RFK Jr attacks Dunkin' Donuts

There’s a Dunkin’ Donuts around nearly every corner here in Rhode Island, or so it seems. And there’s a cemetery just a block away from our house. Coincidence? We report, you decide. But the mortality rate here doesn’t seem markedly higher than anywhere else I’ve lived. But RFK Jr is coming for your Dunkin’, Rhode Island!

“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,’” Kennedy told the applauding audience. “I don’t think they’re gonna be able to do it.”

OK, not the donuts, just the sweetened coffee. But all sugar? Or just above a certain amount? Who pays for the sugar police?

Pick up any bottle of prepared salad dressing, soda, soups or ketchup and read the ingredients. Many prepared foods on the grocery shelf have added sugar, either in the form of sucrose or high-fructose corn syrup. That’s not going away. And of course, there isn’t an atom of evidence that it’s dangerous in moderation. Any more than the arsenic that’s in your rice or the acrylamide that’s in your bread is dangerous in moderation..

I have a hard time believing that the nanny state is the answer to America’s bad diet. I’d be fine with simply promoting healthy life habits. But if the medium is the message, a former heroin addict who admits to snorting cocaine off toilet seats, who looks 20 years older than his age and sounds like a rusty bicycle when he speaks, and who spreads lies about vaccines is not a convincing medium for this message.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/03/04/nation/rfk-jr-kennedy-dunkin-sugar/ 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more