There's been a LOT about why RFK Jr is a terrible pick, but I want to focus on something that is very concerning to me, but no one seems to be mentioning.
He appeals to a widespread, common-sense idea that the problem with our food is that it has "lots of artificial ingredients". Get the artificial ingredients out — no chemical additives! no food dyes! no high fructose corn syrup! — and our health problems magically resolve.
This is 100% incorrect, and fundamentally misunderstands the problems with our food system.
He appeals to a widespread, common-sense idea that the problem with our food is that it has "lots of artificial ingredients". Get the artificial ingredients out — no chemical additives! no food dyes! no high fructose corn syrup! — and our health problems magically resolve.
This is 100% incorrect, and fundamentally misunderstands the problems with our food system.
Here's the truth: If people keep eating large amounts of highly caloric foods made with organic sugar instead of high fructose corn syrup, colored with beet juice instead of Red No4, our health problems will remain precisely the same.
Now in a strange way, forcing manufacturers to use "natural" ingredients COULD improve our food system, but not in the way people think. It wouldn't make the food healthier, but it would make it MORE EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE.
And that would reduce consumption. Like a tax!
And that would reduce consumption. Like a tax!
Unfortunately, RFK Jr. does not seem to understand that the problem with our food system is the UBIQUITOUS EXISTENCE OF CHEAP, CALORIE-DENSE, HIGHLY PALATABLE FOOD.
That's it. That's the whole problem. It has precisely nothing to do with food dye or high fructose corn syrup.
That's it. That's the whole problem. It has precisely nothing to do with food dye or high fructose corn syrup.
Food manufacturers employ the very best in the business. If you focus on "artificial additives" they are going to spend millions on how to produce "natural" versions of the same food, at the same price point.
*taps earpiece* What's that? You say they're already on it?
*taps earpiece* What's that? You say they're already on it?
People want easy answers to complicated problems. We want to believe that Haagen-Dazs "Five" is the solution to our problems.
Five simple natural ingredients! Free ice cream for everyone now that it's only got five natural ingredients, and sugar instead of corn syrup!
That's not how it works. But someone like RFK Jr. encourages this simplistic, misguided approach.
Five simple natural ingredients! Free ice cream for everyone now that it's only got five natural ingredients, and sugar instead of corn syrup!
That's not how it works. But someone like RFK Jr. encourages this simplistic, misguided approach.
At any rate, I've been on this beat for a decade. Here's a piece I wrote in 2015 that explains how these misconceptions work.
For the fun TL;DR, scroll down to the bottom of the piece, where you can see the fake diet I invented, and click on how I exploited misconceptions to make it sound plausible.
npr.org/sections/thesa…
For the fun TL;DR, scroll down to the bottom of the piece, where you can see the fake diet I invented, and click on how I exploited misconceptions to make it sound plausible.
npr.org/sections/thesa…
This tweet is a perfect example of how RFK Jr. will encourage the kind of misunderstanding I'm talking about here.
Is sugary cereal "healthier" than hamburgers?
Well, I'll tell you this much — the reason sugary cereal is bad has nothing to do with the screenshot of chemically-sounding ingredients.
Is sugary cereal "healthier" than hamburgers?
Well, I'll tell you this much — the reason sugary cereal is bad has nothing to do with the screenshot of chemically-sounding ingredients.
https://x.com/issoHarrison/status/1857436830410358923
The reason sugary cereal is bad — "worse" than hamburgers — is because it is easy to eat lots of it, it is calorie dense, it doesn't sate you, and it is extremely cheap! Not the f*ing ingredient list!
This thread blew up, so it has been impossible to respond to everybody. But one of the main objections I've seen is this: "Oh yeah? Then explain why I lose so much weight and feel so much better when I go to Europe?"
The implication is that stricter European standards for food products make for foods that are healthier, sate you more quickly, etc.
But is that the reason? Or is it possible there are other reasons?
I happen to be familiar with this kind of argument because I heard it a lot when I was writing about gluten. People who were gluten-free in the US — notably not people with celiac disease — would say that in Europe they were able to eat bread with gluten, because it was [insert claim: organic, different gluten levels, whatever].
The truth is that in both cases, the answer to the mystery has nothing to do with the food. It has to do with the change in context.
The implication is that stricter European standards for food products make for foods that are healthier, sate you more quickly, etc.
But is that the reason? Or is it possible there are other reasons?
I happen to be familiar with this kind of argument because I heard it a lot when I was writing about gluten. People who were gluten-free in the US — notably not people with celiac disease — would say that in Europe they were able to eat bread with gluten, because it was [insert claim: organic, different gluten levels, whatever].
The truth is that in both cases, the answer to the mystery has nothing to do with the food. It has to do with the change in context.
I'll explain a little more: When people feel better going gluten-free, or lose weight on a new diet, there are two main factors that don't involve the specifics of the new diet:
1. They are paying more attention to what they eat and changing their habits. If you are eating unhealthfully, just doing those things will, unsurprisingly, improve your diet! You could go keto, or go vegan: As long as you are fundamentally changing your (previously unhealthy) diet, you're going to feel much better.
2. You feel empowered! The change makes you feel like you can do something. That you are doing something. That what was once hopeless is now possible. And that makes you feel really good. It's important!
1. They are paying more attention to what they eat and changing their habits. If you are eating unhealthfully, just doing those things will, unsurprisingly, improve your diet! You could go keto, or go vegan: As long as you are fundamentally changing your (previously unhealthy) diet, you're going to feel much better.
2. You feel empowered! The change makes you feel like you can do something. That you are doing something. That what was once hopeless is now possible. And that makes you feel really good. It's important!
So let's consider the "Why do I feel better / eat better in Europe?" question. Is it stricter European regulations on food ingredients?
Well, there's another possibility:
You're in a different context. You're not at your office, next to the vending machine. You don't have access to the same stores and restaurants. You have to fundamentally change up your (previously unhealthy) eating habits. And that is going to make you feel better! If you are consuming less calorie-dense food, less frequently, you'll also lose weight.
Not only that, but often people are going to Europe on vacation. They're walking around! They're relaxed! They're not stress-eating from their fridge and their pantry, because they don't have a fridge or pantry and they're not stressed!
Well, there's another possibility:
You're in a different context. You're not at your office, next to the vending machine. You don't have access to the same stores and restaurants. You have to fundamentally change up your (previously unhealthy) eating habits. And that is going to make you feel better! If you are consuming less calorie-dense food, less frequently, you'll also lose weight.
Not only that, but often people are going to Europe on vacation. They're walking around! They're relaxed! They're not stress-eating from their fridge and their pantry, because they don't have a fridge or pantry and they're not stressed!
So what's more likely: The European standards for food create a miraculous new food environment in which, thanks to the stricter standards on ingredients, you simply get healthier and fitter?
Or European portion size is smaller, you're on vacation, in a different context, and those changes lead to healthier eating habits.
In my opinion, the choice between the two explanations is crystal clear.
Or European portion size is smaller, you're on vacation, in a different context, and those changes lead to healthier eating habits.
In my opinion, the choice between the two explanations is crystal clear.
I usually really enjoy responding to everyone but it's impossible right now. One more response to something I keep hearing: "Well, maybe you're right, but at least RFK Jr. wants to do something about our unhealthy food in general!"
This is truly the weirdest take. For decades medical professionals have been calling for drastic changes to our food culture. The much reviled food pyramid, while wrong about the relative dangers of fat, did NOT recommend eating as many Twinkies as possible.
There have been many, many attempts at targeting soda consumption (with taxes, by trying to get celebrities to not endorse it).
There have been many attempts to stop companies from advertising sugary foods to kids, or making it seem like they are healthy.
There are endless advocates for home cooking, for more balanced diets with foods that aren't as calorie-dense, sate you, and don't leave you craving more.
And...you're not going to believe this, but almost all of these advocates didn't take unfounded positions on "artificial vs. natural" or the danger of "chemicals" and vaccines, or the virtues of hydroxychloroquine.
Sure, some of RFK Jr.'s desired changes are reasonable! If he were the first person to come up with them, I'd be very impresssed.
But he's not. He's one of many, and the way he came to his positions, along with all the other positions he holds that are ridiculous, make him completely unfit to be advising the nation on how to eat more healthfully.
This is truly the weirdest take. For decades medical professionals have been calling for drastic changes to our food culture. The much reviled food pyramid, while wrong about the relative dangers of fat, did NOT recommend eating as many Twinkies as possible.
There have been many, many attempts at targeting soda consumption (with taxes, by trying to get celebrities to not endorse it).
There have been many attempts to stop companies from advertising sugary foods to kids, or making it seem like they are healthy.
There are endless advocates for home cooking, for more balanced diets with foods that aren't as calorie-dense, sate you, and don't leave you craving more.
And...you're not going to believe this, but almost all of these advocates didn't take unfounded positions on "artificial vs. natural" or the danger of "chemicals" and vaccines, or the virtues of hydroxychloroquine.
Sure, some of RFK Jr.'s desired changes are reasonable! If he were the first person to come up with them, I'd be very impresssed.
But he's not. He's one of many, and the way he came to his positions, along with all the other positions he holds that are ridiculous, make him completely unfit to be advising the nation on how to eat more healthfully.
Here's another response to a common objection. People keep saying that American obesity rates and associated health problems are due to artificial ingredients that aren't allowed in Europe.
But how does this explain basic variation in obesity rate by country? Why, for example, does Tonga have an obesity rate 22% higher than the US? Why do Romania (a European country!) and Kuwait have comparable levels to the US?
Why does Canada, which regulates food more or less like the US, have an obesity rate that's 12% lower than the US? 🤔
The answers are complicated, but I'll tell you what isn't the answer: The relative levels of "artificial" ingredients in these countries' foods!
bbc.com/news/magazine-….
But how does this explain basic variation in obesity rate by country? Why, for example, does Tonga have an obesity rate 22% higher than the US? Why do Romania (a European country!) and Kuwait have comparable levels to the US?
Why does Canada, which regulates food more or less like the US, have an obesity rate that's 12% lower than the US? 🤔
The answers are complicated, but I'll tell you what isn't the answer: The relative levels of "artificial" ingredients in these countries' foods!
bbc.com/news/magazine-….
Thousands of anti-seed-oil folks furiously googling at this very moment to see if Canada banned seed oils.
If you've read this far, you may enjoy this anecdote about J.I. Rodale, founder of Rodale Press, and an early advocate of eating organic — and taking "natural" supplements — as panaceas for good fitness and preventing cancer.
At one point, he claimed, "I'm going to live to be 100, unless I'm run down by some sugar-crazed taxi driver."
Rodale taped an interview for the Dick Cavett show in 1971. His last interaction with Cavett was to offer him his special "asparagus boiled in urine."
The interview never aired, however, because Rodale had a heart attack onstage, right after the interview ended, and died.
You cannot make this stuff up.
Rodale Press continues to pump out books full of nutrition and health misinformation, just like their founder would have wanted!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Rod…
At one point, he claimed, "I'm going to live to be 100, unless I'm run down by some sugar-crazed taxi driver."
Rodale taped an interview for the Dick Cavett show in 1971. His last interaction with Cavett was to offer him his special "asparagus boiled in urine."
The interview never aired, however, because Rodale had a heart attack onstage, right after the interview ended, and died.
You cannot make this stuff up.
Rodale Press continues to pump out books full of nutrition and health misinformation, just like their founder would have wanted!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._I._Rod…
Lastly, for everyone saying "hey buddy what are your qualifications, RFK Jr. just wants to follow the science!"
Here's a very anti-establishment physician who was adamantly against lockdowns during the pandemic, discussing how RFK Jr. comes to his conclusions:
Here's a very anti-establishment physician who was adamantly against lockdowns during the pandemic, discussing how RFK Jr. comes to his conclusions:
https://x.com/AlanLevinovitz/status/1857226638913601717
Okay, I can't take it. How can people keep saying that RFK Jr. is the only politician to care about improving the American diet???!! Are you all trolling me? (Probably.)
Obama(s). Bloomberg. The list goes on. They tried, again and again, to reduce the amount of sugar kids, and adults, consumed. They legislated healthier school lunches. And it...sort of worked. But not really.
Why?
Was it because they didn't consult with RFK Jr. "The First One to Care About Healthier Food"?
No. It's because people rebelled! They don't like to be told what to eat by the government! And they don't like to change their eating habits. This isn't rocket science.
Obama(s). Bloomberg. The list goes on. They tried, again and again, to reduce the amount of sugar kids, and adults, consumed. They legislated healthier school lunches. And it...sort of worked. But not really.
Why?
Was it because they didn't consult with RFK Jr. "The First One to Care About Healthier Food"?
No. It's because people rebelled! They don't like to be told what to eat by the government! And they don't like to change their eating habits. This isn't rocket science.
Hmmm…look at all this variation right here in the US!
I’m guessing famously libertarian Coloradans make an exception and highly highly regulate their food. I bet they all avoid seed oils, and that explains the 15% difference in obesity rate, and other health outcomes, between them and West Virginia.
Or — and hear me out, I know this is wild— what if lifestyle and socioeconomic factors are the main drivers of health discrepancies ranging from T2 diabetes to cancer? What if approaching health by tackling ingredients instead of making sure people have enough time and money to live more healthfully is profoundly misguided?
I’m guessing famously libertarian Coloradans make an exception and highly highly regulate their food. I bet they all avoid seed oils, and that explains the 15% difference in obesity rate, and other health outcomes, between them and West Virginia.
Or — and hear me out, I know this is wild— what if lifestyle and socioeconomic factors are the main drivers of health discrepancies ranging from T2 diabetes to cancer? What if approaching health by tackling ingredients instead of making sure people have enough time and money to live more healthfully is profoundly misguided?
I really appreciate the attention this thread has gotten, and I hope it does some good. For people wondering why I feel the way I do, here's another thread explaining it, because I owe it to you:
https://x.com/AlanLevinovitz/status/1857956291773145568
And see here for a response to the idea that this kind of criticism is just "shilling" for Big Pharma:
https://x.com/AlanLevinovitz/status/1859616021839052981
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
