A Lot Of What RFK Says Is Bulls**t — But Not Everyone Dunking On Him Is Right, Either

Let’s be real — navigating misinformation over the next four years is going to be a tough nut to crack. And with the recent appointment from President-elect Donald Trump of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to head the Department of Health and Human Services, there’s plenty to dish about.
When Trump announced on Twitter (X) RFK Jr.’s new role, he remarked how “thrilled” he was to appoint his former presidential opponent. Trump went on to write that “Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health…” and that “Mr. Kennedy will restore these Agencies to the traditions of Gold Standard Scientific Research, and beacons of Transparency, to end the Chronic Disease epidemic, and to Make America Great and Healthy Again!”
Some experts aren’t entirely dismayed by his appointment, while others are considerably more cautious. Trump’s appointment of RFK Jr. brought on a slew of articles about his health claims on everything from seed oils, vaccines, raw milk to food dyes. Which is unsurprising, given his presidential campaign was a buffet of peculiar (if not outright scandals) of his eccentricities — from a dead bear left in Central Park to an alleged affair with a New Yorker reporter, all on top of conspiracy theories he’s peddled out regarding vaccines, COVID-19, and 5G cellular networks causing cancer and more.
But how do we know which of his claims are valid and which have no scientific basis behind them? We spoke with nutritionists, medical professionals and immunologists on how best to cut through all the noise.
How can Americans saturated with misinformation, conspiracy theories and outright propaganda know who to trust? Especially when it comes to what you put in your stomach? Is raw milk bad for you? Should food dyes be removed? Which of RFK Jr.’s plans could be harmful or beneficial?
Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health Emerita at New York University, who is also a molecular biologist, nutritionist and public health advocate, has some sage advice.
She agrees that without a “sound background in nutrition science,” it can make it tricky to fact-check, but that Americans should be skeptical of anything that “sounds too good to be true,” especially of any advice that suddenly tells you “everything you’ve been told about nutrition is wrong. Science doesn’t work that way.”
But Nestle is pleased to see RFK Jr. discussing nutritional issues she’s been concerned with for decades: “prevention of chronic disease, getting harmful chemicals out of the food supply, transforming agricultural production to focus on health.”
“Whether he will be able to do any of that remains to be seen, but I think it’s terrific that someone at that level is talking about food system transformation and health. I intend to support policies of his that I support, and oppose the ones I oppose,” Nestle added.
Danielle Shine, an Australian registered dietitian and nutritionist who studies nutrition misinformation, is less optimistic about Kennedy’s appointment. She believes his appointment is not only one that should be concerning, but also dangerous.
“I’m deeply concerned. RFK Jr. is vastly underqualified for any role related to food, drugs, or public health in general,” Shine said. “His track record of spreading misinformation raises serious concerns about his ability to make informed, evidence-based decisions, which is crucial for protecting and bolstering public health.”
Shine added that RFK Jr.’s “commitment to promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, coupled with his amplification of misinformation about food and health, is deeply troubling. Moreover, his denial of any responsibility in the deadly 2019 measles outbreak in Samoa ― which claimed the lives of 83 people, mostly children ― is reprehensible, and raises serious concerns about his ethics and integrity.”
Shine is also worried the public, particularly anyone without a background in health and science, will be at risk of being “bamboozled by him.”
“His misguided claims and distorted version of health are also likely to resonate with people who subscribe to pseudoscience, misinformation and conspiracy theories,” she said. “Since COVID, I think the number of these people have grown.”
When it comes to fact-checking medical and nutrition advice you hear either from Kennedy or online, one practice remains prudent — follow the money. It’s an old saying and one that to this day still sticks.
In a single journalist request online for this article, over 20 emails from publicists and sources came within the first hour. The most adamant “sources” were either selling supplements, weight loss treatments, books pushing anti-vaccine agendas, or new medical apps dominated the requests. Nestle chimed in on the requests, remarking that, “If the person giving the advice is trying to sell you a product, be skeptical. The advice is about selling products.”
One doctor whose publicist offered them as a source is a well-known wellness guru-type that sells dietary supplements, opposes vaccines and frequently provides medical half-truths distorted to support his claims. He’s got a book to sell and pills to push.
But most of us don’t have the time, or maybe the interest, in investigating every source of every article or quick grab shot on social media to debunk truths. And let’s be honest, fast news thrives on articles that quickly present ideologies or “truths” we want to believe — articles claiming the health benefits of coffee, cheese or red wine are popular because we want to believe they are healthy and not damaging. And aside from clicking on what aligns best with our own biases, we’re also contending with information rapidly being pumped out by AI even in the medical field.
Dr. Kathryn Basford, a general practitioner based in the U.K., is concerned over the amount of medical misinformation people read when it comes to their health and what they believe about food conspiracies they read online. She urges readers to make sure the posts you read online are accurate or come from trustworthy sources.
“Check the organization or expert making the claims to see if they are properly accredited and look out for citations — it’s often a bad sign if someone is making bold claims without any evidence,” she said.
She also warns that AI is moving quickly, and helping spread conspiracies and misinformation regarding health and food. AI-language models are getting better every day. So even if you think you can spot AI content, there’s no way of determining if a poster is real or not without meeting them in person.
“The risk of AI misinformation spreading online is significant and something we all need to think about carefully in the coming weeks and months. Controversial topics, such as the consumption of raw milk, are particularly vulnerable to exploitation as polarizing topics often magnify extreme views. There’s also the potential for businesses to take advantage of the situation to sway shoppers.”
The spread of misinformation regarding food and health is increasing, largely due to social media. Platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram and TikTok facilitate the rapid dissemination of nutrition misinformation, largely created by an increasing number of self-proclaimed experts who lack credible nutrition and health qualifications.
Shine’s present PhD research focuses on how much nutrition misinformation is spread by “popular influencers, and whether repeated exposure to it affects people’s short- and long-term health and well-being.”
There will almost always be a reason to take issue with even the most reputable data sources — for example, many food additives banned in the European Union are not banned in the U.S. But there are still plenty of resources available to do your homework.
If you have the time and energy to look into these topics yourself, you can always visit reputable government health agencies, such as the USDA, FDA, Center for Disease Control (CDC) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). The World Health Organization (WHO) also provides valuable, evidence-based information about some food and nutrition topics.