Much of politics today seems to be driven by the source of policies. If President Donald Trump or his administration is for it, Democrats are against it. Democrats have pulled 180-degree turns from past support for unilateral military operations by Democratic Presidents to opposing government shutdowns. However, one of the most intriguing has been the opposition to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has launched moves against unhealthy food additives and products. That was evident yesterday when Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey (D) virtually declared war over his effort to press Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks over high-sugar drinks.
Dunkin’ Donuts is clearly an iconic brand, but the lack of support for Kennedy’s food policies is striking in light of the general support of Democrats for Big Gulp laws like the one in New York put forward by former mayor Michael Bloomberg (R).
For the record, I have long opposed efforts to ban unhealthy foods. While I strongly support educational campaigns by the government about such unhealthy choices, I believe that it remains an individual choice on whether to engage in unhealthy habits, from smoking to high-fat foods. I also previously wrote how I believe the Big Gulp law was unlawful. It was later struck down.
In this country and other countries, such as Great Britain, similar measures targeting unhealthy foods have been rallying points for the left.
Yet, Kennedy received pushback after announcing that “We’re going to ask Dunkin’ Donuts and Starbucks, ‘Show us the safety data that show that it’s OK for a teenage girl to drink an iced coffee with 115 grams of sugar in it.’ I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.”
Healey responded with a taunt, “Come and take it,” sharing an image of a flag resembling the 1835 “Come and Take It” flag first used at the start of the Texas Revolution.
Kennedy is not necessarily calling for a ban. He has been pushing to improve the food-ingredient approval system by implementing reforms long called for by nutrition advocates. Much of this effort focuses on improving the Generally Recognized as Safe policy. He has been attacking an exemption allowing food companies to independently verify the safety of food additives without the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight.
Kennedy has stated that this “loophole was hijacked by the industry, and it was used to add thousands upon thousands of new ingredients into our food supply. In Europe there’s only 400 legal ingredients. This agency does not know how many ingredients there are in American food.”
That would seem precisely what many liberals once heralded. Yet, no democratic administration was ever willing to go head-to-head with these companies. Kennedy is doing what administrations like the Obama and Biden administrations failed to do.
However, he remains persona non grata on the left, viewed as a traitor as a member of a famous Democratic family who supported Trump. They would rather defend unhealthy food than a party turncoat.
Once again, I generally oppose limits on consumer choices, preferring educational campaigns and healthy guidelines. However, the latest controversy only highlights the flipping of the magnetic poles in American politics.
Breaking News: Trump just fired Ice Barbie and named Markwayne Mullens to replace her, effective March 31st. We have to wonder what the straw was that broke the camel’s back–the luxury flying love cabin paid for by taxpayers with the bedroom in back or the ad campaign featuring ICE Barbie made up like a cowgirl? We sure as h3ll know it wasn’t killing Renee Good and Alex Pretti, or the abuse of peaceful protesters, or even the scandal about vastly overpaying above market value for the purchase of abandoned warehouses to convert them ito ICE concentration camps.
According to the NY Post, Trump is allegedly “furious” over Noem saying he approved the $220 Million ad campaign featuring her. He denies it. It is hard to defend this, really.
After 122+ comments, this discussion still comes down to a very simple answer.
Either the companies have evaluated the safety of their formulations at those sugar levels, or they rely on the publicly available research and GRAS determinations already established by the FDA.
Both are perfectly plausible answers. But either way, the response would have taken far less time than the debate surrounding the question.
GRAS status applies to ingredients individually, not necessarily to the final formulations sold to consumers. A baked potato, butter, salt, and cheese are all GRAS ingredients, but putting a pound of butter on that potato would not suddenly make the meal healthy.
That may be part of what Kennedy is trying to highlight. There can be a gap between the GRAS status of individual ingredients and the health implications of the final products created from them. If so, the question is not really about whether sugar itself is legal or labeled. It is whether the current regulatory framework fully addresses the health effects of extreme formulations that combine otherwise approved ingredients.
Olly, after 122+ comments, it’s impressive how you can acknowledge the answer while still missing the point.
You just admitted the answer is ‘they rely on the FDA’s GRAS determinations.’ That’s it. That is the entire legal and scientific basis for food safety in this country.
There is no ‘gap’ to investigate because a coffee shop isn’t a pharmacy—they don’t perform clinical trials on ‘formulations’ of legal food.
Your baked potato analogy is perfect for proving my point, not yours: If I put a pound of butter on a potato, it’s ‘unhealthy,’ but it isn’t illegal or unregulated. The safety of the butter is established (GRAS), and the nutritional impact is transparent (the label).
The ‘health implications’ of a choice belong to the person eating the potato, not a government-mandated ‘safety study’ from the potato farmer. If Kennedy wants to change the regulatory framework to limit portion sizes or sugar ratios, he has a legal process for that. Asking for ‘data’ that doesn’t exist to ‘highlight’ a point we can all see on the menu isn’t oversight—it’s just theatre.
But hey, if you want to wait for a 40-page safety analysis before you decide if a pound of butter is a bad idea, that’s your prerogative. The rest of us just read the label.
Interesting development with regard to the war in the Middle East.
Right now the US is using $4 million Patriot missiles to shoot down $20,000 Iranian Shaheed missiles, and is rapidly running out of Patriots.
Apparently the Trump administration has asked Zelensky for help in how to use cheap off the shelf drones to destroy Iran’s missiles, and Zelensky has announced that he is more than willing to provide that help.
Here is Zelensky’s statement:
We received a request from the United States for specific support in protection against “shaheds” in the Middle East region. I gave instructions to provide the necessary means and ensure the presence of Ukrainian specialists who can guarantee the required security. Ukraine helps partners who help ensure our security and protect the lives of our people. Glory to Ukraine!
Imagine that.
It’s almost as if we can be safer by relying on allies.
Who knew ????
Is Zelensky demanding US mineral rights in return for this assistance???
Zelensky is a statesman.
Trump is an 80 year old mob boss with dementia, yelling at the TV.
Zelensky is a sitcom actor whose only qualification to be president was playing one on TV. The US equivalent would be to elect Martin Sheen President, and Julia-Louis Dreyfus Veep.
Then he suspended all elections for the duration of the war, making him hard to replace.
OT
Per the 9th Amendment, Americans enjoy the natural, God-given, and constitutional freedom of education, that is, to choose the provider of education for their children, which may not be denied by states.
Per the 14th Amendment, American persons may not be discriminated against by being compelled to pay for the education of the children of other persons through taxation.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Brief for Petitioners: Equal Protection Forbids Penalizing the Exercise of Fundamental Parental Rights Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Ninth Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution secure the fundamental right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The State may not condition the exercise of that right on the surrender of equal treatment. By compelling all parents to fund public schools through taxation, yet conferring the full benefit of that funding only upon those who utilize the government system, the State imposes a unique and unequal financial burden on parents who lawfully choose private education. Because the Constitution forbids penalizing the exercise of a fundamental right or discriminating among similarly situated citizens without sufficient justification, such a scheme cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
___________________________________________________________________________
14th Amendment
“No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Democrats and Iranian Islamists / IRGC members are cut from the same cloth: all talk, fail to show up for duty.
The Iran war has been a stunning aerial success
“Israeli intelligence sources suggest there are signs of Iranian soldiers, police officers and IRGC members failing to show up for duty.”
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2026/03/04/the-iran-war-has-been-a-stunning-aerial-success
Uncle Roger rates cheapest woman ever.
youtube.com/watch?v=jcQ8_mX9juI&themeRefresh=1
Unhealthy foods are not only “individual choice.” Not when federal and state taxpayers foot the bills for the poor health of others – from Medicaid, to favorable/supported prescription drug prices for those who fail to care for their health (but not for those with other conditions unrelated to their choices), to food stamps, to school lunches, to supporting hospitals and clinics, etc. To paraphrase: food choices have consequences.
Turley’s acting like Gov. Healey is the one overreacting, but she’s just following the Massachusetts tradition of throwing fits over government interference with beverages. You’d think a legal scholar would appreciate the irony of a federal official trying to ‘tax’ our patience with redundant data requests. If RFK Jr. wants to change the definition of sugar safety, he has a legal rulemaking process for that. Until then, maybe Turley can explain where in the Constitution it says the HHS Secretary gets to be the ‘Barista-in-Chief. Wow.
First Government should stay out of this entirely.
While I applaud Kennedy’s efforts to undo past government advocacy and even regulation that shilled or even FORCED bad foods on us.
I am as opposed to having HHS under Kennedy tell us what is good for us as I was when it was an owned subsidiary of big food.
Let private companies tell us what they think is good for us, and then use torts to sue their ass off when they lie.
But my libertarian preferences are just not going to become reality.
If we MUST have government tell us what is good for us, the least we can hope for is that government is not going to lie.
I thrust HHS under Kennedy to not lie to us, more than any previous director in its existance
Kennedy shilling for Truth in advertising while Healey shills for big food is hillarious.
I do not want Government even telling us what is healthy – that is our job, and too the extent that food producers provide us information – they are liable for the information they provide,.
But just as I do not want Kennedy Telling us what is good for us, Heally as Government should not be trying to tell us he is wrong.
Getting Government out means OUT. It means NO ROLE AT ALL for government.
The libertarian – and correct position is that those who try to sell us products – cars, food, drugs, are responsible for the representations they make to get us to buy their products.
That is exactly how a free market works. People will make choices – by the better product, or buy the cheaper product, and those choices will push producers to provide better products cheaper.
But for that to work – we must be able to trust the information we receive that allows us to judge FOR US which product meets our needs more.
Producers are NOT obligated to tell us anything about their products, but they are responsible for what they do tell us.
We do NOT want Government telling us what is good or bad for us – because those in govenrment Telling us are always responding to some outside influence, and because unlikely producers we can not sue government for deceiving us.
I am very very glad that Kennedy i disempowering producers ability to manipulate HHS.
But I fundamentally disagree with the proposition that government can and should provide us with information about products.
That is true – whether it is Kennedy trying to get Producers to inform us that Coffee with 115g of sugar is not healthy, or Healey trying to tell us otherwise.
John Say, You say government should stay out ‘entirely,’ but then you applaud Kennedy for using his federal office to demand ‘safety data.’ You can’t have it both ways. A Secretary of HHS using the ‘bully pulpit’ to target specific companies is the definition of government involvement. If you truly wanted government out, you would oppose Kennedy’s interference just as much as you oppose ‘Big Food’s’ influence.
You suggest we should rely on torts and lawsuits, but for a lawsuit to work, a company has to actually lie. Dunkin’ and Starbucks aren’t lying—they are legally required to tell you exactly how much sugar is in the drink. If the label says 115g of sugar and you drink it anyway, there is no ‘lie’ to sue over. You are advocating for a legal remedy to a problem that transparency has already solved.
John, You say producers are ‘not obligated to tell us anything,’ but then you support Kennedy’s attempt to force them to provide ‘safety data.’ That is a direct contradiction of the free-market principle you just cited. If a company provides the grams of sugar (as they do), they have fulfilled their responsibility. Forcing them to conduct ‘safety analysis’ to justify a legal ingredient is the opposite of a free market—it’s state-mandated scientific justification
You are correct to note that we can’t sue the government for lying to us. That is exactly why we should be suspect of a Secretary who uses his office to imply a product is “unsafe” without actually changing the FDA’s legal safety standards. If RFK is wrong, or if his ‘safety data’ requests are just a political tactic, the companies—and the consumers—have no recourse. That’s why Healey is right: the government should stick to the law, not personal crusades.
X
Once again John Say’s mental illness is on full display.
As you note, he consistently makes absurd diametrically contradictory statements in one breath, and sees no problem with believing both contradictory statements.
He would have us believe that he wants the government to stay out, while simultaneously praising Kennedy for demanding interfering with demands for data.
He believes producers are not obligated to tell us anything, but believes Kennedy should force them to do so.
This is the completely irrational, disorganized thinking of someone who is profoundly mentally ill.
According to the Article Kennedy is NOT trying to change the rules. He is asking beverage producers to EXPLAIN their own compliance with existing rules.
Existing rules require establishing the actual food safety of many foods, Kennedy is not even changing the process, he is just asking producers to explain how they concluded that Coffee with 115g of sugar is good.
Again my preference is to get government out of it entirely. And for consumers – through buying choices and through tort claims to hold producers accountable for their claims.
John Say,
“ According to the Article Kennedy is NOT trying to change the rules. He is asking beverage producers to EXPLAIN their own compliance with existing rules.”
The idea that this is just a ‘compliance check’ is a misunderstanding of how food law works. Under existing rules, compliance for a company like Starbucks or Dunkin’ consists of two things: using FDA-approved ingredients and accurately labeling the sugar count. They are already 100% in compliance with those rules.
What Kennedy is asking for isn’t an ‘explanation of compliance’—it’s a new demand for scientific justification. There is no existing federal rule that requires a coffee shop to conduct clinical safety trials on a latte. By demanding ‘safety data’ for a substance the FDA has already deemed GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) for decades, he isn’t checking the old rules; he is effectively inventing new ones through regulatory pressure.
If a Secretary ‘requests’ data that the law doesn’t require you to have, and then uses your lack of that data to publicly shame your brand, that isn’t ‘oversight.’ It’s a strategic bypass of the formal rulemaking process to force a change in the market without actually passing a law. If the goal is to change the ‘rules’ on sugar, the HHS needs to follow the legal process to revoke its safety status, not demand that private businesses do the government’s research for them.
It’s a hilarious legal paradox: The FDA is the agency that officially declared sugar to be ‘Generally Recognized as Safe’ (GRAS), yet now the HHS Secretary is asking private companies to provide the scientific data proving the FDA wasn’t wrong.
It’s basically the government saying, ‘We told you this was safe for 50 years, but now we’ve lost our notes. Can you go hire some scientists and do our job for us so we can decide whether to sue you?’
If a teacher loses your homework and then gives you a failing grade because you can’t produce their copy, you’d call that a scam. When the government does it to a coffee shop, apparently some people call it ‘transparency.
X – please cite – either in the article – or from any other source Where Kennedy is seeking to change the rules in this particular instance ?
My reading is that Kennedy and HHS are asking beverage producers to explain how THEY reached the conclusion that prior HHS delegated to them, that their products were safe.
Is Sec. Kennedy doing this with a twinkle in his eye needling producers to explain how they concluded that 115g of sugar in a beverage was safe ?
Sure.
I am sure Kennedy is working to change lots of Regulations.
But this particular issue is NOT one of those.
Kennedy is merely putting producers on the hot seat asking them to explain a conclusion that on its face seems implausible.
John Say, you’re mistaken about the ‘existing rules.’ Under current FDA law, companies using GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) ingredients like sugar are not required to conduct or provide independent safety studies for their specific recipes.
By demanding ‘safety data’ that the law doesn’t require them to have, Kennedy isn’t checking compliance—he’s creating a new, unlegislated mandate. If he wants to challenge the safety of 115g of sugar, the legal process is to have the FDA revoke its GRAS status via the Administrative Procedure Act.
Instead, he’s bypassing the science-based rulemaking process to publicly ‘needle’ businesses for not having data they were never legally obligated to produce. That’s not oversight; it’s a regulatory shakedown masquerading as a question.
JFK is being deliberately misleading and simply gaslighting with falsehoods, and unfortunately Turley and the rest of the MAGA mob fall for it hook, line and sinker.
JFK claims that in Europe there are only 400 legal ingredients. This is completely false. JFK has been deliberately misrepresenting this claim for years.
The European data he refers to does not include INGREDIENTS. The 400 or so items are ADDITIVES, such as stabilizers, coloring agents, preservatives and artificial sweeteners that are not considered to be foods.
The Europeans specifically state that this list is ADDITIVES and NOT INGREDIENTS. There are tens of thousands of INGREDIENTS allowable in Europe. Ingredients are simply basic food items such as flour, sugar, butter, eggs, milk, cheese and so on, and are not on the list.
With a brief moment of rational thought any sane, rational individual would realize that there are far more than 400 allowable ingredients in the European food supply.
Unfortunately, sane and rational thought is rarely found on this worthless blog.
Anonynous, it’s “RFK jr.” But otherwise your point is well taken.
Actually he is off point.
The issue here is that HHS in the past has delegated the determination of whether something is safe to producers.
Sec. Kennedy i merely asking how they reached conclusions that do not appear to make sense.
Debates over what is an ingredient as opposed to what is an additive are an unrelated tangent.
Further what is the difference between an ingredient and an additive ?
People drink coffee black without sugar – does that mean cream and sugar are an additive or an ingredient ?
Many foods have lots of salt in them – salt not only is a spice, but it also retards the processes that cause food to go bad,
Is salt an ingredient or an additive ?
I like my steak seared on the outside and bloody on the inside – burning the outside of a steak is known to create small amounts of carcinegens,
but those come from burning the meat and fat – are they an ingredient ? An Addiitive ?
John Say
You are insane.
There is NO debate over what is an additive and what is an ingredient. Both are very clearly defined without ambiguity.
Your completely irrational and incoherent rant is completely without meaning.
You are gaslighting, deflecting and obfuscating just like Kennedy.
The facts are that Kennedy is LYING when he says that Europe allows only 400 ingredients.
THAT IS FALSE, IT IS AN OUTRIGHT, PROVABLE LIE.
Kennedy is a LIAR.
Nothing he says about anything can be trusted.
His brain has been eaten by worms.
John, to address your points directly: the distinction between an ingredient and an additive isn’t a ‘tangent’—in federal law (21 CFR 170.3), it is the entire basis of food safety.
You claim Kennedy is simply asking how companies reached the ‘conclusion’ that high sugar levels are safe. The reality is that the companies didn’t make that conclusion—the FDA did decades ago when it classified sugar as GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe). Under 21 CFR 170.30, companies using GRAS ingredients are legally exempt from conducting or providing independent safety studies. By ‘requesting’ data the law does not require them to have, Kennedy isn’t checking compliance; he is attempting a regulatory shakedown to bypass the Administrative Procedure Act.
Your steak and salt examples actually prove my point: we don’t ask steakhouses for ‘safety data’ on seared crusts or salt levels because those are legal, transparently labeled food components. Just like in my diabetic example,the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act already provides 100% of the data needed to make a choice. If the sugar count is on the menu, the ‘truth’ is already out there.
If the government now believes the FDA’s own safety standards for sugar are wrong, the burden of proof is on the HHS to provide the science and change the law. Asking a donut shop to do the government’s scientific research for them—and then ‘needling’ them for not having it—is a political performance, not a search for transparency. Supporting this ‘government by intimidation’ while claiming to want government ‘OUT’ is a total contradiction.”
John Say,
In regards to salt: Both.
Salt is a mineral we need to maintain homeostasis.
It is also a preservative.
As to the rest of your comment, re: Kennedy asking how did those companies come to those conclusions. Yes. By what metric did they use to determine that? I do think it could be subjective as some may like a lot of sugar or salt while others may not. So, in their determinations is that an average? We have seen some restaurants do test runs in certain locations and then either conduct a survey or monitor sales as indications to continue the sales and make them regional or to stop.
The insanity of Kennedy’s claim that only 400 ingredients are allowed in Europe is completely obvious to any rational thinking person.
There are hundreds of fruits and vegetables alone that are used as ingredients.
There are hundreds of different spices that can be used as ingredients.
I wonder if Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey is going to denounce this announcement, Medical schools commit to RFK Jr. plan to boost nutrition education
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/education/4481158/medical-schools-commit-rfk-jr-plan-boost-nutrition-education/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
MEGA 🤝 MAHA@EDSecMcMahon & @SecKennedy are teaming up to ensure the next generation of doctors understand nutrition and how it impacts health. pic.twitter.com/AFEV86gPwl
— U.S. Department of Education (@usedgov) March 5, 2026
Healey and her cult Democrats should be encouraged to consume all of the unhealthy food they like. It will accelerate their death exponentially and rid the nation of their ilk. Win win.