a healthy dose of freedom, not more conspiracy-minded science.
Few policy priorities seem as high on Secretary Kennedy’s list as getting dyes out of food products. The health secretary reportedly told food executives he wants these ingredients out “before he leaves office” and has “made clear his intention to take action unless the industry is willing to be proactive with solutions.”
The threat to “take action” is a chilling statement from any bureaucrat. While some consumer watchdogs have raised alarm on the link between dyes and behavioral disorders such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the best studies and meta-analyses to date have not found any reliable link.
Even in animal studies in which animals are given food color additives in doses far greater than what humans consume, results have been “small, inconsistent, and not dose-dependent in nature.” While anything — including water — can be dangerous at a high-enough dose, the finding that sometimes animals are harmed at extremely-high dye doses is a terrible argument for prohibition.
RFK Jr.’s “regulate first, ask questions later” approach can also be seen in his approach to drug commercial regulations. There’s a real possibility that the new HHS secretary will move to ban direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug ads on television, despite the virtual certainty of First Amendment legal challenges.
The government deciding to restrict television commercials because it doesn’t like the content just doesn’t square well with constitutional law, which generally holds content-based restrictions to a high level of judicial scrutiny. The government would have an exceptionally difficult time satisfying this scrutiny because of these commercials’ many benefits. Advertisements can raise public awareness about available treatments, prompting patients to consult healthcare providers about previously undiagnosed conditions.
Studies published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine have found that DTC ads can motivate people to seek medical attention and treatment and help “avert underuse of medicines to treat chronic conditions.” DTC commercials may be annoying, but so are car commercials and ads about cleaning products. Only one of these, though, helps to save lives.
Finally, RFK has used his influence to push for new restrictions on SNAP benefits (which are actually administered outside of HHS in the Department of Agriculture). Banning the use of SNAP to buy unhealthy foods may seem like a good idea — until one realizes the government has a terrible track-record in dictating healthy diets.
“Starting in the 1980s the federal government’s urged people to shun fats and cholesterol and load up on carbs,” A. Barton Hinkle wrote in Reason in 2016. “A 1990s food pyramid from the USDA placed bread, rice, and pasta at the base, suggesting a person eat six to 11 servings a day — but only two or three servings of meat or eggs and even less of fats.” It’s not surprising that this proliferation of carb recommendations coincided with an explosion of obesity.
Similarly, proposed SNAP strictures can have plenty of unintended consequences. For example, consumers ditching diet soda (which has zero calories and sugar) with a “healthy” fruit drink brimming with sugar is almost certainly not a healthy choice. Yet, that’s exactly what the end result would be from Nanny State SNAP rules.
More broadly, using federal programs to stigmatize whole classes of foods and beverages risks more costly regulation down the road. As e-cigarette users trying to quit smoking can attest, bureaucrats branding products with a scarlet letter never ends well.
The truth is that micromanaging food and drug consumption in the U.S. is bound to end in disaster. Secretary Kennedy should learn from previous mistakes and keep overregulation off the policy pyramid.
David Williams is the president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.