Kentucky lawmakers are sponsoring bills to legalize the intrastate sales of raw milk, make fluoridated water optional and stop state agencies from crafting rules based on guidance from the World Health Organization.
What these bills have in common is a shared skepticism of established directives and guidance from top U.S. health organizations and leading medical groups.
The growing skepticism of the reigning scientific consensus is spreading widely, not just in state legislatures, but in Congress and by top right-wing political leaders including President Donald Trump and his choice to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Federally, the Trump administration has already halted or slowed the work and communication of top public health organizations. In a widely-reported memo, the acting HHS secretary ordered an “immediate pause” on regulations, guidance, press releases and online posts until they got approval from a political appointee.
Many of the policies now under attack through rightwing legislation are credited with improving public health and preventing the spread of disease. But since the COVID-19 pandemic, public health initiatives have come under fire, with some conservatives questioning the scientific consensus and accusing recognized health organizations of having political motivations.
Many of the Kentucky GOP lawmakers pushing for such policies belong to a wing of the party's caucus that espouses more anti-establishment rhetoric and tends to closely follow Trump’s lead. Freshman Rep. T.J. Roberts of Burlington is one of the Kentuckians pushing strongly for withdrawing from public health initiatives, saying that “people are seeing firsthand that they have been lied to.”
“We're at a point where the technocratic consensus is being challenged, that top down approaches to controlling the health decisions of Americans is being questioned,” Roberts said.
Raw Milk
Milk pasteurization first became widespread in the country in the early 1900s as a solution to an epidemic of bovine tuberculosis. Tuberculosis contracted from eating or drinking the contaminated dairy was a major health concern of the era, killing roughly 65,000 people over a 25-year period in England and Wales alone.
Now, the FDA is warning Americans that raw dairy produced from cows carrying the bird flu virus may contain infectious material, a fear that Roberts dismissed. State officials have reported several cases of the highly-pathogenic avian influenza in wildlife in Kentucky counties since late last year, according to the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife.
A growing number of GOP lawmakers, including Kentucky’s U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie and Roberts, have introduced legislation that would encourage the use and sale of raw milk. Trump’s nominee for Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has led the charge in support of unpasteurized milk, claiming it contains more nutritional benefits than pasteurized milk and is better for those who are lactose intolerant or asthmatic. These claims have little or insignificant scientific basis, according to the FDA.
For example, raw milk advocates say it contains lactase-producing bacteria that are destroyed during pasteurization, the FDA says that those bacteria don’t exist in nearly sufficient levels to show a positive effect on people who are lactose intolerant. The CDC and FDA say the risks outweigh any theorized benefits, as milk can be a breeding ground for bacteria and viruses, like bird flu, without pasteurization.
In Kentucky, sale of raw milk is prohibited. That would change under Roberts’ House Bill 86, which blocks any regulation or local ordinance seeking to prohibit the sale of unpasteurized milk. Roberts said he is less concerned about possible health benefits, and considers raw milk a matter of “food freedom.”
“I believe that adults have the ability to make their own decisions about the food that they consume. And this is a bill that expands that ability,” Roberts said.
Sixteen states, both red and blue, allow retail sale of raw milk as it is. Roberts said he is still working out the kinks in his bill — like working out liability if someone does get sick from consuming raw milk.
Optional Fluoride
Fluoride has long been the target of lawmakers hoping to either eliminate or dilute what the CDC calls “one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.” Conspiracy theories have long existed around the use of fluoride in the water — for example, in the 1960s the far-right John Birch Society alleged fluoridated drinking water was part of a Communist mind-control plot.
But anti-fluoride sentiments grew sharply and took on a scientific tone when scientists with the National Toxicology Program found a potential link between high levels of fluoride and small decrease in children’s IQ, calling for more research. It was in part that study that influenced a federal judge to rule the EPA must regulate fluoride levels in water.
And, according to GOP Rep. Mark Hart of Falmouth who is for the eighth year sponsoring a Kentucky bill to make fluoridating water optional for local governments in the state, those studies and rulings have only strengthened his resolve. Last year was the first time the bill made it to a committee during the session for a vote.
“Although a lot of people are calling for it to be banned now — after the court ruling in August and some of the comments made by the incoming administration — our goal is to make it a choice to undo the unfunded mandates, not to necessarily ban fluoride in Kentucky,” Hart said.
But experts say that, at the targeted 0.7 ppm — about 3 drops of water in a 55-gallon barrel — fluoride has not proven to be dangerous and is an effective and cost-efficient manner of strengthening teeth and reducing cavities. According to the CDC, drinking fluoridated water reduces cavities by about 25% in children and adults.
And notably, the oft-cited NIH study looked at fluoride concentrations twice as strong as that recommended by the CDC and targeted in Kentucky. Hart said he doesn’t want to get into the argument over fluoride — although he noted that, if fluoride is so effective, he wouldn't have "a mouth full of cavities.” He said he believes it’s a matter of choice over health care, comparing fluoridated water to vaccines.
WHO Directives
Shortly before Trump signed an executive order that began the process of withdrawing U.S. membership from the World Health Organization, Roberts filed a similarly inspired bill, going a step further. It blocks the state Cabinet for Health and Family Services from creating any regulations based on directives from the United Nations-based public health organization. It would also make any cabinet official who promotes such a regulation a felon.
The organization, created in 1948, is key in tracking and informing the world of developing disease throughout the world. The WHO was heavily involved in some of the greatest public health achievements of the last century, including the eradication of smallpox and near-eradication of polio. The United Nations agency tracks and helps direct resources to emerging and ongoing health emergencies across the world, including 42 current health emergencies globally.
“The World Health Organization is a propaganda outlet for America's enemies. I have absolutely no interest in letting them have any say over how Kentucky manages the health of its people,” Roberts said, referring to the fact that a representative from North Korea sits on the WHO’s 34-person executive board.
The World Health Organization has become a frequent target from right-wing politicians largely due to its recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic, including social distancing and masking directives.
“They are thinking from a global perspective. They are not considering America's constitutional restraints, Kentucky's constitutional restraints,” Roberts said.
Directed Blood Donations and COVID-19 Vaccines
GOP Rep. Candy Massaroni from Bardstown and two Republican cosponsors are pushing a bill that, in its current form, would block health care facilities or providers from transfusing blood unless it tests negative for COVID-19 antibodies and “synthetic mRNA” — the main ingredient in two federally approved COVID-19 vaccines — once an approved test is developed to find “the presence of mRNA.” Since Kentucky Public Radio first reported on the bill, Massaroni said the restriction was an error and she would change the legislation if it moved forward.
“I do not want to restrict donations at all and that was never the intent of the bill,” Massaroni said in an email.
Besides limiting transfusions, the bill also pushes for increased testing of blood to extend well beyond bloodborne disease, like HIV, to include signs of the respiratory COVID-19 antibodies and synthetic mRNA.
The legislation also requires hospitals allow people to receive “directed blood donations,” if that is what they want. But both the FDA and blood donation organizations have denounced the practice, saying it shouldn’t be utilized unless medically necessary. According to the FDA, “Studies suggest that directed donations may carry greater risk of transmitting infectious diseases than the general blood supply.”
Dr. Claudia Cohn, professor and director of University of Minnesota’s Blood Bank Laboratory, said the practice has dipped in popularity and should only be done if medically necessary. Aside from eligibility concerns that usually accompany first-time donors, it’s also more costly and time-consuming for health care providers.
Cohn said emphasizing direct donations based on fears over vaccinations has no basis in scientific research.
State government and politics reporting is supported in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
