Health
RFK Jr.’s MAHA Movement Obscures America’s Unhealthy Past
“We will make Americans healthy again,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has declared. A political action committee that has promoted Mr. Kennedy, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick for health and human services secretary, says his movement is “igniting a health revolution in America.”
But the word “again” presumes a time in the country’s past when Americans were in better health. Was there ever really a time when America was healthier?
For historians of medicine, there is a short answer.
“No,” said Nancy Tomes, a historian at Stony Brook University.
John Harley Warner, a historian at Yale, said, “It’s hard for me to think of a time when America, with all the real health disparities that characterize our system, was healthier.”
Dr. Jeremy Greene, a historian at Johns Hopkins University, asked: “Which particular era does R.F.K. want to take us back to?”
Probably not the 19th and early 20th century.
Rich men smoked cigarettes and cigars, the poor chewed tobacco. Heavy drinking was the norm.
“It was definitely a drinking culture,” said Dora Costa, an economic historian at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Drinking was a huge problem, saloons were a huge concern. Men were drinking away their paychecks. That is the reason we had Prohibition.”
And, Dr. Costa notes, American diets for most of the 19th century were monotonous.
It’s true that agriculture at the time was organic, food was locally produced and there were no ultraprocessed foods. But fresh fruits and vegetables were in short supply because they were difficult to ship and because growing seasons were so short. For the most part, Dr. Costa said, until the 1930s, “Americans were living off of dried fruits and vegetables.”
As for protein, Americans were relying on salted pork, she said, because meat was difficult to preserve. Only after the Civil War did meatpackers in Chicago begin to process meat and ship fresh beef across the country. At that point, Dr. Costa said, beef “became a large part of the American diet.”
But even though the availability of beef helped diversify diets, people did not become healthier.
Dr. Costa worked with Robert Fogel, the University of Chicago economic historian and Nobel laureate, to understand the health of a population of Americans living in the North around this period by examining the medical records of Union Army soldiers. Common conditions, like hernias, were untreatable — men had hernias as big as grapefruits, held in by trusses. Nineteen percent of those soldiers had heart valve problems by the time they were 60, compared with about 8.5 percent today.
Poor nutrition led to poor health. People were thin, often too thin. In 1900, 6.1 percent of Union Army veterans were underweight — a risk factor for various illnesses and often a marker of ill health — compared with 1.6 percent of U.S. adults today. In 1850, males at age 20 could expect to live to around 61 years. Today it is 74 years.
The start of the 20th century saw public health improvements (cleaner water, for example, and posters advising parents not to give their babies beer), but disease was rampant. There were no antibiotics and very few vaccines. When the 1918 flu struck the nation, no one knew the cause — the flu virus had not been discovered and strange folk remedies were rampant. About 675,000 Americans died. In 1929, the Great Depression began, and its economic toll over the next decade led to severe nutritional and health problems.
Health improved in the second half of the 20th century but was poor compared with that today.
Many people are nostalgic for the 1950s and 1960s, seeing those decades as a time of prosperity, when the American pharmaceutical industry pumped out new medical advances: antibiotics, antipsychotics, drugs for high blood pressure and vaccines for tetanus, diphtheria, measles and polio.
Despite that progress, those years were terrible for health, Dr. Greene said, with “a tremendous amount of heart attacks and strokes.”
Heart disease was rampant in 1950, with 322 deaths per 100,000 Americans annually from cardiovascular disease, double the rate today. By 1960, Dr. Greene said, heart disease, was responsible for one-third of all deaths in America.
In part, that was because nearly everyone smoked.
“We were among the heaviest smoking countries,” said Samuel Preston, an emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.
Dr. David F. Musto, a medical historian at Yale, who died in 2010, once said in an interview that although he never enjoyed smoking, the social pressure to smoke when he was in college in the 1950s was so great that “I felt it was my duty to find my brand.”
Smoking greatly increases the risk for heart disease, the leading killer in the 1950s and 1960s.
Heart disease death rates plummeted in recent decades because smoking is much less common now, and treatment for heart disease is much more effective. Cholesterol-lowering statins, introduced in 1987, reduced the risk of heart disease. Other new medications as well as bypass surgery and stents also saved lives.
Cancer was the second leading killer in the 1950s, as it is today. But in 1950, there were 194 cancer deaths per 100,000 people. Now there are 142 cancer deaths per 100,000 people.
A decline in smoking is a leading reason, but there also has been a revolution in cancer treatment.
Until the 1990s, cancer was treated with brute force: surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Now an array of targeted therapies are turning some cancers, once deadly, into treatable chronic diseases or even curing them.
Dr. Greene said he was not surprised by the idea of a halcyon past when people were healthier.
“There’s a long history in America of nostalgia for a past that was better than the present,” he said. “History is all about erasure — the things we don’t choose to remember.”
Today is not a sort of health utopia, of course.
Researchers are quick to acknowledge that Americans’ health is not as good as it can be. And they bemoan the huge disparities in health care in this country.
Yet the U.S. spends more on medical care than other countries — an average of $12,555 per capita, which is about twice what other wealthy countries spend.
But, historians say, the past was actually much worse.
And so, they say, the phrase “Make America Healthy Again” makes no sense.
“As a historian of health, I don’t know what ‘again’ Kennedy is imagining,” Dr. Tomes said. “The idea that once upon a time all Americans were healthy is a fantasy.”
Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.
Use escape to exit the menu.
Sign Up
Create a free account to access exclusive content, play games, solve puzzles, test your pop-culture knowledge and receive special offers.
Already have an account? Login
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Eating too much salt has long been linked to high blood pressure, but new research suggests it could trick the immune system into prematurely aging the blood vessels.
A preclinical study recently published in the Journal of the American Heart Association has identified a biological chain reaction that links a salty diet to cardiovascular decay.
Scientists at the University of South Alabama observed that mice on a high-salt diet experienced rapid deterioration in their blood vessel function.
HIGH SALT INTAKE LINKED TO FASTER MEMORY DECLINE IN ONE GROUP, STUDY FINDS
After just four weeks of high sodium intake, the small arteries responsible for regulating blood flow lost their ability to relax, according to a press release.
The team found that the cells lining these vessels had entered a state of cellular senescence, a form of premature cellular aging in which cells stop dividing and release a mix of inflammatory signals that can damage surrounding tissue.
Excess salt has long been linked to high blood pressure, but a new study goes deeper into its effects on the cardiovascular system. (iStock)
The researchers tried to replicate this damage by exposing blood vessel cells directly to salt in a laboratory dish, but the cells showed no harmful effects.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
This suggests that salt isn’t directly causing damage to the vascular lining but that the real culprit may be the body’s own defense mechanism, the researchers noted.
Excess salt may trigger the immune system to release a molecule called interleukin-16 (IL-16), which acts as a messenger that instructs blood vessel cells to grow old before their time, according to the study.
Excess salt may trigger the immune system to release a molecule called interleukin-16, which acts as a messenger that instructs blood vessel cells to grow old before their time, according to the study. (iStock)
Once these cells age, they fail to produce nitric oxide, the essential gas that tells arteries to dilate and stay flexible.
To test whether this process could be reversed, the team turned to a class of experimental drugs known as senolytics.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Using a cancer medication called navitoclax, which selectively clears out aged and dysfunctional cells, the researchers were able to restore nearly normal blood vessel function in the salt-fed mice, the release stated.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ.
By removing the decaying cells created by the high-salt diet, the drug allowed the remaining healthy tissue to maintain its elasticity and respond correctly to blood flow demands.
Excess salt may trigger the immune system into stopping the cells from dividing, the study suggests. (iStock)
The study did have some limitations. The transition from mouse models to human treatment remains a significant hurdle, the team cautioned.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
Senolytic drugs like navitoclax are still being studied for safety, and the team emphasized that previous trials have shown mixed results regarding their impact on artery plaque.
Additionally, the researchers have not yet confirmed whether the same IL-16 pathway is the primary driver of vascular aging in humans.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables was found to have a surprising link to lung cancer among younger non-smokers, early research suggests.
The observational study, led by Jorge Nieva, M.D., of the USC Norris Comprehensive Cancer Center at Keck Medicine, was presented this month at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) annual meeting in San Diego. It has not yet been peer-reviewed.
Researchers looked at dietary, smoking and demographic data for 187 patients who were diagnosed with lung cancer at age 50 or younger.
PANCREATIC CANCER PATIENT SURVIVAL DOUBLED WITH HIGH DOSE OF COMMON VITAMIN, STUDY FINDS
They found that among non-smokers, there was a link between healthier-than-average diets – rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains – and the chance of lung cancer development.
Young lung cancer patients ate more servings of dark green vegetables, legumes and whole grains compared to the average U.S. adult, the researchers found.
Eating a diet high in fruits and vegetables was found to have a surprising link to lung cancer among younger non-smokers, early research suggests. (iStock)
The researchers hypothesized that pesticides applied to conventionally grown produce could be a possible factor in the disease association.
“Commercially produced (non-organic) fruits, vegetables and whole grains are more likely to be associated with a higher residue of pesticides than dairy, meat and many processed foods,” according to Nieva. He also noted that agricultural workers exposed to pesticides tend to have higher rates of lung cancer.
HIDDEN VIRUS INSIDE GUT BACTERIA LINKED TO DOUBLED COLORECTAL CANCER RISK, STUDY FINDS
“There is a large subset of lung cancer patients whose disease is not caused by smoking,” Nieva told Fox News Digital.
The disease is becoming more common in non-smokers 50 and younger, especially women – despite the fact that smoking rates have been falling for decades, the researcher noted.
The researchers hypothesized that pesticides applied to conventionally grown produce could be a possible factor in the disease association. (iStock)
“These patients tend to have eaten much healthier diets before their diagnosis than the average American,” he went on. “We need to support research into understanding why Americans – and women in particular – who no longer smoke very much are still having lung cancer,” he said.
DEATHS FROM ONE TYPE OF CANCER ARE SURGING AMONG YOUNGER ADULTS WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES
The study did have some limitations, Nieva acknowledged, primarily that it relied on survey data and was limited by the participants’ memories of their food intake.
“Also, the survey participants were self-selected, and this could have biased the findings,” he told Fox News Digital.
“There is a large subset of lung cancer patients whose disease is not caused by smoking.”
The researchers did not test specific foods for pesticides, relying instead on average pesticide levels for certain types of food. Looking ahead, they plan to test patients’ blood and urine samples to directly measure pesticide levels, Nieva said.
Although the study shows only an association and does not prove that pesticides caused lung cancer, Nieva recommends that people wash their produce before eating and choose organic foods whenever possible.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES
“This work represents a critical step toward identifying modifiable environmental factors that may contribute to lung cancer in young adults,” said Nieva. “Our hope is that these insights can guide both public health recommendations and future investigation into lung cancer prevention.”
“It is possible that the increased lung cancer risk could be due to pesticide exposure in whole farmed foods, but is by no means certain,” a doctor said. (AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall)
Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox News senior medical analyst, said the study is “interesting,” but that it “raises far more questions than it answers.”
“It is a small study (around 150) and observational, so no proof,” the doctor, who was not involved in the research, told Fox News Digital.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER
“It is possible that the increased lung cancer risk could be due to pesticide exposure in whole farmed foods, but it is by no means certain,” Siegel went on. “How much exposure is needed? How much of it gets into food and in which areas? This requires much further study.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Kayla Nichols, communications director for Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network, a distributed global network, said the organization agrees with the study’s conclusion that more research should be done on the rise in lung cancer, particularly in individuals eating diets higher in produce and fiber.
“There is a large subset of lung cancer patients whose disease is not caused by smoking,” the researcher told Fox News Digital. (iStock)
“There is a bounty of existing research that already links pesticide exposure to increased risk of multiple types of cancers,” Nichols, who was also not involved in the study, told Fox News Digital. She called for more research on chronic, low-level exposures to pesticides, as well as more effective policies to protect the public from pesticide residues on food.
TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute, as well as industry partners including AstraZeneca and Genentech, among others.
Fox News Digital reached out to several pesticide companies and trade groups for comment.
-
Detroit, MI17 minutes agoChris Simms projects Detroit Lions first-round NFL draft pick
-
San Francisco, CA29 minutes agoSan Francisco sets $3.4B price tag for public takeover of PG&E
-
Dallas, TX35 minutes agoGame Day Guide: Stars at Wild | Dallas Stars
-
Miami, FL41 minutes agoMay a steadying presence as Cards hold off Marlins in Miami
-
Boston, MA47 minutes agoTyrese Maxey, VJ Edgecombe flex in Boston: Takeaways from Celtics-76ers Game 2
-
Denver, CO53 minutes agoMotorcyclist seriously injured in Denver hit-and-run crash – AOL
-
Seattle, WA59 minutes agoBrock: 2 drafts fits at edge rusher for Seattle Seahawks
-
San Diego, CA1 hour agoJoseph Allen Oviatt – San Diego Union-Tribune