Europe’s comparatively cautious approach to food additives is the envy of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the Make America Healthy Again movement. A Texas bill now before Gov. Greg Abbott aims to help close the gap by slapping warning labels on foods that contain any of 44 additives and dyes.
Abbott has not said whether he intends to sign Senate Bill 25 into law. But if he does, it will be the first of its kind in the U.S., an experiment in using warning labels about additives, rather than nutrients like salt or fat, to shift how people eat. It will also be a new test of the food industry, which will surely seek out ways to resist it. “If they can’t block or weaken, they delay,” said Eric Crosbie, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno’s School of Public Health.
Nutrition experts who spoke with STAT said that the jury is still out on how much food processing itself may drive chronic disease. Nor were they aware of research published on whether warning labels about additives specifically improved public health outcomes. But they generally applauded the intent of the bill and its status as a sign of red states’ growing interest in policies aimed at improving the quality of the foods Americans eat.
“I continue to be really excited by the fact that states that have not typically wanted to push back on the food industry or do much to regulate it are now really seeing the value in that,” said Christina Roberto, director of The Center for Food and Nutrition Policy at the University of Pennsylvania.
The bill, which also includes new nutrition education and physical activity requirements for public school students, passed the legislature with bipartisan support. Starting in 2027, food like Doritos and M&Ms would be required to brandish high-contrast labels with the phrase “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.” Ingredients covered by the bill include everything from bleached flour and titanium dioxide to dyes that are already outlawed in the U.S., such as red dye No. 4, which the Food and Drug Administration banned in 1976, and red dye No. 3, which the FDA banned in January.
There are, however, a couple of important caveats. The requirement applies only to food product labels developed or copyrighted in or after 2027. The rule would also be preempted if the federal government introduces its own regulations about labeling ultra-processed foods.
The Consumer Brands Association, the largest food industry trade group representing makers of packaged goods, said that the ingredients in the food supply are safe. “The labeling requirements of SB 25 mandate inaccurate warning language, create legal risks for brands, and drive consumer confusion and higher costs,” said John Hewitt, the group’s senior vice president of state affairs. “We urge Gov. Abbott to veto the bill and protect Texans’ access to safe, affordable, and convenient food and beverage options.”
Research shows that warning labels can be an effective way to shift consumer behavior and can also nudge the food industry to make healthier versions of their products in order to avoid slapping alarming notices on boxes of cookies and cereal. Latin American countries including Mexico and Chile have in recent years introduced warning labels for foods that contain higher levels of sodium, added sugar, and saturated fats — nutrients that, if consumed in excess, are broadly understood to contribute to chronic disease. And the FDA earlier this year proposed adding front-of-package labels that would highlight the levels of added sugar, sodium, and saturated fat that a given food contains.
But the Texas bill zeroes in on additives instead, reflecting the MAHA movement’s particular focus on the regulatory loophole that has allowed companies to introduce into the food system ingredients that haven’t been explicitly approved by the FDA. Calley Means, a MAHA leader and special advisor to Kennedy, endorsed the bill back in February as a way to bring more transparency to the contents of Americans’ food. Concerns about additives also go well beyond the MAHA movement. A current New York bill would require food manufacturers to disclose ingredients added under the “generally recognized as safe,” or GRAS, regulatory loophole to the state.
“If we think of these additives as being bad for health, is that the thing we want to regulate and we’re not so worried about saturated fat or sodium, just the degree of processing?” said Anna Grummon, director of the Stanford Food Policy Lab. “My opinion is that it’s a question we’re still unpacking.”
Nutrition scientists like Kevin Hall, who recently left the National Institutes of Health over concerns about censorship, have been trying to get to the bottom of the question of why diets heavy in ultra-processed foods tend to be associated with worse health outcomes. There’s not yet a definitive answer about whether it’s because chips, cookies, and the like are generally high in sodium, saturated fat, and sugar — or if ingredients like emulsifiers, thickeners, and gelling agents have an impact of their own.
Some foods, like whole-grain bread, may contain additives but still offer more nutritional benefits than, say, a buttery, fresh-baked chocolate croissant. Still, Grummon said, there’s probably a fair amount of overlap between foods that contain the 44 additives on the list and foods that are not so healthy. “You don’t want perfect to be the enemy of the good,” she said.
If the bill is signed into law, experts expect a slew of industry lawsuits will follow, which — whether or not they ultimately prevail — may drag out its enactment. They also note that singling out specific ingredients can result in a game of Whac-A-Mole, as when Chile saw an increase in the use of artificial sweeteners after introducing warning labels on added sugars. “They can always innovate and use other things where we don’t know if they’re good or bad for us,” said Roberto. “That’s why you need this kind of comprehensive reform at the federal level.”
On the other hand, laws at the city and state level do sometimes spur federal action — for example, the calorie counts that now appear on restaurant chain menus nationwide have their roots in local laws passed by New York City and Philadelphia. “I’m more fearful than I am hopeful in this area,” said Crosbie. But there is still hope, he added: “Just the fact that Fox [News] and conservatives are talking about healthier food, that’s a good thing.”
STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.
发表回复