Texas House: 'Small changes' on Foods add up to a Nanny-State Attack on our Freedoms

The Texas House of Representatives is considering three bills that are being marketed as common-sense changes to improve the health of all Texans. The reality: these headline-grabbing sound bites avoid meaningful engagement with the public health crisis it claims to be addressing.

Once the California Food Safety Act was passed in 2023, it was expected that big blue states would seek more onerous rules on food labels and ingredients. But it’s surprising to see that even “red states” are hopping on this Californian bandwagon.

It’s head-spinning to watch Texas Republicans pivot from passing the Texas DOGE law one day to undercutting its core goals the next. The Governor’s office praised the signing of Texas DOGE, emphasizing that the “law will empower the Texas government to be more efficient and less intrusive in the daily lives of Texans.” How does this philosophy square with the approach they are taking, keep us from buying certain foods? What could be any more intrusive than that?

Taking advice from a committee of independent experts, HHS Secretary Kennedy and Brooke Rollins are finalizing the Dietary Guidelines that will guide food policy – federal, state, local and industry – for the next five years. The Texas legislature is adding more layers of bureaucracy and regulations when the Trump administration is already completing the work being proposed by the problematic bill, SB 25. This is not efficiency.

Also counter to common-sense, the proposed law would direct companies to place a patronizing warning label on goods containing ingredients, including for the wide array of items judged safe by the FDA: “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.” Does the average Texan really believe we should be listening folks in other countries over the experts here in the United States of America?  Never mind the fact that their differing advice is not rooted in science.

A recent poll of Republican primary voters confirms that President Trump is who is trusted tomanage our food supply. It’s embarrassing to realize that Texas legislators, as well as Republican legislators across the country, prefer to trust the European Union, or Canada, or Australia to protect the health of Americans, rather than the President.

The second bill (SB 314) builds on a strategy progressive activists have perfected – using children’s health as a camouflage to avoid scrutiny on the forward creep of nanny-state regulations. The bill would prohibit FDA-approved ingredients from being served in school lunches.

In this rush to excessively regulate, it is important to recognize that the FDA and school districts across the country have been making consistent improvements in what our kids eat at school. When Arizona passed a similar law last month, it turned out that school districts had already made the changes.

As states undercut the FDA’s regulations, they also create an impossible patchwork of compliance challenges for small businesses just trying to sell their products across this nation.   Large corporations will have the ability to reformulate products and print alternative packaging that local food producers and entrepreneurs, and even independent grocery stores, will not. As Lubbock area attorney Sandra Ziegler notes, “[t]hat means local producers and independent retailers will struggle to compete, further tipping the scales in favor of national brands.” This will make Texas less appealing to businesses, and these extra costs will inevitably be passed on to the consumer.

The Texas House is also considering a bill (SB379) to restrict what food stamp participants are allowed to purchase. Politicians deciding what the most vulnerable families can buy is paternalism at its worst. The claim that food choices of participants in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are fuelling a national health crisis is not supported by evidence. In fact, studies show that all Americans need to improve their diets, that restrictions do not alter consumption patterns, and that SNAP participants actually have lower healthcare costs. Saying that you can’t buy a soda and chips on the taxpayer’s dime is easy to do, but it does nothing to improve health outcomes or save a single penny for the taxpayer.

The overwhelming majority of families who rely on SNAP are working families in need ofsupport through vulnerable moments of food insecurity. The military is an important employer in Texas, and many of us would be surprised to know that even some military families rely on SNAP benefits. Parents are best able to make informed decisions on what to place in their grocery carts. This bill restricts choice, restricts personal freedom, and it shouldn’t sit right with any Texan.

The Texas legislature is asking the USDA for a waiver so they can independently implement these SNAP restrictions, and they claim there will be no technology cost for the change.  You won’t be surprised to hear that the USDA has estimated a cost of $1 billion in the first two years if restrictions are rolled out nationally. Stores recognize that much of these costs and enforcement of these food bans will fall to them. Why would we put our grocery stores in this impossible position?

The desire to combat chronic disease is notable. But as Ziegler reminds us, “innovation and not regulation” is the way to make real life-long changes. Demand for low- and zero-sugarbeverages is rapidly growing as Americans seek healthier options to match their lifestyle. No bureaucrats needed.

Texans can handle their own grocery carts, and they won’t stand for Austin messing with their freedoms.

Texas Politics Publisher Javier Manjarres posted this opinion.