Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

How RFK Jr. could reverse our nation’s foolish approach to obesity

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Peter W. Stevenson /The Washington Post via Getty Images

The river was swift and unrelenting, its currents carrying victim after victim downstream. Local villagers responded by stringing nets across the water to prevent further drownings. Yet, despite their efforts, the death toll continued to rise.

Eventually, a newcomer to the village asked a simple yet critical question: “Why are people falling into the river in the first place?” Following the water upstream, the villagers discovered the source of the problem: a crumbling bridge sending person after person into the rapids.


This “ upstream parable ” illustrates the folly of America’s response to obesity.

Like the villagers, Americans have relied on reactive, downstream solutions to combat the problem. Most recently, political and public health officials have touted weight loss drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy as the solution. While these medications help people lose significant weight, they don’t address the reason people become obese in the first place.

Enter Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the controversial nominee for secretary of health and human services. While his nomination raises serious questions, it also offers a rare opportunity to confront the drivers of the obesity epidemic.

Obesity: Why the root of the problem matters

Obesity rates in the U.S. have surged over the past 30 years. According to The Lancet, the percentage of adults classified as overweight or obese has more than doubled to nearly half the population. Among adolescents, obesity rates tripled in the same period.

But the health consequences extend beyond weight gain. Obesity is a major driver of both diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and contributes to 50 percent of cancer deaths, according to the American Cancer Society.

While medical organizations acknowledge that many factors contribute to obesity, public health leaders increasingly describe it as a genetic and biological disease. But these factors could not possibly double obesity in just 30 years — human DNA evolves over millennia, not decades. This focus on biology — and on medical treatments like drugs and surgery — obscures the epidemic’s root cause.

The primary culprit is the food industry, which deliberately manufactures and markets ultra-processed, calorie-dense products packed with refined sugars and unhealthy fats.

Of course, genetics do play a role. The FTO gene, which increases susceptibility to overeating, helped early humans survive food shortages by encouraging calorie storage during times of abundance. In our modern era, the food industry has exploited this evolutionary holdover by engineering foods that trigger dopamine in the brain, driving addiction-like behaviors and overconsumption.

The result is a population increasingly dependent on nutrient-poor, high-calorie foods. Today, 42 percent of U.S. adults are obese, costing the health care system $173 billion annually.

While GLP-1 weight-loss drugs offer effective treatment for those already struggling with obesity, they require lifelong use to maintain results. More than eight in 10 patients discontinue these medications within two years, and the drug’s annual cost — exceeding $10,000 per person — places immense strain on patients and payors, and may soon hit Medicare’s budget, too.

Without changes to food manufacturing and marketing, the chronic disease crisis — which is responsible for 30 percent to 50 percent of preventable heart attacks, strokes, kidney failures and cancers — will only worsen.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: A controversial hope

Kennedy., awaiting Senate approval as President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for HHS secretary, is a polarizing figure. His promotion of debunked theories — like vaccines causing autism or Covid-19 targeting specific racial groups —raises serious concerns. Still, if confirmed, Kennedy could push for aggressive reforms that target the root causes of obesity, a step none of his predecessors have taken.

Kennedy has been outspoken in his criticism of the Food and Drug Administration, accusing the agency of suppressing access to products that “advance[s] human health but can’t be patented by” pharmaceutical companies. He has also voiced opposition to the widespread use of GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, describing them as a shortsighted approach to combating obesity.

Looking to the past for cures

Kennedy has promised to confront the food industry and revive America’s health, but the question remains: How might he achieve these ambitious goals? History offers a two-part blueprint: prohibition and taxation.

In the 1970s, research linked lead in gasoline to severe neurological damage in children. In response, the Environmental Protection Agency phased out leaded gasoline, reducing lead levels in children by over 90 percent. Similarly, eliminating lead in paint and pipes demonstrated how regulatory prohibitions can drive significant public health improvements.

More recently, local governments in cities like Berkeley, California, and Philadelphia implemented soda taxes to curb sugary beverage consumption, cutting sales by as much as 38 percent. Despite resistance and heavy lobbying from the beverage industry, these measures highlight how financial disincentives can effectively encourage healthier choices.

The sensible path forward

As long as high-calorie, processed foods dominate grocery stores, school cafeterias and restaurant menus, the nation’s health will remain in crisis.

Taxation offers a logical solution. If sugar- and fat-laden products contribute to hundreds of billions in health care costs, those expenses should be reflected in their prices. Revenue from these taxes, coupled with future savings from reduced obesity-related health care spending, could subsidize healthier food options for low-income families.

This dual approach — discouraging harmful choices while promoting affordable, nutritious alternatives — has the potential to reshape America’s food landscape and improve public health for generations to come.

If RFK Jr.’s nomination is confirmed and he chooses to target the food industry, he may garner bipartisan support. Democrats have long championed nutritional improvements for disadvantaged families, while Republicans seek reforms that reduce health care spending.

The time has come to move upstream — to repair the crumbling bridge of American health rather than relying on the safety nets of surgery and drugs. The next HHS secretary will face significant resistance from the food industry in pursuing this course, but courageous leadership can turn the tide of the obesity epidemic and deliver a stronger, healthier future for our nation.

Pearl, the author of “ ChatGPT, MD,” teaches at both the Stanford University School of Medicine and the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is a former CEO of The Permanente Medical Group.


Read More

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two groups of glass figures. One red, one blue.

Congressional paralysis is no longer accidental. Polarization has reshaped incentives, hollowed out Congress, and shifted power to the executive.

Getty Images, Andrii Yalanskyi

How Congress Lost Its Capacity to Act and How to Get It Back

In late 2025, Congress fumbled the Affordable Care Act, failing to move a modest stabilization bill through its own procedures and leaving insurers and families facing renewed uncertainty. As the Congressional Budget Office has warned in multiple analyses over the past decade, policy uncertainty increases premiums and reduces insurer participation (see, for example: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61734). I examined this episode in an earlier Fulcrum article, “Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis,” as a case study in congressional paralysis and leadership failure. The deeper problem, however, runs beyond any single deadline or decision and into the incentives and procedures that now structure congressional authority. Polarization has become so embedded in America’s governing institutions themselves that it shapes how power is exercised and why even routine governance now breaks down.

From Episode to System

The ACA episode wasn’t an anomaly but a symptom. Recent scholarship suggests it reflects a broader structural shift in how Congress operates. In a 2025 academic article available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN), political scientist Dmitrii Lebedev reaches a stark conclusion about the current Congress, noting that the 118th Congress enacted fewer major laws than any in the modern era despite facing multiple time-sensitive policy deadlines (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5346916). Drawing on legislative data, he finds that dysfunction is no longer best understood as partisan gridlock alone. Instead, Congress increasingly exhibits a breakdown of institutional capacity within the governing majority itself. Leadership avoidance, procedural delay, and the erosion of governing norms have become routine features of legislative life rather than temporary responses to crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

Donald Trump Jr.' s plane landed in Nuuk, Greenland, where he made a short private visit, weeks after his father, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, suggested Washington annex the autonomous Danish territory.

(Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s ‘America First’ is now just imperialism

In early 2025, before Donald Trump was even sworn into office, he sent a plane with his name in giant letters on it to Nuuk, Greenland, where his son, Don Jr., and other MAGA allies preened for cameras and stomped around the mineral-rich Danish territory that Trump had been casually threatening to invade or somehow acquire like stereotypical American tourists — like they owned it already.

“Don Jr. and my Reps landing in Greenland,” Trump wrote. “The reception has been great. They and the Free World need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”

Keep ReadingShow less
The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

Political Midterm Election Redistricting

Getty images

The Common Cause North Carolina, Not Trump, Triggered the Mid-Decade Redistricting Battle

“Gerrymander” was one of seven runners-up for Merriam-Webster’s 2025 word of the year, which was “slop,” although “gerrymandering” is often used. Both words are closely related and frequently used interchangeably, with the main difference being their function as nouns versus verbs or processes. Throughout 2025, as Republicans and Democrats used redistricting to boost their electoral advantages, “gerrymander” and “gerrymandering” surged in popularity as search terms, highlighting their ongoing relevance in current politics and public awareness. However, as an old Capitol Hill dog, I realized that 2025 made me less inclined to explain the definitions of these words to anyone who asked for more detail.

“Did the Democrats or Republicans Start the Gerrymandering Fight?” is the obvious question many people are asking: Who started it?

Keep ReadingShow less