‘Addiction is about isolation': RFK Jr. speaks to battle against substance abuse
RFK Jr. shared how his addiction began at a young age following the assassination of his father.
Now 42 years sober and working in his new role as the United States Secretary of Health and Human Services, he said the fight against addiction starts with strong community support.
'I go to a meeting every day; I got off the plane last night. I went to a meeting,' Kennedy explained. 'When I came in 42 years ago, I said to a guy, 'How long do I have to keep coming to these meetings?' He said, 'Just keep coming until you like it.' I've been going 42 years, and I still don't like it.'
'Make America safe again': U.S. Attorney General gives update to the fight against opioid crisis
Kennedy called the addiction and overdose crisis a national security threat.
'Addiction is about isolation,' Kennedy said.
According to the Tennessee Department of Health, 3,814 people died from overdoses in 2021, which is a 26% jump from the year before.
Kennedy advocated for 12-step programs and local support systems, saying the key is rebuilding hope, especially for young people.
'I found that in the 12-step program, it is about getting rid of isolation, overcoming isolation, and re-establishing our connection to community,' he said.
'My life made it obvious that I didn't know how to run things, and I had to let someone else, which was God, run them,' Kennedy expressed. 'But when the cash prices start coming in, my inclination was to say, 'Thanks God I got it from here' and take the wheel of the car and drive off the cliff again. And the challenge for me, and I think for all of us who are trying to maintain long-term sobriety, is: how do we stay in a posture of surrender even when everything is going well in our lives?'
During his speech, protestors voiced frustration with his previous statements on autism and job cuts.
Autism community sounds alarms over 'harmful' RFK Jr. comments
These topics were not addressed in his speech on Thursday. But he did touch on topics often associated with the growing issue of substance abuse, including open borders.
'President Trump was in [Mexico] three weeks ago,' Kennedy described. 'He met with Claudia Sheinbaum, the new president of Mexico. He said to her, 'All of the drugs are coming through your country. Do you have an addiction problem?' She said, 'No, not really'. He said, 'Why is that?' and she said, 'Because we have strong families in this country.' And one of the things that addiction is a source of misery, it is also a source of misery.'
He continued on to say that while Narcan, border security, and funding are important, they are not enough without community connection.
'We have $4 billion at my agency to finance those solutions, and those attacks on addiction and overdose; that alone throwing money at it is not alone going to work,' Kennedy said. 'We need to really focus on re-establishing these historic ties to the community. We have this whole generation of kids who have lost hope in their future.'
⏩
Kennedy closed with a call for action to help young people find purpose and build a sense of belonging.
'I would encourage you all to think broadly about what our mission is because it is not just about making sure every cop and paramedic has Naloxone on them, though that is important,' Kennedy concluded. 'And it is not just about prevention on the border, that is important. It is not just making sure every addict, when they have those moments when they are willing to ask for help, that there's a rehab ready for them to go to, and that is critically important. But there are bigger issues: how do we restore our families? How do we restore that commitment to the community?'
His answer was to prioritize serving one another.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
Coke with cane sugar may not be that big of a MAHA victory
Coca-Cola is going to offer a cane sugar version of its signature beverage, rather than one sweetened with corn syrup. Major segments of the food industry, including General Mills and Heinz, have pledged to remove certain colored dyes from their products. The fast-food chain Steak 'n Shake is making french fries in beef tallow rather than vegetable oil. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has claimed them all as significant victories for his 'make America healthy again' (MAHA) movement as part of its quest to reform the U.S. food supply. 'Froot Loops is finally following its nose — toward common sense,' Kennedy said on social platform X after cereal-maker WK Kellogg Co. agreed to remove synthetic dyes from its cereal by 2027. 'I urge more companies to step up and join the movement to Make America Healthy Again.' But nutrition and food policy experts say the moves are a far cry from actually making America healthier. While they praised the administration and MAHA for drawing attention to what they said is a broken food system, the victories touted thus far have been largely symbolic and rely on the goodwill of an industry that is eager to appear helpful to avoid strict government regulation. 'I think if we're really curious about improving public health, some of the small health initiatives, like … replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar, are really not where the administration should be channeling their efforts and leveraging the power that they do have,' said Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the George Washington University Global Food Institute. 'I think they should be focusing their efforts on initiatives that actually address the root of the problem, which is essentially a food system that promotes excess sugar, salt and fat,' Fielding-Singh said. Health officials and GOP lawmakers have taken to conservative media in recent weeks to tout the commitments from food and beverage companies to remove synthetic dyes. According to the HHS, nearly 35 percent of the industry has made such a commitment. But there's been no force behind the companies' actions, which experts said is an issue. 'Simply switching from synthetic to natural colors will not make these products less likely to cause obesity,' said Jerold Mande, a former senior official during three administrations at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, said Kennedy could make a major statement by banning all colors and dyes. It wouldn't directly make Americans healthy, but it would go a long way toward making ultra-processed food look less appealing. 'All this voluntary stuff only goes so far. It really does minimal impact,' Popkin said. 'Unless he goes to the FDA and has the FDA change a regulation … there's nothing.' Kennedy has also singled out the use of high-fructose corn syrup as a major contributor to diabetes and obesity. He has previously called it 'poison,' an epithet he repeated in late April when talking about sugar. When Steak 'n Shake said earlier this month it was going to sell Coca-Cola with real cane sugar, Kennedy praised the move. 'MAHA is winning,' Kennedy posted on X. But experts said there's no substantial difference in the benefits of using cane sugar as a substitute for high-fructose corn syrup. 'At the end of the day, a Coke is still a can of Coke. It's not a fruit or a vegetable, right? And so if you're not shifting consumption away from these higher calorie, lower nutrient processed foods, toward nutrient dense, health promoting foods, then you're not actually going to be shifting the health of Americans in the right direction,' Fielding-Singh said. But if Kennedy thinks sugar is poison, 'they're both sugar and would both be poison, in his words,' said Mande, who is now CEO of Nourish Science. Health officials argue industry cooperation is key to the MAHA agenda. 'Working with industry is the best place to start. And we believe in industry to do the right thing when called upon,' Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz wrote in a joint op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. 'Our agencies are in a strong position to show Americans which companies are doing the right thing when it comes to popular reforms. By the time we're done, we will have built new relationships and be better positioned to hold them accountable,' Makary and Oz wrote. Yet there is plenty the agency can, and should do, that industry has pushed back against. Aviva Musicus, science director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, said MAHA is wasting its political capital. 'It's striking that we haven't seen the administration use policy to improve the food system. It's solely relying on voluntary industry commitments that we've seen repeatedly fail in the past,' Musicus said. 'In pushing the food industry to change, Trump and RFK Jr. have a chance to live up to their promises to fight chronic disease. Coca-Cola is at the table, but they're wasting the opportunity to actually improve health. The administration should focus on less sugar, not different sugar,' Musicus added. Popkin said he would like to see warning labels on ultra-processed foods high in sodium, added sugar and saturated fat. Kennedy 'hasn't tackled ultra-processed food yet. That'll be where he could make an impact on health in the U.S. and all the non-communicable diseases, including obesity. But he hasn't gone there yet,' Popkin said. The coming months will reveal more on the MAHA movement's plans to change how Americans eat. New dietary guidelines will be released 'in the next several months,' Kennedy said recently. In addition, a second MAHA report focused on policy recommendations is expected in August. 'We have to be considering that there could be real potential down the road,' Popkin said. 'But [there's been] nothing yet. That document will tell us if there ever be.'
Hamilton Spectator
a day ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Continuous glucose monitors are in vogue. But do you really need to track your blood sugar?
A quarter-size device that tracks the rise and fall of sugar in your blood is the latest source of hope — and hype — in the growing buzz around wearable health technology. Continuous glucose monitors, small patches that provide 24-hour insight into concentrations of sugar in the blood, could be a tool for Americans to 'take control over their own health,' Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently told federal lawmakers. 'They can take responsibility,' Kennedy said. 'They can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way they live their lives.' The devices have lifesaving benefits for people with diabetes, the disease caused when blood sugar remains high because their bodies don't make enough insulin or become resistant to it. The condition, which affects more than 38 million people in the U.S., raises the risk of serious health problems such as heart and kidney disease and vision loss. But the devices have surged in popularity among people without diabetes. Sales have been driven by high-profile marketers such as Casey Means , the nominee for U.S. surgeon general . There's scant evidence the monitors are useful for people with normal blood sugar levels, said Dr. Jody Dushay, an endocrine specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Healthy bodies can effectively regulate glucose after meals and provide the energy they need to function. Glucose monitors may lead people to misinterpret normal swings in blood sugar that happen after eating or activity. In addition, the devices can be 'notoriously inaccurate,' providing misleading readings, she said. 'The problem with wearing these is that you can just be zooming in on and creating pathology when it's not there,' Dushay said. Here's what you need to know about the devices: Here's what a continuous glucose monitor does The device is a small patch, about the size of two stacked quarters, usually placed on the upper arm or stomach. It uses a needle to painlessly pierce the skin for a tiny sensor. The sensor measures the glucose in fluid under the skin, delivering a signal every few minutes to a phone app or a handheld display. The apps typically record blood sugar levels and help people track the foods they eat and how they impact those levels. When healthy people eat a meal that contains carbohydrates, their blood sugar rises, peaks and falls in response to the food. A healthy fasting blood glucose level for a person without diabetes is roughly 70 milligrams per deciliter to 99 milligrams per deciliter. A range from 100 to 126 milligrams per deciliter indicates prediabetes and above 126 milligrams per deciliter indicates diabetes, according to the American Diabetes Association. In adults without diabetes, blood sugar levels can climb to 140 milligrams per deciliter or more within an hour of a meal, before falling back to baseline levels within two or three hours, according to the association. It's a sign the body is processing sugar normally. Continuous glucose monitors have been available since the late 1990s For decades, these devices were available only for people with diabetes. The monitors revolutionized care by allowing more precise adjustment of insulin used to treat diabetes and giving people the ability to modify meals and activity more accurately. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first over-the-counter monitors. Since then, many companies have emerged to market them, claiming to provide intensive, individualized health monitoring. Cost is generally about $100 a month. They've really caught on with consumers curious about how food and activity affect their blood sugar levels. For instance, Noom, the weight-loss and fitness app, launched a blood glucose feature last year that has proven extremely popular, said Alexander Fabry, a company executive. 'Of the people who are using a CGM, the vast majority of them don't have a diabetes diagnosis,' he said. Who can use the monitors? The devices have been lifesaving for people with diabetes. And they can be helpful for people with risk factors for the disease, including obesity, prediabetes, a history of gestational diabetes or a family history of the condition. The devices can allow users to see how specific food and activity choices affect their blood sugar in near real-time, said Dr. Alaina Vidmar, a pediatric obesity specialist at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. 'After a large meal, you may watch your blood sugar go up and sort of learn something about yourself,' Vidmar said. 'For example, I drink a sugar-sweetened soda and my blood sugar goes up really high, really fast. And maybe I don't feel as good, right?' What are the cautions? People without risk factors for diabetes may turn to the monitors just because they're curious, said Dr. David Kessler. A former FDA commissioner, Kessler doesn't have diabetes, but he wore a monitor for a couple months during research for his recent book, 'Diet, Drugs and Dopamine.' 'I think it's a very interesting tool to experiment with if you're so inclined,' Kessler said. But, he noted, the devices can't be used to diagnose or treat disease. Even experts don't agree on how to interpret or provide health advice for people without diabetes based on blood sugar data. 'No one knows what's optimal in the nondiabetic state,' he said. Before using a monitor, Dushay asks patients to consider their motives. 'What do you think you're going to get from the data?' she said. 'What is to be gained from wearing that monitor?' ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
USA Today
a day ago
- USA Today
RFK Jr. is waging a war against ultra-processed foods. Will almond milk be canceled?
Ultra-processed foods are undergoing increased scrutiny as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his supporters blame these often tasty snacks for contributing to chronic diseases in the U.S. But what is ultra-processed food? There still isn't a universal definition. While many ice creams, chips and sodas are considered ultra-processed, there's also a wide array of other foods that can be included in a healthy diet that fall into the same category, such as tofu, some canned fruits and vegetables, protein bars, cereals and nut milks. 'These are all quite processed and some of them can be classified as ultra-processed foods but because of their nutrient profiles, they might be better for us and not associated with the worst health outcomes,' said Michele Polacsek, professor of public health at the University of New England and an expert on promoting healthy food choices. Does that mean these foods will be targeted, too? Probably not, said Marion Nestle, a nutrition expert and emeritus professor at New York University. 'That would be impossible because of the way that Americans eat,' she said, as research shows over 70% of American calories come from ultra-processed foods. Ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, are foods that have been made by food companies using manufactured ingredients, rather than actual foods. If you've ever taken a look at some food labels, you may not recognize many of the ingredients listed. These are likely ultra-processed ingredients that are used to make food "taste better, look better and last longer on the shelf," Nestle said. Research has shown UPFs replace healthier foods and encourage people to eat more calories, Nestle said. Ultra-processed foods have been linked to about 30 health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers and mental health disorders, according to a 2024 study published in the British Medical Journal. In May, Kennedy and his 'Make America Healthy Again' commission targeted ultra-processed foods in a 69-page report. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced the administration is seeking information and data to help develop an official definition for ultra-processed foods, according to a July 23 statement. While it's a good first step, Polacsek said not all UPFs are the same and there isn't enough data to determine which ingredients or processes in packaged foods lead to negative health outcomes. 'We don't have all the evidence we need,' she said. 'We need a lot more research on this.' It would be a mistake to create policy based on the data available on ultra-processed foods, Polacsek said. But if the administration makes policy decisions based on a universal definition, she hopes agencies will also allocate funding to research how it's impacting public health and the food industry. Is Chick-fil-A healthy? Fast-food chain named one of the least nutritious in America In the meantime, Nestle recommends minimizing the amount of ultra-processed foods you eat but also reminds consumers that some contain nutrients that can be incorporated into a healthy diet. In a 2023 study, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture led a study that showed how it was possible to build a healthy diet with 91% of the calories coming from ultra-processed foods. However, study authors noted the diet was particularly high in sodium and didn't contain enough whole grains. 'The basic principle of healthy eating is variety,' Nestle said. 'If you eat a lot of different kinds of food, and most of them are minimally processed, you're doing fine.' 'Food is one of life's greatest pleasures, it's really important to enjoy what you eat.' Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@
