Kennedy's thinking on food and agriculture boils down to two words: no chemicals. He's against pesticides. He wants to remove ultra-processed foods from school lunches and not let food stamps be used to buy processed foods or sodas.
He's against food additives and dyes, seed oils and GMOs. He's for raw milk. The food industry, he says, is "mass poisoning" Americans.
Needless to say, his nomination has caused considerable angst. Were all of his preferences to become law, the food and agriculture industries would be turned upside down.
Having to prepare school lunches without ultra-processed foods would likely raise the cost of ingredients and require more workers in school kitchens. Banning GMOs would cut many farmers' yields while doing little for the environment and nothing for public health.
Taking soybean, canola and sunflower oils off the shelves would hurt producers and force consumers to buy more expensive substitutes. Yet experts say there's no scientific evidence that these oils are toxic. (https://hsph.harvard.edu/...)
Not all of Kennedy's ideas are terrible, to be sure. Maryland Republican Congressman Andy Harris, a physician, is a long-time advocate of something like the food-stamp changes Kennedy suggests. One idea of his I endorse is barring food stamps from being used to buy sodas. In previous DTN posts I've argued that food stamps are supposed to provide poor people with nutrition. Sodas contain none. (https://www.dtnpf.com/...)
Good or bad, though, almost all of Kennedy's ideas would be skin off somebody's back. That means Senate confirmation isn't a foregone conclusion; a lot of those somebodies contribute to senators' campaigns.
Kennedy is meeting with Republican senators in search of yes votes. It will be interesting to see how much he trims his sails -- and whether senators find the trims credible.
Assuming he's confirmed, we're back to the original question: Who's running ag policy? If Kennedy wants to limit food stamps, which are under USDA's sway, and Secretary of Agriculture Rollins doesn't, who prevails?
Similarly, pesticides are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. If Lee Zeldin, Trump's nominee to run EPA, wants to keep the pesticides that Kennedy wants to eliminate, do they stay or go?
As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kennedy would have the Food and Drug Administration under him. Maybe he'd undo FDA's prohibition of raw milk being sold across state lines. FDA also inspects many kinds of foods and Kennedy might be able to use those inspections to suppress ingredients he disfavors.
But most food and agriculture policy issues do not fall under HHS's jurisdiction. How much power will Kennedy have over them?
To answer that question, we need the answers to two other questions. The first is who Trump is more likely to listen to.
Odds are it's Rollins. As mentioned, she's a loyalist and former aide. And while the president-elect said Kennedy could go wild on food, Trump is a long-time fast-food fan with a particular love for McDonald's. Kennedy derides Trump's food preferences: "The stuff that he eats is really, like, bad." (https://www.nytimes.com/...)
It's hard, then, to believe Trump is sincere in his backing of at least some of the planks of Kennedy's program. Advantage Rollins.
It comes down to the second question: what Rollins thinks. Washington insiders' assumptions about her views are mostly that: assumptions. Could she be susceptible to persuasion by Kennedy? If so, watch out. Kennedy could have more power over food policy than the insiders believe.