I am old enough to remember when, in 2012, New Yorkers marched to protest Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on sugary sodas and soft drinks larger than 16 ounces. Then-City Councilwoman Letitia James addressed the rally, showing support for the angry protesters. Zach Huff, a spokesperson for the protesters, told CBS News:
Before, the government was instituted to protect the rights of everyone and prevent crime, and now it’s cracking down the rights of everyone. It’s astonishing we have a mayor who is pro-choice when it comes to what a woman can do with her body but isn’t pro-choice with simple choices, like soda container sizes.
What a difference an election makes. Now, with the advent of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, nanny state interference is in vogue. Texas lawmakers recently passed Senate Bill 25 unanimously and sent it to Governor Greg Abbott’s desk. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the guru of the MAHA movement, reportedly called the bill’s sponsor to voice support for the measure.
If the governor signs the bill, starting in 2027, US food manufacturers will be required to place clear warning labels on products sold in Texas that contain ingredients such as bleached flour or synthetic food dyes, which other countries have banned or flagged with warnings. The bill lists more than 40 ingredients for which food manufacturers must affix warning labels. It also mandates daily physical activity for public school students from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade and requires nutritional education for students in high school and college. Furthermore, it establishes a Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee within the Department of State Health Services to develop dietary guidelines that inform state policies and educational curricula.
But, as history shows, top-down nutrition guidance can backfire. As Terence Kealey, Bautista Vivanco, and I wrote recently, when the federal government got into the business of formulating nutrition guidelines by creating the Food Pyramid, it “distorted US nutrition science for the next three decades as government-funded research scientists worked to verify his hypothesis, and the great danger is that over the next three decades, US public health science will be equally distorted.”
A group representing 60 members of the food industry wrote a letter to Texas lawmakers urging them to reject the bill, arguing it “could destabilize local and regional economies at a time when businesses are already fighting to keep prices down, maintain inventory, and avoid layoffs.” The Consumer Brands Association stated in a letter to Governor Abbott urging him to veto the bill:
The ingredients used in the US food supply are safe and have been rigorously studied following an objective science and risk-based evaluation process. The labeling requirements of SB 25 mandate inaccurate warning language, create legal risks for brands and drive consumer confusion and higher costs.
Emerging research links certain ingredients in ultra-processed foods to health risks, but the science is still in its early stages. Most evidence comes from animal or observational studies, which cannot prove cause and effect. Ingredients can vary significantly across products, and factors such as dose, frequency, and individual susceptibility complicate the identification of specific harms. Additionally, it’s challenging to separate the effects of one ingredient from those of others in these complex food mixtures.
Like the architects of the now-discredited Food Pyramid, the MAHA movement—and Texas lawmakers—are rushing to judgment based on assumptions and intuition. But policy should follow evidence, not vibes.
More significant than any economic costs or unintended health effects is the bill’s substantial expansion of government control over personal choices. My book, Your Body, Your Health Care, emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and illustrates how, in recent decades, government overreach has increasingly eroded the relationship between patients and their health care providers.
A key idea in liberal thought is the harm principle, laid out by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. He argued that the only reason to limit someone’s freedom is to prevent harm to others—not for their own good. This principle frequently arises in policy debates about health and safety, where the government intervenes not to protect people from themselves but to reduce harm to others, such as secondhand smoke or contagious diseases.
As Kealey, Vivanco, and I wrote:
In a free society, there is a legitimate role for government in public health, as our colleague Michael Cannon explains. It is appropriate for the government to engage in public health policy, specifically in areas where the actions of some may threaten the lives and safety of others. All too often, government-directed research and policy today focus on personal health issues, which individuals can assess and manage independently, consulting experts as needed. We know all too well that when a public health agency issues opinions on personal health matters, it effectively becomes a mandate, disclaimers aside.
I recently wrote about the Food and Drug Administration’s proposed ban on foods containing artificial food coloring, especially considering the wide range of organic foods and products already labeled as free from artificial preservatives or additives:
The HHS and FDA regulatory monopolies should not infringe on adults’ autonomy to choose less expensive or more visually appealing foods containing these substances, if they wish. Autonomous adults must have the freedom to make their own risk-benefit assessments.
A just society protects individuals by holding those who cause real harm accountable, not by limiting choice. If researchers discover that synthetic dyes or preservatives cause cancer or other illnesses and producers fail to warn consumers adequately, then consumers should have the right to sue. Civil liability, along with market competition, helps keep companies accountable.
Texas SB 25 represents the latest example of the government’s mission creep from public health into personal health.
