Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board should give RFK more credit in his campaign against sugar
Sadly, many parents don't have the heart to deprive their children of something considered by society (and the board) as a 'treat.' But as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy so accurately pointed out, it is a form of poison and an addictive one at that. Just examine the percentage of people suffering the effects of Type 2 diabetes. That one disease alone accounts for enormous health care costs — costs that the government must absorb when a patient is on Medicare or Medicaid. So, the government indeed has a vested interest in controlling the manufacturing and consumption of sugar.
Ferrara Candy Co. CEO Katie Duffy stated that 'everything we produce is safe to eat.' That does not mean it is 'healthy' to eat! The board states that it has 'long recoiled against Uncle Sam telling Americans what to eat.' And that 'if a food product is safe from a scientific standpoint, the government has no business blocking it from the marketplace.' Again, that ignores the fact that the government shares some of the burden for the cost of medical care for the health disorders caused by sugar consumption. And just to enlighten the board further, pay for the government. So, it costs us all as a whole.
The board further states that 'armed with that information, we believe people are smart enough to make their own decisions without Nanny State intervention.' The board has to be joking. It gives people far more credit than they deserve.
Sugar is being consumed in quantities that most people are not likely aware of. And that is what I think Kennedy is trying to address. I appreciate what he is trying to achieve, and the board should as well.
Keep in mind that a country is only as strong and as healthy as its people. We have an epidemic of obesity in this country. Don't gloss over the facts in the name of some false sense of sovereignty over choice.Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is absolutely correct about the American diet. There's too much salt, sugar and bad fat; not enough fiber; and too many additives. The consequences are substantial: obesity, diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer and more. He is dead wrong about vaccinations, 'dead' not being just an expression: People are going to die, needlessly.
During a measles epidemic in Samoa, Kennedy campaigned against vaccination; too few people were vaccinated, thousands got sick and dozens died. Almost all healthy individuals who get measles completely recover. About 1 in 1,000, however, will have serious complications or die. Great odds in a casino but not for a preventable disease.
In contrast, there have been no reports of the measles vaccine causing death in healthy people, and the incidence of permanent harm is less than 1 in 500,000.
Kennedy's efforts to restrict the messenger RNA-based COVID-19 vaccine is not based on credible evidence of significant harm. Worldwide, at least 5 billion people have received COVID-19 vaccinations, including hundreds of millions of Americans. Many have sore arms, and some, brief flulike illness. Very rarely does serious short-term illness occur. In contrast, more than 1 million Americans have died from COVID-19, and 20 million Americans have been diagnosed with long COVID-19, sometimes with debilitating symptoms. People who have been vaccinated against COVID-19 have dramatically lower rates of hospitalization, death and long COVID-19.
Kennedy proposes a clinical trial against a placebo to test the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. In any clinical trial, when the drug being studied against a placebo is found to be safe and effective, the trial is stopped. The safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine has already been proved; there is no need for a trial.
Kennedy's proclamation restricting recommending who should receive the vaccination is medical idiocy. Infants have poorly developed immune systems and are very vulnerable to infections, including COVID-19. If pregnant women are vaccinated, their babies get some protection against COVID-19. Being under 65 is no guarantee against COVID-19 causing hospitalization or death, and the incidence of some forms of long COVID-19 is actually higher in young people.
It is worth noting that Kennedy made these recommendations on his own without input from recognized experts. There is a new COVID-19 variant, and the need for vaccinations is still great. When the Senate confirmed Kennedy, it failed the American people.Michael J. Medley's letter ('What our nation needs,' May 29) regarding President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which has been passed by the House, is on point but misses one very important issue. This bill contains a buried provision seeking to limit courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, from enforcing their rulings or orders.
In short, it states: 'No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued.' What I have read says that this means the courts cannot enforce decisions unless the plaintiffs have posted a bond. Federal courts do not require plaintiffs to post bonds; therefore, this provision would mean that the courts would not be able to enforce their rulings. And Trump and his administration could proceed to do anything they want to, regardless of whether it is unconstitutional.
When setting up the federal government, our Founding Fathers did not feel any one person should have all the power. Therefore, they set up a government of three equal parts: executive (president), legislative (Congress) and judicial (Supreme Court). Trump has already taken over the legislative aspect — with no pushback from the Republican majority — by overturning many aspects of the government and funding that had previously been put in place by Congress. Now he wants to make judicial rulings unenforceable.
If Trump does that, he will be king. This country was developed as a democracy, and I believe the majority of Americans do not want a king.
Readers should call their senators and demand this bill not be passed with this provision in it. Save our democracy and our Constitution!I'm thrilled National Public Radio has legally challenged the administration's misguided executive order targeting its appropriately sourced federal funds and relationships with local stations. I've grown accustomed to the measured objectivity and factual analysis of the reporting through daily programs such as 'All Things Considered' and 'Morning Edition.'
We financially support NPR's frequent funding drives, the real lifeblood of its operations, not only because its revenues significantly rely on voluntary contributions by listeners, but also due to its prize-winning journalism that opens our eyes to hard-hitting domestic and international news analysis.
The president's bizarre claims that NPR fails to provide 'fair, accurate or unbiased' programming can be summarily rejected by those who actually listen to the variety of viewpoints included. NPR routinely covers important events like it did with the president's speech to a joint session of Congress in March and even presented rare audio of Supreme Court oral arguments about the birthright citizenship case, followed by riveting independent coverage.
Cutting this funding is more than just a violation of free speech. America should refrain from emulating autocratic leaders in other societies that deliberately silence views it does not like.National Public Radio is suing President Donald Trump's administration because it stopped taxpayer funding to the network; NPR contends that curtails its free speech.
What nonsense. NPR remains free to utter what it wants, but the public does not need to pay for it.
NPR can fund itself and say whatever it pleases. Its reflexive lawsuit is frivolous and vexatious without merit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
21 minutes ago
- Newsweek
The Bulletin June 21, 2025
The rundown: The issue of animal testing is something most Americans agree on: it needs to change and gradually be stopped. Since President Donald Trump began his second term, his administration has been making moves to transform and reduce animal testing in country. Find out what steps are being taken. Why it matters: In April, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said that its animal testing requirement will be "reduced, refined, or potentially replaced" with a range of approaches, including artificial intelligence-based models, known as New Approach Methodologies or NAMs data. The Trump administration's efforts to tackle the issue of animal testing appear to be a step in the right direction, according to experts who spoke with Newsweek. Read more in-depth coverage: Over 300 Animals Removed From US Safari After Decade of Red Flags TL/DR: Millions of animals each year are killed in U.S. laboratories as part of medical training and chemical, food, drug and cosmetic testing. What happens now? A Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) official told Newsweek: "The agency is paving the way for faster, safer, and more cost-effective treatments for American patients.' Deeper reading How Animal Testing in US Could Be Transformed Under Trump
Vox
39 minutes ago
- Vox
Ultra-processed foods: A patriotic American tradition!
covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017. Eating a hot dog on July Fourth isn't just traditional. It's patriotic. From iconic red, white, and blue rocket pops (hello, Red Dye 40!) to nitrate-loaded hot dogs and the all-day parade of sugary drinks and alcohol, this quintessential American holiday is a celebration of freedom — and, often, dietary chaos. And yet these days, many of us seem to be having second thoughts about the American diet. Our food is too processed, too loaded with dyes and preservatives. The country's obesity and diabetes epidemics, which have led to an explosion in the diagnoses of related chronic health conditions, have put the issue front and center, with much of the blame being placed on what we eat and all of the additives and preservatives it contains. About half of US adults believe food additives and chemicals are a large or moderate risk to their health — higher than the perceived risks of infectious disease outbreaks or climate change, according to a recent poll from Ipsos, a global market research firm. We all worry about microplastics, nitrates, food dyes, and ultra-processed foods. And US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has made improving Americans' diets and our food supply a top priority. It's a policy emphasis that's popular with the public: Two-thirds of US adults believe artificial dyes and pesticides make our foods unsafe to eat — and these are opinions that transcend political leanings, according to Ipsos. Related 40 maps that explain food in America And regardless of our entrenched food system, people are trying to make healthier decisions in their daily lives: 64 percent of US adults say they pay more attention to food labels than they did five years ago, according to the public health nonprofit NSF International. But we are frustrated: Only 16 percent of Americans say they find claims on food labels trustworthy. It may sound unbelievable on a holiday when Americans will gladly stuff their faces with ultra-processed junk while wearing flag-laden paraphernalia, but these days, many of us actually wish the products in our grocery stores looked a little more like the ones across the Atlantic. Just 37 percent of American adults said in the NSF International survey that our food labeling was better than in other countries. Most Americans say they want changes to how foods at our grocery stores are labeled. American food really is different from what can be found in Europe, both in its substance and in its packaging. But while we're probably not doing any favors to our health by consuming ultraprocessed foods loaded with artificial ingredients that are banned elsewhere, the biggest source of our health woes isn't necessarily these artificial dyes and preservatives. It's the cholesterol and saturated fat in that hot dog, the sugar in that lemonade, and those ultra-processed potato chips. Americans consume about twice as much sugar as other rich countries do on average, eat more ultra-processed foods, and consume more trans and saturated fats than Europeans. We also eat enormous portions, and calories, no matter where they come from, are a big part of the problem. Americans are generally in poorer health than our peers in Europe, and US life expectancy continues to trail behind other wealthy countries. Rich Americans actually fare worse than poor Europeans, according to one study. A new era of American greatness starts at the picnic table this July Fourth. Yes, we ostensibly rebelled against an English monarchy in order to be able to do whatever we want, even eat whatever we want. But if we want to catch up to our European rivals again in how healthy we feel, how productive we are, and how long we live — we need to take a closer look at the stuff we're putting in our bodies. American food really does have different stuff in it Doctors widely agree that ultra-processed foods and food additives are bad for children's health. Yet they have become more and more readily available over the decades: One 2023 study found 60 percent of the food that Americans buy has additives, a 10 percent increase since 2001. Kennedy, the head of the Department of Health and Human Services, the country's top health agency, has made overhauling US food production a top priority. His department's recent MAHA report highlights steps taken by other countries, including France and the Nordic countries, to discourage people through their dietary guidelines from eating ultra-processed foods. The report lists several additives and artificial ingredients that are permitted in American food but are banned or heavily restricted across the pond. Kennedy suggests that the US should follow suit. So where might we begin? Let's start with Red Dye 40, the color additive found in foods such as Froot Loops and M&Ms that has been linked to hyperactivity in children and, according to some animal studies, has been shown to accelerate tumor growth in mice. The US has not placed any special requirements on Red Dye 40, aside from its listing alongside other ingredients. But the European Union has required a clear warning label on any food with the dye, and some countries (including Germany, France, and Denmark) have banned it outright. A similar warning could be adopted here. There are other additives casually lurking in American foods that have been restricted in other countries. Here are a few: Titanium dioxide: Another food coloring that can be added to candies like Skittles and coffee creamers for a bright white effect. The EU banned it in 2022 because of Another food coloring that can be added to candies like Skittles and coffee creamers for a bright white effect. The EU banned it in 2022 because of evidence it could affect the human body's genetic material, while the US continues to allow its use. Propyl paraben: This preservative is regarded as safe in the US, often This preservative is regarded as safe in the US, often added to mass-produced American baked goods such as Sara Lee cinnamon rolls or Weight Watchers lemon creme cake. But its use has been prohibited in the EU because of research indicating it could mess with hormone function. Butylated hydroxytoluene: Another preservative that's sometimes added to breakfast cereals and potato chips to extend their shelf life. It's generally regarded as safe for use in the United States despite evidence that it could compromise kidney and liver function and Another preservative that's sometimes added to breakfast cereals and potato chips to extend their shelf life. It's generally regarded as safe for use in the United States despite evidence that it could compromise kidney and liver function and concerns that it could cause cancer. In the EU, however, its use is subject to strict regulation. There are some artificial sweeteners, too — aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin — that are permitted in the US and the EU, but generally, Europe puts many more restrictions on unhealthy artificial ingredients than the US does. Kennedy is pledging he'll do something about it. His biggest win so far is securing voluntary commitments from food manufacturers to remove a variety of artificial dyes — yes, including Red Dye 40 — from their products before the end of 2026. If they fail to comply, he has suggested new regulations to put a limit on or outright prohibit certain substances of concern. But are these ingredients the most important problem with our July Fourth cookouts? They are part of the issue. But there's more to it. The real problem is the American diet, dyed or not Here's a revealing comparison: In 2018, the United States banned trans fats, an artificial ingredient derived from oils that has been linked to heart disease and diabetes — 15 years after Denmark did the same thing. For more than a decade, Americans kept eating a ton of trans fat — something that is so bad for you that it can simultaneously increase bad cholesterol while lowering good cholesterol. While that is probably not the entire reason that the US has double the obesity and diabetes rates as Denmark does, it is a telling example. A fatty and highly processed ingredient that is linked to two of the biggest health problems in the United States persisted for years in American food, long after the Europeans had wised up. It's a pattern that, across the decades, explains the enormous gulf between the typical American's diet and the Mediterranean diet that dominates much of Europe. During the 20th century, amid an explosion in market-driven consumerism, convenience became one of the most important factors for grocery shoppers. Americans wanted more meals that could be quickly prepared inside the microwave and dry goods that could last for weeks and months on a pantry shelf, and so these products gained more and more of a market share. But that meant that more American food products were laced with more of the preservatives and additives that are now drawing so much concern. Americans have also always eaten more meat, cheese, and butter, animal products high in saturated fats as opposed to the unsaturated fats that come from oils like olive oil and are more common in European diets, for years. Our meat obsession was turbocharged by a meat industry that tapped into patriotic sentiments about pioneering farms making their living off the frontier. Eating a diet with more animal products is associated with a long list of health problems, particularly the cardiovascular conditions that remain the biggest killers of Americans. Related What the MAHA movement gets wrong about meat We should push our policymakers to pass regulations that get rid of artificial additives, but that alone is insufficient. You can find too much fat and too much sugar around the picnic table. Some of it is unnatural, but plenty of it is. America has to figure out how to encourage people to eat low-fat, low-sugar, whole-food diets. That's the real path to better health. MAHA has some good ideas. Its emphasis on whole foods, not processed ones, is a step in the right direction. But Kennedy's prescriptions are contradictory: Kennedy wants to make it easier for people to find whole foods at their nearby store, while Republicans in Congress propose massive cuts to food stamps. Kennedy's MAHA report rails against the overuse of pesticides, but Trump's Environmental Protection Agency is rolling back restrictions on their use. Those contradictions are a reminder that, though Kennedy has shone a light on a worthwhile issue, we can't and we shouldn't expect the government to fix our food problems all on its own. This is America, after all, where we pride ourselves on individualism.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
NIH makes taxpayer-funded studies public
All National Institutes of Health-funded research appearing in scientific journals will be made publicly available as soon as it is published starting this month, the agency posted on X. Why it matters: It's the latest move by the Trump administration to challenge scientific publishing and the way peer-reviewed studies are disseminated. Many journals are password-protected and not widely available to nonsubscribers. The administration terminated millions of funding for Springer Nature, a scientific publishing behemoth that's long received subscription payments from NIH and other federal agencies, Axios scooped. Driving the news: NIH director Jay Bhattacharya posted on X that NIH moved up the launch of its open-access policy from December to July 1. "The American people should have immediate free access to the science that we so generously fund through the NIH. Starting today, we do," he wrote. What they're saying: "Science journals are ripping the American people off with exorbitant access fees and extra charges to publish research openly," an HHS spokesperson said in an emailed statement.
