RFK obviously worries that ultra-processed food is a main driver of the obesity epidemic.

Even if it's largely a consumer choice issue, it does have public policy ramifications.

For instance, a fiscal conservative that agrees with him might very well conclude something along the lines of "at very least, the government shouldn't be subsidizing this epidemic. Such foods are cheap and therefore produced/consumed more than they would be otherwise in large part because corn, soy, and sugar produced by big ag get massive farm subsidies. Those types of products are well over half of farm subsidies that encourage such nonsense. Let's stop subsidizing obesity by ending these payments".

The problem is that someone with RFK's inclinations could conceivably go the exact opposite way. Like... he could conclude "corn, soy, and sugar get the vast chunk of subsidies. Therefore, we should vastly increase subsidies for fruits and vegetables so they're on par with the stuff I don't like or even get more taxpayer money because they're better", or "let's mandate how much sugar or chemicals can go in different kinds of foods or what types of foods can be purchased with EBT" rather than insisting on transparency in content labels and marketing practices.

More conservative-leaning people than ever seem to agree at least in part on his diagnosis of the obesity problem, but that doesn't automatically mean they'd agree with the treatment. Him becoming a technical member of the LP like five minutes ago for political reasons rather than ideological evolution says nothing about what decades of left-leaning inclinations might have left him with in terms of how he approaches issues.