Latest news with #foodlabels
Fast Company
22-07-2025
- Health
- Fast Company
This new front-of-package nutrition label is designed to make us healthier
For more than a century, the U.S. government has tried to bring more transparency to food labels. It started in 1906, when the Pure Food and Drug Act cracked down on mislabeled ingredients and false health claims. Since then, regulators have required more disclosures—calories, trans fats, added sugars—all in the name of public health. But if the goal was to change how Americans eat, the results remain hard to swallow. Today, nutrition labels are more accurate and comprehensive than ever, yet 74% of adults in the U.S. are still overweight. There are many reasons for this discrepancy—highly processed foods are addictive; healthy options are often more expensive. Some have argued that nutrition labels are ' a wasteful distraction in the fight against obesity.' But many studies have shown that nutrition labels have their own role to play in nudging consumers to make healthier decisions—with two very big caveats. One: You must care enough to turn over the packaging and study the nutrition info box on the back. Two: You must know enough about nutrition to interpret what's written in that box. The Good Food Collective, launching today, wants to tackle both problems at once. The mission of this coalition of more than 25 food brands, organizations, and nutrition experts is to advocate for greater transparency in the food industry. Its first goal is to push for a front-of-package nutrition label that's visible at a glance and easy to understand and interpret—qualities that can benefit both consumers and food manufacturers. It could change how Americans consume food, and it could change the way companies produce it, too. Unlike nutrition labels on the back of packaging, a front-of-package label can catch consumers' attention during that split-second decision-making moment in the store. The coalition's design, by branding agency Interact, highlights when a product is high in added sugars, sodium, and saturated fats. It comes with a QR code framed inside a magnifying glass that's designed to educate people about nutrition, whether at the supermarket or back home. 'We're all working on the same problem, which is undoing years of irresponsible food marketing,' says founding member and GoodPop CEO Daniel Goetz. The FDA seal of approval The Good Food Collective isn't operating in a vacuum. On January 14 of this year—just six days before Donald Trump took office—the Food and Drug Administration proposed requiring a front-of-package (FOP) nutrition label for most packaged foods. By then, the FDA had designed three versions: a simple, text-based label; a traffic light-style, color-coded label; and a black-and-white 'percent Daily Value' label. After surveying 10,000 Americans, the agency found that the latter performed best in helping consumers identify healthier food options. The design was then put to a wider test as part of a public comment period that closed just last week, on July 15. Judging from the docket, the FDA received close to 12,000 comments. Some food manufacturers stated their concern that a label would incur financial costs related to redesigning and repackaging. Others noted that percent daily values like 'low' or 'high' could be misunderstood without contextual education. The Good Food Collective submitted its design as part of the comment as well. The FDA has yet to review all the comments, but a lot has changed under the Trump administration. In his capacity as secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired 3,500 employees at the FDA, or 20% of its workforce (the FDA did not respond to a request for comment). The Consumer Brands Association (whose members include General Mills, PepsiCo, Unilever, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and others) sponsored a study pushing back against front-of-package label efficacy. And Trump introduced a regulatory freeze that's put many pending rules—including the FOP label—on hold. If the FDA chooses to go ahead with the proposal, it will publish a final rule in the Federal Register. At that point, manufacturers would have three years to add the new labels, while smaller food manufacturers would have four years. Nutrition labels around the world If the FDA decides to implement a front-of-package label, it would follow in the footsteps of about 40 other countries. Some labeling, like in Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K., is voluntary. In Mexico, Chile, Argentina, and Brazil, it's mandatory. Canada is in the process of implementing front-of-package labels by 2026 for products containing high sodium, sugar, and saturated fat. Singapore is due to extend its label from beverages to foods in 2027. Japan is currently piloting a front-of-package system. Multiple reviews and real-world trials have shown that front-of-package labels have improved customers' understanding of nutritional quality and, in the case of New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Chile, even prompted manufacturers to reformulate products. After Chile's Food Labeling and Advertising law went into effect, the percentage of products qualifying for a high-in-sugar label fell from 80% to 60%, while high-sodium products dropped from 74% to 27%. It's important to note that labels are more likely to succeed if they are accompanied by widespread consumer education campaigns to help the public understand how to interpret the labels. The look of the labels matters, too. Simple designs like traffic lights (U.K.), star ratings (Australia and New Zealand), or clear warning symbols (Mexico) have proven more effective than complex or purely numerical labels. Designing a front-of-package label The label that GFC is proposing is a direct response to the one proposed by the FDA. At first glance, it doesn't even look that different. Like the FDA's version, it's black and white and mostly laid out in the same way—a wise move that piggybacks on the agency's research. But there are some key differences, the biggest being the way information is presented. The FDA's version gives a breakdown of all key nutrients and whether they are 'high,' 'low,' or 'medium.' The GFC label highlights only nutrients that qualify as 'high' in content. One of the comments submitted to the FDA, by the National Milk Producers Federation, objected to the proposal for a front-of-package label, stating it provides an incomplete assessment of a food's nutritional profile by focusing only on the bad. But members of the Good Food Collective argue that positives like 'organic' or 'high in protein' tend to cloud people's judgment. For example, a product may be high in protein but also high in saturated fat. By focusing on 'high in' nutrients, the GFC label makes it harder to avoid the mountain of fat or sodium lurking in that ingredient list. To further draw attention to the label, the Interact team added a visual nugget in the form of two widely recognizable symbols: the QR code and the magnifying glass. Dan Gladden, Interact's executive creative director, calls these 'memory structures' because the average American is already familiar with them. The QR code is now ubiquitous. The magnifying glass is a clear invitation to find out more. Interestingly, Interact took cues from the FDA and shied away from using colors in favor of a monochromatic design. According to Gladden, whenever people see a red label, as they do on a bag of crisps in the U.K. (what Americans call potato chips), their inner child might kick in and reach for what they can't have. 'Americans like their freedom, and don't like to be told what to do,' Gladden says. Studies have shown that people browsing in a supermarket make a decision in as little as three to five seconds. A black-and-white graphic that calls out 'high in' ingredients is easier to interpret than one that, for example, requires parsing out the meaning of a yellow symbol and what about that particular product makes it yellow. Rising tides lift all boats At the time of this writing, the Good Food Collective is a coalition of 26, including founding members GoodPop, LesserEvil, Quinn, and Interact, and brands that joined later, including Little Sesame, Dr. Praeger's, Rudi's Bakery, and Sweet Nothings. All brands bill themselves as healthy, which of course could mean that a front-of-package label may translate into higher sales, but it's hard to be cynical when the outcome could benefit consumers as well. In any case, Tanner Smith, director of retail sales at Little Sesame, isn't convinced a front-of-package label will lead to increased revenue. 'Hummus is a cleaner category anyway,' he told me, referring to Little Sesame's core offering. 'My mind goes to chips, where brands can put a lot of additives.' Tanner believes the GFC label, the QR code in particular, provides a huge opportunity to educate consumers on making better food choices. 'People are more aware of ingredients so I really do hope it does have impact,' he says. Caitlin Mack, VP of marketing at LesserEvil, is also hopeful it will help brands reformulate their ingredients. 'Ultimately, if it's so in your face, then you're going to want to make sure it's coming across as something that consumers are going to want to be consuming,' she says. Whether or not the FDA takes the GFC's recommendation, the mere fact that the coalition exists brings a glimmer of hope for the food industry. Many of these brands have been working toward the same goal for years—clean ingredients, honest marketing—but by banding together, they hope to prove that rising tides lift all boats. 'What we're trying to do is, for the first time, be food companies that actually want to see progress on behalf of consumers,' says Goetz. 'That's the spirit of the Good Food Collective.' The super-early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is this Friday, July 25, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today.
CBC
01-07-2025
- Health
- CBC
Nutrition warning labels are hitting shelves near you — earlier than expected
Health Canada's new front-of-package nutrition warning labels are beginning to appear on store shelves six months ahead of the food industry's deadline. First announced in 2022, the black-and-white labels alert shoppers if a product is high in sugar, sodium and/or saturated fat — which the federal department says can lead to increased health risks like stroke, obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and some types of cancers. "I think these can be a really great starting point for people that are looking to use labels as nutrition information sources. But I do think that there are some limitations," said Brittany Brown, a dietitian based in Dartmouth, N.S. "... Right now, it's just going to be kind of functioning as a nutrition warning label, so it's going to give consumers the information when things are high in sodium, high in saturated fat [and] high in sugar, but it's not really going to tell them more details than that." Brown said flipping over the package will show details about percentages of daily value. She said the new label is automatically placed on foods that have 15 per cent or more of the daily value of sugar, saturated fat or sodium. "If something only has 14 per cent of the daily value of sodium, it's not going to trigger the nutrition warning so that's a bit of a missed opportunity." The intention behind the labels, according to Health Canada, is to help shoppers make "quick and informed choices" when buying food and support health professionals in educating people about food. Brown said other countries have been using front-of-label packaging for years. For example, some European countries use Nutri-Score, which grades foods between A and E. "A" foods would be high nutritional quality while "E" would be lower nutritional quality. Brown said while Health Canada's labels can be useful, they don't address certain complexities around food like cost. "We know that food security is a really big challenge that people are faced with. So even if I am looking at the grocery store and I see that something is high in sugar, but my dollar only goes so far, I'm still going to have to choose that food item potentially," Brown said. For example, Brown said things like frozen entrees could end up with these labels, but for some that may be all an individual or family can afford. "So I think that there is a bit of a risk with making us feel a little bit more judgy about some of the foods that we're eating, and we really need to be careful about not not putting that on to people." Liesel Carlsson, a professor of nutrition and dietetics at Acadia University in Wolfville, N.S., said she thinks shoppers may be surprised when the labels begin to appear on daily staples, like cereal, breads and some dairy products — though she could see that changing with time as companies adjust their recipes to no longer trigger the label. "These labels don't look good on packaging. So the real story here and part of the reason that industry was given a very long time in order to get their labels onto their packages is that many industry players will reformulate their products," Carlsson said. But what's most interesting, she said, is that these labels are likely to result in more products that are inexpensive "that are still in this highly processed category but are less damaging to health." In terms of the labels themselves, Carlsson said there is evidence to show that they're effective. "Even when consumers are not even seeking nutrition information, this type of front-of-pack label will catch people's eyes," she said, but added the look of Canada's labels are "a little bit underwhelming" — especially when compared to some South American countries, which use large black stop signs to communicate a similar message. Although the food industry has until Jan. 1, 2026, to put the front-of-package labels on the foods, some products already have it. The Nova Scotia-based grocery chain Sobeys, for example, has the label on many of its store-brand products, like Compliments and Big 8. These included items in the frozen food and snack aisle, like microwave popcorn, frozen chicken wings, burgers and pop. "We are committed to meeting the Health Canada front of pack labelling requirements and to empowering customers with clear information that supports the choices they make in our stores every day," Sobeys said in an email to CBC News. "We have made good progress to make the labelling changes to our Own Brands assortment ahead of the deadline by working proactively with our supplier partners." The labels are mandatory for prepacked foods, but Health Canada notes there are some exemptions. Certain dairy products such as plain milk, plain yogurt and cheese are exempt "because they are important sources of calcium that is needed to promote bone health and reduce the risk of osteoporosis." Health Canada said raw, single-ingredient ground meats and poultry are exempt "to avoid giving the impression they are nutritionally inferior to whole cuts that do not carry a nutrition label." Butter, sugar, salt and other products used for the same purpose are also exempt. Some products are also exempt for technical reasons, like foods in very small packages.
Fast Company
24-06-2025
- Health
- Fast Company
Texas passes food additive warning law, but the list has inaccuracies
A new Texas law promoting the Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda requires first-ever warning labels on foods like chips and candies that contain dyes and additives not allowed in other countries. 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 Several states have been taking action to restrict dyes and additives in foods. 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.' The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Texas will put warning labels on some foods, but its additives list has inaccuracies
DALLAS (AP) — A new Texas law promoting the Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda requires first-ever warning labels on foods like chips and candies that contain dyes and additives not allowed in other countries. 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 Several states have been taking action to restrict dyes and additives in foods. 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.' ___ Aleccia contributed to this report from Temecula, Calif. Associated Press writer David A. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Jonel Aleccia And Jamie Stengle, The Associated Press
The Independent
24-06-2025
- Health
- The Independent
Texas will put warning labels on some foods, but its additives list has inaccuracies
A new Texas law promoting the Trump administration's 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda requires first-ever warning labels on foods like chips and candies that contain dyes and additives not allowed in other countries. 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 Several states have been taking action to restrict dyes and additives in foods. 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.' ___ Aleccia contributed to this report from Temecula, Calif. Associated Press writer David A. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
