In Defense of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for Secretary of Health and Human Services
Championing Public Health and Wildlife Protection: Why RFK Jr. is the Ideal Choice for HHS
A dear friend, who is both a doctor and fellow animal advocate, recently responded to my article about RFK Jr.'s Nomination to Lead HHS with serious concerns. She argued that RFK Jr.'s views on vaccines could hinder the development of effective vaccines in future pandemics, potentially harming both people and animals. She also questioned his qualifications to lead HHS and raised concerns about his stance on drilling on public lands and his personal lifestyle choices. To further illustrate her point, she shared Dr. Kavita Patel’s article Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will not make anybody healthier suggesting that my support for his nomination is misguided.
While I understand these concerns, I believe they overlook several important aspects of Kennedy’s qualifications and vision for public health reform—particularly those that align with the values of animal advocates and environmentalists.
A Proven Environmental Advocate
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s environmental advocacy spans decades, during which he has fought tirelessly against corporate polluters and worked to protect some of the most vulnerable ecosystems in the country. As a prominent environmental lawyer, he has led legal battles against companies like DuPont and Monsanto, holding them accountable for contaminating water supplies with toxic chemicals that not only harm human health but also devastate wildlife habitats.
One of Kennedy’s most notable victories came in 2007 when he was part of the legal team that secured a $396 million jury verdict against DuPont for contamination from its Spelter, West Virginia zinc plant. The case involved the release of toxic chemicals into local waterways, which poisoned the environment and endangered the health of nearby communities. In 2017, Kennedy was also part of a team that won a $670 million settlement for over 3,000 residents in Ohio and West Virginia whose drinking water was polluted by perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a toxic chemical released by DuPont.
Building on this success, in 2018, Kennedy achieved another landmark victory when he helped win a $289 million verdict against Monsanto in a case involving their glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup. The jury found that Monsanto had failed to warn consumers about the cancer risks associated with glyphosate, which had been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. This case was the first of thousands to go to trial, sending a powerful message about corporate responsibility and public health.
In addition to these legal victories, Kennedy’s work as president of the Waterkeeper Alliance for over 20 years has had a profound impact on global environmental protection. Under his leadership, the Alliance became the world’s largest nonprofit focused on clean water, with more than 350 groups in 48 countries patrolling and protecting over 2.8 million square miles of watersheds. His efforts targeted industrial pollution from coal plants, chemical manufacturers, and other industries, safeguarding rivers, lakes, and coastal ecosystems—and the wildlife that depend on them—from contamination.
Kennedy’s environmental work goes beyond litigation; he has been a vocal advocate for stronger environmental regulations and corporate accountability through public speaking, policy advocacy, and grassroots organizing. His leadership in these areas shows a clear understanding of how environmental health directly impacts public health—a perspective that is crucial for the role of HHS Secretary. By addressing the root causes of pollution and environmental degradation, Kennedy could help ensure healthier communities for both humans and animals.
Reducing Environmental Toxins for Healthier Communities
One of Kennedy’s key priorities at HHS would be addressing the chronic disease epidemic by focusing on reducing exposure to harmful chemicals in our food, water, air, and everyday products. Chronic diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes are often linked to long-term exposure to environmental toxins such as pesticides, industrial chemicals, and food additives—many of which disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color.
For animal advocates and environmentalists concerned about the impact of industrial agriculture on both human health and wildlife, this focus on reducing toxic exposures is crucial. By pushing for stricter regulations on pesticides like glyphosate (which has been linked to cancer) or banning harmful food additives still permitted in U.S. markets but outlawed elsewhere, Kennedy could help create a healthier environment for all living beings—humans and animals alike.
Moreover, reducing reliance on toxic chemicals would benefit wildlife by decreasing contamination in natural habitats where animals live and breed. This holistic approach to public health recognizes that protecting human health also means protecting the ecosystems we share with other species.
Commitment to Food Safety Transparency
Kennedy has long been a vocal advocate for transparency in food production—a critical issue for both public health advocates and those concerned about animal welfare. He has consistently called for stricter oversight of food safety standards in the U.S., particularly when it comes to harmful ingredients that are banned in Europe but still allowed in American food products.
For instance, many processed foods in the U.S. contain artificial dyes, preservatives, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have been linked to various health problems but remain largely unregulated due to industry influence over regulatory agencies like the FDA. Kennedy’s commitment to reforming these agencies would help ensure that consumers have access to safer, healthier food options while also promoting more sustainable agricultural practices.
Animal advocates should take note that improving food safety standards often goes hand-in-hand with reducing factory farming practices that rely heavily on antibiotics and other harmful substances to maintain unhealthy livestock conditions. By advocating for cleaner food systems based on transparency and accountability, Kennedy could help shift the agricultural industry toward more humane practices that benefit both animals and consumers.
Opposition to Factory Farming
Kennedy’s opposition to factory farming is well-documented through his legal battles against large-scale agricultural operations, particularly during his time with the Waterkeeper Alliance. Under his leadership, Waterkeeper launched numerous lawsuits targeting pollution from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), including major cases in North Carolina, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Iowa. These factory farms are notorious for their harmful effects on both the environment and animal welfare.
Factory farms significantly pollute waterways with runoff from manure lagoons—creating dead zones where marine life cannot survive. This pollution not only threatens aquatic ecosystems but also poses serious health risks to nearby communities by contaminating drinking water supplies.
Kennedy has been a vocal advocate for small independent farmers who practice sustainable agriculture. He has convened national summits on factory farming to raise awareness about how these operations harm the environment, produce lower-quality food, and drive family farmers out of business. His legal battles have consistently focused on holding industrial agriculture accountable for its environmental impact, making him a strong advocate for both animal welfare and environmental justice.
As Secretary of HHS, Kennedy could use his platform to push for reforms that promote more sustainable farming practices—such as reducing reliance on antibiotics and growth hormones—and support policies that encourage humane treatment of animals in agriculture. His leadership could help shift the agricultural industry toward practices that benefit both public health and animal welfare.
Clarifying Vaccine Concerns
One of the most contentious issues surrounding RFK Jr.’s nomination is his stance on vaccines—a topic that has raised alarm among many public health professionals. However, it is important to clarify that Kennedy does not oppose vaccines outright; rather, he advocates for more rigorous safety testing protocols and greater transparency regarding potential side effects.
Kennedy has been vocal about reforming the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a government database designed to collect information on vaccine side effects. In interviews and public statements, he has argued that VAERS is underutilized and underfunded, making it difficult to accurately assess rare but serious adverse events. By improving VAERS and enhancing public access to its findings, Kennedy believes vaccine safety monitoring can become more transparent and trustworthy.
Kennedy has also called for the establishment of independent review boards to oversee vaccine safety studies. He has cited examples of conflicts of interest within the CDC and FDA, claiming that the financial ties between regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies undermine public confidence in vaccine programs. By removing these conflicts and ensuring impartial oversight, Kennedy aims to rebuild trust in immunization efforts.
Moreover, Kennedy has supported the idea of comparative studies examining vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations to better understand long-term health outcomes. This idea reflects his broader call for greater transparency and data-driven decision-making in public health. These proposals, far from dismantling vaccine programs, are intended to ensure that public health policies remain credible and widely accepted.
For those concerned about future pandemics or infectious disease outbreaks affecting humans and animals, including zoonotic diseases, Kennedy's approach could strengthen oversight and accountability, restore public confidence in vaccines, and promote widespread participation in immunization campaigns essential for safeguarding both human and animal health.
Addressing Concerns About Drilling on Public Lands
Some critics have expressed concern about RFK Jr.’s stance on drilling on public lands—a valid issue given its potential impact on wildlife habitats. While Kennedy has not advocated for an outright ban on fracking or drilling across all public lands due to economic considerations, he supports a gradual phase-out by ending taxpayer subsidies for these industries and allowing market forces to dictate their decline over time.
Kennedy's nuanced approach reflects his understanding of both economic realities and environmental priorities: he aims to reduce reliance on fossil fuels without causing immediate economic harm while promoting renewable energy alternatives. His history as an environmental advocate shows a consistent commitment to protecting ecosystems from corporate exploitation—whether through litigation against fracking companies or efforts to stop destructive projects like mountaintop removal mining.
Animal advocates should take comfort in knowing that Kennedy's long-standing dedication to environmental protection will likely guide his decisions at HHS when it comes to balancing economic interests with preserving natural habitats critical for wildlife survival.
A Balanced Approach for Public Health Reform
While Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination may spark debate, it presents an opportunity for transformative change at the intersection of public health, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare. For animal advocates and environmentalists, this is a pivotal moment to rally behind a leader whose policies could advance shared values. By championing his vision for reform, we can help shape a healthier, more sustainable future for all living beings.
Ed Boks is a former Executive Director of the New York City, Los Angeles, and Maricopa County Animal Care & Control Departments, and a former Board Director of the National Animal Control Association. His work has been published in the LA Times, New York Times, Newsweek, Real Clear Policy, Sentient Media, and now on Animal Politics with Ed Boks.
Well articulated. Just don't have the time or bandwidth to respond to some of the mudslingers with statements like he is a wack if they are not open to delve into him. That's why I don't. It's a waste of time these days. But, a sensible discussion is worth it.
So to be clear, a lawyer who has literally, taken down Monsanto, has my respect.
I am delighted with his nomination. I disagree on a few things I'd heard about his beliefs, but I'm not afraid of systematic reviews of the evidence, and don't believe he will implement changes without doing so. All proper science should have to stand up to rigorous scrutiny periodically.