RFK’s Stance on Raw Milk, UPFs, Oils & Organic Food, Fact-Checked

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services this week. In his new role, he’ll oversee critical areas like public health, medical research and food and drug safety. But given Kennedy’s long history of promoting junk science and outright misinformation — especially on vaccines and nutrition — the confirmation has alarmed scientists and public health researchers. Through his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) campaign, he’s revived interest in raw milk, beef tallow and organic farming, and turned a critical eye on ultra-processed foods and food dyes.

Some advocates and journalists have tried to couch criticism of RFK as being right about the problem even if wrong on the solution, but that seems to ignore the threat of allowing misinformation to permeate our leading public health agencies.

Raw Milk Is Incredibly Risky for Human Health

Raw milk is milk that has not undergone pasteurization; a heat treatment process that kills harmful bacteria and viruses in food and beverages. Currently, raw milk cannot be sold across state lines due to federal law, though there are different laws at the state level. While states such as Florida and Louisiana have banned raw milk for human consumption, they do allow it to be sold “for pets” (which recently led to some pets becoming sick with bird flu).

Kennedy has criticized regulatory agencies for their stance on pasteurization, tweeting ahead of the election that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s regulations on raw milk were part of the agency’s “war on public health.” He also recently asked raw milk entrepreneur Mark McAfee — who’s had raw milk products recalled — to apply to be an adviser to the FDA on raw milk policy and standards development.

Pasteurization was introduced in the U.S. in the late 19th century, a time when illnesses related to food poisoning “were one of the ten leading causes of death,” Jerold Mande, adjunct professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, tells Sentient. And raw milk, he says, “was one of the leading vectors that caused those illnesses,” including tuberculosis. Mande, who has also worked in food safety for both the FDA and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), calls pasteurization “a great advance of science that does absolutely nothing to harm the nutritional value or other values of milk.”

Despite what online influencers and other proponents of raw milk claim, as Mande explains, “raw milk has no benefits that regular milk, pasteurized milk, does not have.” Unsweetened soy milk has a similar nutritional profile to conventional dairy, and can have similar benefits of providing good bacteria and enzymes as well.

Ultimately, says Mande, raw milk has been studied “extensively,” and claims made about added benefits “are not backed in science.” In fact, consuming raw milk poses particular risks at this time, he says, due to bird flu being detected in some U.S. dairy.

The Ultra-Processed Food Debate Misses Real Problems

Kennedy has also taken up the fight against ultra-processed foods. “We are literally poisoning our children systematically for profit,” he said during a Republican roundtable event in September, 2024. Over the past year, ultra-processed foods have garnered major media attention, as a growing number of studies suggest that consuming them may be associated with a higher risk of various issues such as obesity, heart disease and cancer.

Ultra-processed foods account for over half of the calories consumed at home by people in the United States. However, researchers are still unsure about what exactly in ultra-processed foods causes these health problems, and there’s ongoing debate over what exactly qualifies as ultra-processed. Not all ultra-processed foods are equally bad: For example, while an ultra-processed sugary drink has no nutritional content, replacing ultra-processed plant-based alternatives with beef would not be a healthier choice, and would be much worse for climate change.

That said, Mande says there’s good reason to be talking about ultra-processed foods, because the average U.S. diet is far from healthy, especially for kids. “Children in America, one in five have chronic disease, obesity…almost one in five have pre-diabetes. In fact, we had to change the name; it used to be ‘adult onset diabetes,’ and now it’s [Type 2 diabetes] because it’s become so common in kids.”

Not all types of processed foods are unhealthy, Mande adds, but they often contain the combination of sugar, fat and salt that entice consumers to keep eating these foods even when you are satiated. Eating too much of any sugary, salty, fatty food is unhealthy, and that deserves attention. “It hasn’t been a political priority,” he says, “but that’s now changed.” Only none of Kennedy’s proposals seem to seriously address these real food system ills.

Animal Fat Is Not a Healthier Alternative to Seed Oil, Which Is Perfectly Healthy to Begin With

Tallow, also known as rendered beef fat, appears to be making a comeback, as the carnivore diet community purports its benefits online (including for skincare). Kennedy even appeared on Fox and Friends claiming that french fries cooked in tallow are healthier than those cooked in seed oil. This came after Kennedy posted a video of himself on X, deep-frying a turkey in tallow. “Make frying oil tallow again” has become a slogan of the MAHA movement, even appearing on tee-shirts and hats sold by Kennedy.

“Cardiologists shuddered at the thought,” Yasmin Tayag wrote for The Atlantic, because tallow and other animal fats, such as lard and butter, are high in saturated fat. And what we know about saturated fat, says Mande, is that it “raises something called the LDL lipid protein in your blood, and that is directly linked…to a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.”

Proponents of tallow, including online “meatfluencers,” believe it’s a healthier alternative to seed or vegetable oils, which Kennedy has falsely dubbed “poison.” When used in moderation, the Cleveland Clinic explains, omega-6 supports heart health. The issue arises from how these oils are typically used — in processed foods full of fat, sugar and sodium.

Ultimately, Mande adds, tallow “doesn’t provide any benefit in our diets,” and “it is not healthier to consume french fries fried in beef tallow rather than vegetable oils.”

As Dr. Christopher Gardner, professor of medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine and a nutrition scientist at the Stanford Prevention Research Center, told the American Heart Association: if a dash of seed oil is going to help you eat a stir fry or salad, “and you’re going to eat more of it because of the flavor? Fantastic. The seed oils are not killing you. They are helping you enjoy more healthy foods.”

Organic Food Isn’t Healthier, or Better for the Environment

Kennedy says he will “reverse 80 years of farm policy,” focusing on moving away from industrial agriculture, factory farming, pesticide use and genetically modified organisms (GMOs). As an alternative, Kennedy has expressed his support for organic farming and for “incentivizing regenerative agriculture.”

But would a switch to an all-organic, regenerative food system actually make Americans healthier? No, and it wouldn’t be better for the environment either.

Legally, organic food is grown without the use of synthetic chemicals and GMOs — but GMOs and the trace amounts of synthetic pesticides on produce are, in fact, safe for consumers. Here’s what organic does do: it offers slightly better conditions for farm animals and more income for farmers. It may also be better for farm workers, but this is not clear cut, owing mostly to the long-lasting effects of more toxic pesticides used many decades ago in this country.

What counts as “regeneratively produced” is more obscure, as the USDA does not define it (though California recently gave it a go). Regenerative agriculture has been shown to be good for soil health, but not very effective for climate change, and there is no evidence that food grown regeneratively is better for human health.

Contrary to popular belief, organic farming still allows for the use of some natural pesticides, and studies have shown that organic food is generally not more nutritious than conventionally grown food. It also can be worse for the environment in some cases, especially meat and dairy production, since it requires more land and water, and also is higher in emissions.

Transitioning to a fully organic or regenerative food system would also be impossible with our current land and water constraints. Going organic would lead to increased food costs and the potential for greenwashing and humanewashing —- and would be a terrible idea for the environment.

Ultimately, much like with ultra-processed food, just changing the food system from conventional to organic would not automatically improve health outcomes. We have lots of evidence that eating more legumes, fruit and vegetables is associated with better health. But eating a typical American diet, only just the organic version, would not be at all healthier.

The Bottom Line

Given Kennedy’s record of championing unfounded claims — whether about vaccines, raw milk or rendered animal fat — Kennedy is likely to continue ignoring established research in favor of controversial, and often dangerous, narratives. While his views may resonate with some, they also raise serious concerns about the integrity of public policies that rely on solid science. In the end, public health decisions should be based on facts, not fringe theories.