Health

RFK Jr.’s MAHA Movement Obscures America’s Unhealthy Past

Published

10 months ago

January 13, 2025

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.”

Click to comment

Health

Why cancer is hitting the Midwest harder than anywhere else in America

Published

1 hour ago

October 30, 2025

Press Room

Why cancer is hitting the Midwest harder than anywhere else in America

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

While the rest of the country’s cancer rates are falling, those in Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and Kansas — known as the Corn Belt — are rising at an alarming rate, data shows.

The spike in America’s corn-producing states caught the attention of the University of Iowa’s Holden Comprehensive Cancer Center, which gathered a panel to investigate the trend.

One of the experts, Dr. Marian Neuhouser, a professor at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, served on the panel as an expert in nutrition and obesity.

COLORECTAL CANCER MAY CAUSE THESE 4 HIDDEN WARNING SIGNS, EXPERTS SAY

“The panel came about after they noticed that the trends for cancer incidence were increasing at a faster rate in Iowa than in other states,” Neuhouser told Fox News Digital.

A data analysis by The Washington Post based on federal health datasets found that the number of people diagnosed with cancer in the six Corn Belt states has outpaced the national average since the mid-2010s.

While the rest of the country’s cancer rates are falling, those in the Corn Belt states — Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana and Kansas — are rising at an alarming rate. (iStock)

In 1999, cancer rates in the Midwest were on par with the national average. Now, among residents aged 15 to 49, those rates are about 5% higher, a pattern that began diverging in the 2000s and has steadily widened.

The Post based its findings on data from the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which track cancer incidence nationwide.

RISK OF COLON CANCER SLASHED BY EATING SPECIFIC TYPES OF VEGETABLES, STUDY FINDS

The analysis compared rates from 1999 through 2022 using multi-year averages for Iowa and excluding 2020 due to pandemic disruptions.

Experts probe causes

Neuhouser noted that some of the increases involve cancers that are preventable or detectable through screening.

Researchers are examining both environmental and lifestyle factors that could be driving the increase.

A panel of experts convened in Iowa after more numbers came out about the alarming spike in cancer rates. (iStock)

Outdoor UV exposure and high rates of binge drinking could be contributors, according to the Iowa Cancer Registry, part of the National Institutes of Health’s surveillance network.

Iowa’s Environmental Health Sciences Research Center has described the state as a “hot spot for environmental exposures to carcinogenic agents.”

CANCER DEATHS HIT ‘ALARMING’ SURGE DUE TO COMMON HEALTH CONDITION, EXPERTS SAY

The soil and groundwater in the region reportedly contain some of the nation’s highest levels of natural radon and nitrate, largely because of fertilizer use in farming. Both substances have been linked to high risks of lung and gastrointestinal cancers.

Meanwhile, the widespread application of pesticides and herbicides, including glyphosate, continues to generate debate among scientists and regulators.

Panoramic aerial landscape view of working combine harvester at night with lights illuminating the field

Where fields once symbolized abundance, they now raise questions about how the chemicals used to maintain them could affect people’s health. (iStock)

Risk of chemical exposure

Dr. Anne McTiernan, professor of epidemiology at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center in Seattle, has analyzed decades of research on glyphosate and cancer risk.

“Glyphosate, a broad-spectrum herbicide, has been used in the U.S. for decades and is reported to be the most widely used pesticide globally,” she told Fox News Digital.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as “a 2A carcinogen (“probably carcinogenic to humans”), which is the second-highest grade of carcinogen, according to McTiernan.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

Her review of studies through 2025 found that people with long-term, high exposure to glyphosate, such as those working on farms, had a roughly 40% higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma compared to those who were never exposed.

Young woman is seen through the corn leaves. She is turned back and running through the field.

Researchers warn that the causes of cancer spikes in the Corn Belt may lie in decades of invisible exposure. (iStock)

This level of increased risk, combined with lab evidence that glyphosate can damage DNA and cause cellular stress, is considered strong enough to support a causal link, according to the expert.

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

Role of obesity and alcohol

Lifestyle factors are also compounding risk. Per CDC data, about 21% of Iowa adults report heavy drinking or binge drinking, compared to roughly 17% nationally.

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services reports that about 35% of adults in the state are classified as obese, placing it among 19 states with obesity prevalence at or above that level. Nationwide, the CDC reports an adult obesity rate of roughly 40%.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

Neuhouser noted that 13 separate cancers are linked to obesity.

“Everyone would like to be able to narrow down cancer risk … to one exposure, but cancer is so complex that it’s usually several factors working together,” she said.

Khloe Quill is a lifestyle production assistant with Fox News Digital. She and the lifestyle team cover a range of story topics including food and drink, travel, and health.

Health

11 Simple Hacks Real Women Used to Lose Weight

Published

19 hours ago

October 29, 2025

Press Room

11 Simple Hacks Real Women Used to Lose Weight

11 Simple Weight Loss Hacks Real Women Swear By | Woman’s World

Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.

Use escape to exit the menu.

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

Health

Men may need to work twice as hard as women to prevent potentially deadly disease

Published

20 hours ago

October 29, 2025

Press Room

Men may need to work twice as hard as women to prevent potentially deadly disease

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Men may need to exert double the amount of effort as women to fend off heart disease.

That’s according to new research from China that found men need twice as much exercise as women to lower their risk.

The study, published in the journal Nature Cardiovascular Research, analyzed data from more than 85,000 participants in the U.K. Biobank to pinpoint gender differences regarding physical activity and the incidence of coronary heart disease (also known as coronary artery disease).

YOUR HEART MAY BE OLDER THAN YOU THINK — AND THE NUMBER COULD PREDICT DISEASE RISK

Data was pulled from wearable accelerometers, like smartwatches, for a defined period to measure the amount of moderate to vigorous physical activity.

The participants, who did not have coronary heart disease at the start of the study, were monitored for nearly eight years to determine how many developed heart disease and how many died from it.

Men need double the amount of exercise as women to prevent coronary heart disease, research suggests. (iStock)

The average age for the incidence study was about 61 years and 57.3% were women. The mortality study had an average age of about 66 and 30% were women.

FITNESS EXPERT REVEALS 6 PILLARS OF STRENGTH TRAINING THAT OLDER ADULTS SHOULD MASTER

After adjusting for other heart disease risk factors, like BMI (body mass index) and smoking, the researchers found a “notable” difference between men and women.

Specifically, they discovered that women experienced lower risk levels with half the minutes of activity as men.

The association between coronary heart disease risk and physical activity was consistent for both onset of disease and mortality. (iStock)

In terms of developing heart disease, an extra 30 minutes of exercise per week was linked to a 2.9% lower risk in females and a 1.9% lower risk in men.

7 COMMON FITNESS MISTAKES OLDER ADULTS MAKE AND HOW TO AVOID THEM FOR BETTER WORKOUTS

Meeting the standard 150 minutes per week of recommended exercise lowered the women’s incidence risk by 22%, while men’s risk was lowered by 17%.

A further extended workout regimen of 300 minutes, or five hours, per week reduced the risk by 21% for females and only 11% for men.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

For about a 30% reduction in coronary heart disease incidence risk, women need about 250 minutes of exercise per week, while men need about 530 minutes, according to the researchers.

For about a 30% reduction in coronary heart disease incidence risk, women need about 250 minutes of exercise per week, while men need about 530 minutes. (iStock)

When it comes to mortality from heart disease, sticking to 150 minutes of exercise per week reduced women’s risk by a whopping 70%, and only lowered men’s risk by 19%.

To reduce coronary heart disease mortality by 30%, women need about 51 minutes of exercise per week and men need about 85 minutes.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The researchers commented in the study that these findings “underscore the value of sex-specific tailored coronary heart disease prevention strategies using wearable devices, which may help bridge the ‘gender gap’ by motivating females to engage in physical activity.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

Fox News senior medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel spoke about the study on “America’s Newsroom” on Tuesday.

“I can tell you, having been married for almost 30 years, that women are better than men. There’s no question about it,” he said. “Physiologically, spiritually, women are superior.”

woman and man in health and fitness class doing planks

To reduce coronary heart disease mortality by 30%, women need about 51 minutes of exercise per week and men need about 85 minutes. (iStock)

Siegel noted that men have higher levels of testosterone, which is “bad for cholesterol,” and tend to build up fat “in the wrong places” in the gut, leading to inflammation.

“We smoke more, we drink more, we don’t exercise as much,” Siegel said about men in general. “All of that puts us at risk for heart disease.”

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

According to the doctor, women “start to catch up” with increased risk after menopause, although it “takes a long time.”

“With all these risks, [men] need the exercise way more than women do to make up for it,” Siegel added.

Angelica Stabile is a lifestyle reporter for Fox News Digital.