A bipartisan group of public health advocates have defeated a proposal to kill state food safety laws that was pushed by what some critics have called a “faux Maha” big-food influence operation.
The industry-funded group, called Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT), suggests it is part of a grassroots Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement, but opponents say it is waging a campaign on behalf of big food companies that Maha figures typically criticizes – ConAgra, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Hormel, and Nestlé among other food giants.
Maha is the health movement, led by health secretary Robert F Kennedy, that aims to improve Americans’ health, though aspects of it have been criticized for embracing conspiracy theories, especially on vaccines.
AFIT is headed by a former Trump administration official and industry lobbyist. An AFIT video on its website shows footage of children and parents holding Maha signs, the group claims its mission is “in the vein” of Maha, and rightwing media has called AFIT a Maha group.
AFIT pushed for draft legislation written by Republican senator Roger Marshall, called the Better Food Disclosure Act, that initially included language that would kill state laws that require truth-in-labeling for toxic food ingredients.
Amid backlash and pressure from Maha leaders, public health nonprofits, and a bipartisan group of state legislators, Marshall this week struck the language from the bill, which includes other changes to US Food and Drug Administration rules.
State laws on toxins in food “have had some of the most meaningful impactful”, said Vani Hari, a prominent Maha social media figure also known as the Food Babe, who met with Marshall.
“For far too long the food industry has led the conversation in Washington, and now the table has turned – every day mothers are being heard by their congressmembers,” she said. “It’s inspiring to see someone like Senator Marshall stand up to big food, and put the health of families before corporate profits.”
AFIT did not respond to questions. In a statement, a spokesperson wrote: “Voters, including those in the Maha movement, overwhelmingly trust President Trump and Secretary Kennedy to take the lead on ensuring that they can have confidence in the products on their grocery store shelves, as 87% prefer a national uniform standard instead of a state-by-state patchwork.”
The attempt to pre-empt food labeling laws is part of a broader effort across multiple industries to kill state laws that protect the public from dangerous chemicals. Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency recently introduced rules that would pre-empt hundreds of state level protections that restrict PFAS, lead, formaldehyde, and dozens of other toxins in consumer goods.
A US House bill aims to kill state protections around pesticides, and another effort is attempting to undo state-level animal welfare rules.
In recent years, at least 20 states have passed or are proposing food protection laws that ban everything from propylparaben preservatives to bisphenol, Pfas and other toxins in food packaging.
In the wake of Kennedy and Maha’s ascent, Republican-controlled states have begun taking strong action. This year, West Virginia passed a ban on some synthetic food coloring, while Texas began requiring warning labels for 44 synthetic food ingredients.
A bipartisan group of about 120 state legislators sent a letter to Marshall urging him to strike the pre-emption language.
Proposals to pre-empt state laws have drawn bi-partisan opposition because they are “outrageous and un-American”, said Scott Faber, a lobbyist with the Environmental Working Group nonprofit, which advocates for stricter food protections at the state and federal levels.
“People everywhere want their food to be safe, and states are the only check against dangerous food chemicals at the moment,” Faber said. “No one, least of all Republicans, thinks the FDA is coming to the rescue.”
Advocates say the state laws are especially important because industry influence in Congress, and at the FDA and EPA, have thwarted most meaningful protections, and AFIT wants the federal government’s laws to pre-empt state laws because federal laws are much weaker.
State bans generate pressure on industry to remove chemicals in food not just in individual states, but across the country. Their effectiveness has made them an industry target.
AFIT states on its website that the FDA should be “the sole entity” regulating food because state laws cost businesses money and confuse consumers.
“Every American deserves to know what’s in their food, beverages and personal care items,” AFIT states in a 30-second commercial it is planning for the Washington DC market.
Faber dismissed the marketing and said: “Gaslighting doesn’t do it justice.”
Among the “senior advisers” behind AFIT is Andy Koenig, former Trump and Pence administration official who worked for a lobbying group with links to the powerful and conservative Koch industrial family.
Julie Gunlock, once a staffer for former US senator Tom Coburn, is director of the Independent Women’s Forum (IWF), a Monsanto- and big tobacco-funded group that has criticised pesticide and other public health regulations, according to the transparency watchdog US Right To Know.
It notes her book, From Cupcakes to Chemicals: How the Culture of Alarmism Makes Us Afraid of Everything and How to Fight Back, which attacks “food nannies, public health officials, politicians and government regulators”.
Summer Barrett, a “Maha mom” in West Virginia who is a lobbyist and assisted in a volunteer capacity to help pass the state’s synthetic color dye ban, said she closely reads food labels to protect her family from toxic ingredients. Barrett said AFIT “is not Maha”.
“This is a front group and it should be offensive to every Maha mom and every American,” Barrett said.
Hari stressed that Kennedy has met with state leaders around the country to push for state transparency laws, and AFIT’s proposals “would undermine the entire Maha movement and all the work Secretary Kennedy has done”.
“[AFIT has] the manpower to walk the halls and talk the talk, and they are raising funds from these food companies so they have war chest to go after this, but if the truth comes out – that’s the thing that can stop them,” Hari said.
The bill Marshall introduced includes a provision aimed at greater transparency around the “Generally Regarded As Safe” (GRAS) FDA loophole that allows companies to start using new toxic chemicals in food with virtually no oversight. It would give the FDA 180 days to review the chemicals.
A competing bill introduced by senators Cory Booker and Ed Markey goes further, and requires industry to show the chemicals it introduces via GRAS are safe.
