
Texas will put warning labels on some foods, but its additives list has inaccuracies
It could have far-reaching effects on the nation's food supply, but a review of the legislation shows it also misrepresents the status of some ingredients that would trigger the action.
The law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott on Sunday requires foods made with any of more than 40 dyes or additives to have labels starting in 2027 saying they contain ingredients 'not recommended for human consumption' in Australia, Canada, the European Union or the U.K. But a review shows that nearly a dozen of the targeted additives are either authorized in the cited regions — or already restricted in the U.S.
The law, which will send the food industry scrambling to respond, is laudable in its intent, but could lead to incorrect citations and potential legal challenges, a consumer advocacy group said.
'I don't know how the list of chemicals was constructed,' said Thomas Galligan, a scientist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 'Warnings have to be accurate in order to be legal.'
The law, approved with wide bipartisan support, is part of a flurry of similar legislation this year by GOP-led statehouses as lawmakers align themselves with U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. Texas would be the first in the U.S. to use warning labels to target additives, rather than nutrients like sugar or saturated fat, to change American diets.
It will force food companies to decide whether to reformulate products to avoid the labels, add the newly required language, pull certain products from Texas shelves or oppose the measure in court.
It's unclear how the list of additives was created. Inquiries to the office of the bill's author, Republican state Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, were not immediately returned.
Some of the targeted ingredients are allowed in all the named regions
Regulators in Australia, Canada, the EU and the U.K. take a cautious approach to food additives: If a product's safety is uncertain, it can be banned or restricted until it is determined to be safe. By contrast, the U.S. generally allows products on the market unless there is clear risk of harm.
Three additives targeted by Texas — partially hydrogenated oils, Red Dye No. 4 and Red Dye No. 3 — are not approved or have been banned in food by U.S. regulators.
Several of the other listed ingredients are allowed in all four of those regions, noted Galligan and representatives from the Consumer Brands Association, a food industry trade group.
Examples of those include: Blue Dye No. 1; Blue Dye No. 2; butylated hydroxyanisole, or BHA; butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT; diacetyl; interesterified soybean oil; lactylated fatty acid esters of glycerol and propylene glycol; and potassium aluminum sulfate.
In addition, the legislation contains regulatory loopholes that could prevent certain ingredients from being labeled at all, said Melanie Benesh, an analyst with the Environmental Working Group, an activist organization that focuses on toxic chemicals.
For example, the food additive azodicarbonamide, known as ADA and used as a bleaching agent in cereal flours, is included on the Texas list. But under the Federal Code of Regulations, it may safely be used in food under certain conditions. That federal regulation likely exempts ADA from the state labeling law, Benesh said.
'The law, as passed, may not end up having the impact that legislators intended,' Benesh said.
Nutrition experts welcome a look at food additives
Nutrition experts have long worried about the potential health effects of food additives, even as it remains unclear how much of a role processed foods have in driving chronic health disease.
Research has shown that requiring food label warnings can help steer consumers toward healthier choices and prompt industry to remove concerning ingredients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has proposed front-of-package labels that would flag levels of saturated fat, sugar and sodium.
'This represents a big win for Texas consumers and consumers overall,' said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports. 'It's a reflection of states not wanting to wait for the federal government to act.'
The law also creates a state nutrition advisory committee, boosts physical education and nutrition curriculum requirements in public and charter schools, and requires nutrition courses for college students and medical professionals doing continuing education.
States take on additives
In 2023, California became the first state to ban some chemicals and dyes used in candies, drinks and other foods because of health concerns. The state expanded on that last year by barring several additional dyes from food served in public schools.
Other laws passed this year include one in Arkansas banning two particular additives from food sold or manufactured in the state and a West Virginia law includes a statewide ban on seven dyes.
Lawmakers in several states have passed measures this year banning certain additives from food served or sold at public schools, according to an Associated Press analysis using the bill-tracking software Plural. That includes Texas, where the governor last month signed a bill banning foods with certain ingredients from being served in school lunches.
'It's a pretty dizzying time to be watching what's happening, because usually policies that are not very industry friendly are opposed, particularly in red states," said Christina Roberto, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Food and Nutrition Policy, 'With RFK and the MAHA movement, it's really turned things upside-down in some ways.'
At the federal level, Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary have pledged to remove artificial dyes from foods and have pressured industry to take voluntary action. Some large food manufacturers have complied.
Health advocates have long called for the removal of artificial dyes from foods, citing mixed studies indicating they can cause neurobehavioral problems, including hyperactivity and attention issues, in some children.
The FDA previously has said that the approved dyes are safe and that 'the totality of scientific evidence shows that most children have no adverse effects when consuming foods containing color additives.'
___
___
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Announces Preliminary Trade Pact With Vietnam
President Trump said on Wednesday that the United States had reached a trade deal with Vietnam, one that would roll back some of the punishing tariffs he had issued on Vietnamese products in return for that nation agreeing to open its market to American goods. The preliminary deal will also indirectly affect China, an important trading partner of Vietnam. 'It will be a Great Deal of Cooperation between our two Countries,' Mr. Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social announcing the deal. According to Mr. Trump, the deal imposes a 20 percent tariff on all imports from Vietnam and a 40 percent tariff on any 'transshipping.' That provision is aimed at addressing Trump administration criticisms that countries like Vietnam have become a channel for Chinese manufacturers to bypass U.S. tariffs and funnel goods into the United States. Which products would fall under the higher tariff rate is unclear. It could refer to goods imported to the United States from Vietnam that actually originated in China. But it could also apply to Vietnamese products that use a certain amount of Chinese parts. The deal could include a lower tariff on goods that are made in Vietnam with fewer Chinese parts and materials, and a higher tariff rate for Vietnamese goods that contain many Chinese components. Vietnam was soon scheduled to face a 46 percent tariff rate as part of the 'reciprocal' tariffs that the Trump administration unveiled on April 2. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Visits $450 Million 'Alligator Alcatraz,' Suggests Taxpayers Should Fund More of Them
Only eight days after construction began, and 12 days after Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier released a video on X announcing plans for an immigration detention center in the Everglades, "Alligator Alcatraz" will officially open this week. The site, which was visited by President Donald Trump and Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday, puts Florida at the forefront of the federal government's mass deportation campaign. The state-run immigration detention facility is planned to eventually hold up to 5,000 detainees and will be capable of processing and deporting migrants to speed up deportations amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The 30-square-mile parcel of land was chosen in part for its unused airstrip—and for its alligator- and python-laden surroundings serving as cheap security and deterrence. "They ain't going anywhere once they are there…because good luck getting to civilization," DeSantis said during a news conference on Monday. "The security is amazing. Natural and otherwise." During the tour of the facility, DeSantis added that Florida should not be the only state but should serve as a model. "We need other states to step up," he said. Trump called out California Gov. Gavin Newsom specifically, saying the Democratic governor could "learn something" about curbing illegal immigration. DeSantis pointed out that California is home to the original Alcatraz, implying that it, too, could be outfitted as an immigration detention center. Although both the president and DeSantis were quick to say Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem would be able to find funding for additional immigration detention centers, the cost and source of funding for these facilities merit further scrutiny, particularly since ultimately taxpayers are footing the bill. While touted as an "efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility" in Uthmeier's original video about the facility, Florida's new facility is expected to cost $450 million to operate for a single year. A DHS official told CNN that Florida will fund the operation of the facility and then "submit reimbursement requests" through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and DHS. Secretary Noem said that Alligator Alcatraz and other approved detention facilities in the state will be funded "in large part" by $625 million set aside by the FEMA Shelter and Services Program. The project has faced objections from local residents and government officials, including Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava, who opposed using county-owned land for the project. After Levine Cava requested an environmental impact report and updated land appraisal, DeSantis seized the land under emergency powers in place since 2023. The post Trump Visits $450 Million 'Alligator Alcatraz,' Suggests Taxpayers Should Fund More of Them appeared first on


CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.' It was in effect until 1973, when the US Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the US Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide – which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent – but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.