.jpg)
Particularly noteworthy is Trump’s alliance with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.), an outspoken advocate for reducing ultra-processed foods, cutting chemical additives, and promoting a “natural” food agenda.
Here, we'll explore what this alignment could mean for the future of the American, and by extension, the global, food industry.
RFK Jr.’s Vision: A Shift to “Natural” Foods
RFK Jr. has gained a reputation as a staunch critic of conventional agricultural practices, especially those reliant on synthetic pesticides, additives, and highly processed foods. He argues these contribute to widespread health issues, including chronic disease and metabolic disorders.
By promoting what he calls “clean food,” Kennedy envisions a system that moves away from pesticide-intensive farming and food additives and leans heavily on whole foods.
Trump has signalled a willingness to give Kennedy a prominent role in health and food policy, declaring his intention to “let [Kennedy] go wild on food and health” policy. If this relationship solidifies, Kennedy could play an influential role in reshaping regulatory frameworks and could push for significant policy changes in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This could include restrictions on commonly used food ingredients, seed oils, and certain pesticides, with a strong emphasis on moving away from ultra-processed foods
A Potentially Disruptive Shift for Big Agribusiness
If Kennedy assumes control over food-related agencies, the impact on American agribusiness could be profound. During his first term, Trump’s administration relaxed many regulations, making it easier for agribusinesses to use chemicals and genetically modified crops.
For instance, Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) previously rejected petitions to ban chlorpyrifos, a pesticide with known neurological risks, and rolled back other environmental protections in support of productivity and lower costs in agriculture
Kennedy’s approach, however, could take a hard turn from these policies. His advocacy includes stricter controls over pesticides and a ban on seed oils—both widely used in the industry.
Many food lobbyists and industry representatives have already begun voicing concerns, fearing that a regulatory overhaul would increase costs, complicate production, and disrupt established agribusiness practices. Such changes would likely lead to higher prices across food sectors, impacting not only the U.S. market but also international trade and export prices.
.jpg)
Kennedy’s policies could appeal to growing consumer interest in “natural” foods and healthier eating habits. His agenda aligns with global trends toward transparency in food production, organic ingredients, and reductions in processed food consumption.
If implemented, his ideas could lead to a stronger regulatory focus on labelling, potentially highlighting additives or synthetic chemicals and encouraging consumers to choose less processed, more nutritious options.
However, critics argue that such policies might oversimplify complex food science and could limit consumer choice by reducing affordable, accessible food options. For instance, restrictions on certain preservatives and additives could impact the shelf life of various products, making it harder to supply foods with long distribution times, especially in rural or lower-income areas.
The debate over balancing health-focused policies with economic and practical considerations will likely be a hot topic if Kennedy’s views shape U.S. food policy
An Uncertain Path Ahead?
While Kennedy’s impact could be extensive, it remains uncertain how much of his agenda would survive potential internal conflicts or legislative resistance. Trump’s alliance with Kennedy, though enthusiastic, might be tested as his pro-business leanings clash with Kennedy’s stricter approach to corporate influence and chemical use in food. Trump has indicated that he may try to keep Kennedy away from environmental regulatory roles, which suggests he may impose boundaries on Kennedy’s influence over food and agricultural policy
In summary, a Trump-Kennedy administration could push the food industry toward a cleaner, less chemical-intensive future—at least in theory. But practical challenges, industry pushback, and potential costs to consumers mean that any transformation would face considerable hurdles. For now, consumers and businesses alike will have to wait and see if the “Make America Healthy Again” movement can transform rhetoric into reality.
(That's Food and Drink brings this article to the attention of our readers as a matter of public interest.)
