Last year, California lawmakers approved a bill that would ban a handful of dyes from food served in public schools, arguing that certain ingredients can harm children and interfere with their ability to learn.
This year, New York has been advancing a similar measure that would also require companies to publicly disclose ingredients and safety data, ending the practice of self-certification for ingredients that have been generally recognized as safe.
But the legislative activity is no longer limited to more liberal “blue” states, controlled by Democrats. With the growing dialogue surrounding the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., legislation is now advancing in other parts of the country, including “red” states, controlled by Republicans.
Party affiliation plays a big role in the level of support for these types of initiatives, according to the Gardner Food and Agricultural Policy Survey at Purdue University and the University of Illinois. Of the survey’s participants, those most aware of MAHA were “very conservative” (80% aware) and “very liberal” (71% aware). By contrast, only 58% of moderates were aware of MAHA.
Support for MAHA was strongest from very conservative participants. In this survey group, 76% hold either a “very positive view” or a “somewhat positive view” of the movement. This stands in contrast to 46% of very liberal participants, who held very or somewhat positive views.
MAHA-related bills popping up across the country
More than 100 bills have been introduced in legislatures in at least 36 states, seeking to regulate the food industry in line with goals of the MAHA movement. The bills range from banning certain ingredients in school meals to prohibiting some ingredients in food throughout an entire state.
For example, a Texas bill requiring food products with certain ingredients to include a warning label has been signed into law and is set to take effect in 2027.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott recently signed SB 25, the Make Texas Healthy Again bill into law and he was joined by Calley Means, special adviser to Kennedy.
The bill includes several provisions tied to Kennedy’s goals through the MAHA movement. But perhaps the most significant provision for the food industry would require manufacturers to add a warning label to products that include one of 44 ingredients. These include food dyes and additives that are banned in other countries, but do have federal approval.
The label would read: “WARNING: This product contains an ingredient that is not recommended for human consumption by the appropriate authority in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.”
This bill would kick in starting in 2027 with some conditions. It applies to any label “developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027.” Additionally, if a federal agency issues new regulations on an ingredient starting Sept. 1, it no longer requires the warning label.
Louisiana bill SB14 would ban some ingredients—including several food dyes, additives and artificial sweeteners like sucralose—from school meals starting in the 2028-2029 school year. The bill would not apply to food in vending machines or concession stands.
It also will require manufacturers to label any food item in the state if it includes one ingredient on a more expansive list. In addition to food dyes and additives, the list includes interesterified soybean oil—in which fat molecules are modified—and synthetic trans fatty acid.
The label requirement includes a QR code that directs consumers to a manufacturer-controlled website with a notice that the product includes a certain ingredient. It should also link to FDA information on food chemical safety and approvals. The mandate starts Jan. 1, 2028.
In addition, food service establishments that cook food using seed oils will be required to display a disclaimer on the menu or other visible location in order to inform customers of the potential presence of seed oils, according to the bill. This would include: Canola or rapeseed oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, grapeseed oil, rice bran oil, safflower oil, soybean oil and sunflower oil.
Impact on food costs?
In response to these state efforts and Kennedy’s pledge to revoke the federal approval of at least eight “petroleum-based synthetic dyes” by the end of next year, large food manufacturers like Kraft Heinz and General Mills are voluntarily working to reformulate their products without “Food, Drug & Cosmetic” colors. But, there’s also growing concerns about how to satisfy the emerging patchwork of state rules that are rarely the same. Plus, food companies point to the potential for higher food costs and consumer confusion.
For example, shoppers who live on the border of Texas and Louisiana could see two separate labeling schemes on the same product—depending on which side of the border they were shopping.
Editor’s note: Sara Wyant is publisher of Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc., www.Agri-Pulse.com.
