Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s anti-vaccine advocacy is outside the mainstream. But a new poll finds that not all of his controversial health goals are unpopular — in fact, at least one has broad support among Democrats and Republicans.
As Kennedy’s Senate confirmation hearings begin, his bid to become the nation’s top health official could depend on how staunchly he sticks to these personal beliefs during questioning. He has already softened some of his long-held views.
He’s facing some skepticism from the public, according to a new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Only about 3 in 10 US adults approve of President Donald Trump nominating him to be secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. About 4 in 10 disapprove, while about one-quarter are either neutral or don’t know enough to say.
But he has points of strength, too. Trump’s choice of Kennedy is especially popular among Republicans: About 6 in 10 approve, compared to about 1 in 10 Democrats. And while many Americans disagree with some of Kennedy’s controversial health stances — including beliefs around reevaluating childhood vaccine recommendations and changing guidelines around fluoride in drinking water and raw milk consumption — some of his other stances, like reformulating processed foods, are broadly popular.
Here’s what AP-NORC polling shows about which of Kennedy’s priorities are likely to be popular among U.S. adults and which might be less well-received.
More oppose than support reevaluating widely used vaccines
Kennedy has long been a vaccine skeptic, and he and Trump have falsely claimed that childhood vaccines are dangerous and tied to rising autism rates. His opposition to vaccines is broad, and he has said that “there’s no vaccine that is safe and effective.”
AP-NORC polling suggests that reevaluating vaccine recommendations would be unpopular with many Americans.
About 4 in 10 Americans “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose reconsidering the government’s recommendations around widely used vaccines, like the flu vaccine, and about 3 in 10 are in favor. Another 3 in 10 Americans, roughly, are neutral.
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to favor reconsidering government recommendations for widely used vaccines, although their support isn’t overwhelming. About 4 in 10 Republicans favor reevaluating vaccine recommendations, compared with about 2 in 10 Democrats.
Wide support for restrictions on ingredients in processed foods
One of Kennedy’s ideas is popular across the board: getting some chemicals out of processed foods. Kennedy has vowed to ban certain food additives and crack down on ultra-processed foods that are tied to obesity and diabetes rates.
About two-thirds of Americans “somewhat” or “strongly” favor restricting or reformulating processed foods to remove ingredients like added sugar or dyes. This is an area where Democrats and Republicans agree: About 7 in 10 in each group favor the restrictions.
Support is particularly high among U.S. adults with a higher household income, though research from the National Institutes of Health has indicated that ultra-processed foods are consumed at higher rates in low-income groups. Roughly 8 in 10 adults with a household income of $100,000 or more per year support the restrictions, compared with about half of Americans with a household income of $30,000 or less.
More oppose than support removing raw milk restrictions
Kennedy indicated before the election that he would be keen to end the Food and Drug Administration’s “aggressive suppression” of raw milk. The FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have called raw milk one of the “riskiest” foods people can consume because of the possibility for contamination.
This is a proposal for which he’d have to do some convincing to get the public on board. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose removing restrictions on the sale of unpasteurized or raw milk. About 2 in 10 Americans favor this idea, with Republicans being more likely than Democrats to be in support. But even Republicans are split: About 3 in 10 are in favor, and about 3 in 10 are opposed.
Americans generally want Medicare and Medicaid to cover weight loss drugs
Kennedy has criticized prescription weight loss drugs like Ozempic, saying higher-quality food could solve the obesity problem in the U.S., but in December he pivoted, saying the drugs “have a place” in making sure people are not obese, in addition to lifestyle changes.
Americans see weight loss drugs as a good solution for adults who are obese. About half of U.S. adults say it’s “very good” or “somewhat good” for adults to use weight loss drugs if they are struggling with obesity or a weight-related health condition. And about half also favor Medicare and Medicaid covering the cost of these drugs if they are prescribed for weight loss for people with obesity.
More oppose than support removing fluoride from drinking water
Kennedy has said he wants the federal government to advise local governments against putting fluoride in their drinking water. The CDC has said small amounts of added fluoride in drinking water prevent cavities and tooth decay.
More Americans are opposed than in favor of removing fluoride from drinking water, but many don’t have an opinion on the issue, leaving room for shifts in either direction. About 4 in 10 Americans oppose removing fluoride from the water supply, and about one-quarter are in favor. An additional one-third are neutral, saying they don’t favor or oppose it. About one-third of independents and Republicans favor it, compared with about 2 in 10 Democrats.
The idea of removing fluoride from drinking water is particularly unpopular with adults 60 and older, and the data suggests that younger Americans might be more open to it. About half of adults 60 or older oppose removing fluoride from the water, compared with about 4 in 10 adults between the ages of 30 and 59. Only about 2 in 10 adults under 30 are opposed to this.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
What an idiotic and irrelevant article.
How many oppose YWN news copying and pasting propaganda pieces like this trashy article? Let’s take a popularity vote on that!
To the point, when the entire article is ad hominum and about how many brainless Americans support or oppose stance xyz without the slightest scholarly debate, there’s a conspiracy in plain sight.
How about put his arguments on the table and fact check them? That would be more credible.
BTW whenever a piece begins with a dismissal of a view or a person, you know it’s hopelessly biased.
Try a bit better at honorable journalism YWN would you please?!?
Very biased article.
“Kennedy has long been a vaccine skeptic, and he and Trump have falsely claimed that childhood vaccines are dangerous and tied to rising autism rates. ”
Thats your opinion. Not fact. The truth is that many of the people who have done real research, and not just blindly followed the “experts”, have concluded that there can be real dangers from vaccines, including links to autism. Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, for example, was appointed by the government to do research to disprove vaccine-skeptics, and yet he ended up concluding that vaccines can cause autism. He is just one example. It should be noted, that the same media convincing us that all dangers form vaccine are disproven, is also telling us that Israel is committing a genocide. if we’re so sure they’re wrong about Israel, maybe we shouldn’t blindly follow their talking points on vaccines.
Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, for example, was appointed by the government to do research to disprove vaccine-skeptics
No, he was not. He was never “appointed” to anything. He was merely one of 16 expert witnesses the government used in one court case; nine testified, seven submitted written evidence. He was one of the seven, and his evidence was not a major factor in the outcome.
and yet he ended up concluding that vaccines can cause autism.
No, he didn’t. He ended up suggesting that children who are born with mitochondrial disorders are at a slightly higher risk of developing autism, and that perhaps an infection or vaccination at exactly the wrong time might exacerbate this effect. Or not. He testified about this theory of his in several cases and in each case the theory was rejected.
The fact that people “oppose” or “support” is useless. Take the example of fluoride. The science supporting the use of this Neurotoxin is many decades old. All recent science shows that fluoride does little to protect teeth and causes a decreased IQ. (And they didn’t even study other health outcomes…) So in this case, people who support fluoride are the ones who grew up being told that fluoride was a modern day miracle and that it is of great benefit and perfectly safe. If you believe a lie, you support a lie. If you learn the truth, you stop supporting the lie.
So too many of the things RFK argues about are not because hes stupid or misinformed. It’s precisely because he has done tremendous research that he has moved beyond brainless brainwashed parroting of modern day dogma and actually formed his own opinions.