“How RFK Jr., Democrats and Republicans found common ground over food labels in Texas” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

Months ago, when Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee Chair Lois Kolkhorst first held a hearing on Senate Bill 25 — requiring among other things, warning labels on foods containing certain additives — the first person to speak was Calley Means, a top adviser to U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy.

“Texas can really lead here…These bills represent a Texas way that prioritizes transparency, prioritizes good education and prioritizes incentive change,” said Means, a former food and pharmaceutical consultant, who spearheaded the federal Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission. He’s also the brother of Casey Means, President Donald Trump’s nominee for U.S. Surgeon General.

It was a powerful opening to Kolkhorst’s first Senate health committee meeting of the year and also signaled immediately that Kolkhorst’s SB 25 — also called the Make Texas Healthy Again bill — and other efforts of fellow Republicans dovetailed perfectly with those on the federal level by echoing Kennedy’s interests.

For a relatively quiet Texas legislative session for health, the RFK effect stands out. Republican-backed bills on everything from putting more regulation on doctors who administer COVID-19 vaccines and letting parents opt out of childhood immunizations more easily, to halting the use of food stamps to purchase sugary drinks and SB 25 have either passed or are about to before the end of session today.

It begs the question, though, of exactly who is calling the shots in the Texas Capitol. Is Kennedy directing Texas, using the state as perhaps a test kitchen for his larger initiatives, or is Texas out-MAHA-ing Washington?

“I think it’s both,” said James Henson, director of the Texas Politics Project at the University of Texas at Austin. “Long before Robert F. Kennedy gained some kind of surprising legitimacy by being named to the cabinet, these currents were already flowing in Texas, but they just get a lot more momentum from these national figures.”

In a way, Washington and Austin have moved in on what was once the Democrats’ exclusive turf: consumer health. It’s become an easy pivot for Republicans as they incorporate healthy eating and exercise, traditionally left-leaning priorities, into typical GOP talking points such as national security, individual choice and reduction of health care costs.

The result has been a seamless state-federal party alliance on an issue that can attract both the left and the right. Ten Democrats signed on in the Senate, and three Democrats in the House sponsored or co-sponsored SB 25.

“This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say, ‘We are sick and tired of being sick and tired,’“ Rep. Lacey Hull, R-Houston, said, before SB 25 passed the House on May 25. “I have personally spoken to the White House who said they are looking to us, to Texas, to get this done to stand for our children and our future.”

The nation’s first major food labeling bill in decades

Alarmed food company executives from across the country flew into Austin when word spread that the Texas Legislature was prioritizing a bill requiring food labeling.

A coalition of about 60 industry groups and producers, including Walmart, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Frito-Lay and General Mills, implored in a letter to Texas lawmakers to strip any requirement to label foods, saying the state “could destabilize local and regional economies at a time when businesses are already fighting to keep prices down, maintain inventory and avoid layoffs.”

As initially filed, SB 25 was wide-ranging, asking producers to put a warning label on any product containing artificial coloring, a food additive or other chemical ingredient banned by Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom. Sweeteners, including high fructose corn syrup and aspartame, were then later added to the proposed label list.

After pushback from the food industry and from several House members during a 4-hour floor debate a week ago, Hull amended the bill to remove the sweeteners, but kept a list of 40-plus additives that would trigger a warning label. House Democrats still worried that the warning label requirement would push up food costs.

“What we don’t want to do is destroy anyone’s business and or create such a burden or financial cost that the cost of food will continue to rise,” said state Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, D-San Antonio.

Kolkhorst back in February proclaimed that “the market will adjust.”

The bill was eventually weakened further when state Rep. Gary Van Deaver, a supporter of the bill, successfully proposed a change that invalidates SB 25’s state labeling requirements for ingredients if the federal government moves forward with similar or a more far-reaching measure.

The state labeling requirements would take effect on Jan. 1, 2027 but a loophole exists that if on Dec. 31, 2026 a snack food producer wants to stick with its existing packaging for another decade, no warning label is needed because the new law only “applies only to a food product label developed or copyrighted on or after January 1, 2027.”

Even so, the bill takes a step forward that states across the U.S. are still mulling. For Kolkhorst, the bill boils down to a national conversation about the health of Americans, especially American children.

“This sweeping legislation is not just another bill. It’s a call to action — one that so many Texans and Americans are realizing — that something is wrong and that something needs to change in our food industry and in our sedentary lifestyle,” Kolkhorst told The Texas Tribune.

While most of the attention has been on the food labeling language, the bill contains a major education plank.

SB 25 will require elementary, secondary and postsecondary educational institutions to re-prioritize health and exercise. It also forces health professionals to take continuing education courses regarding nutrition and metabolic health. And it will require recess or physical activity for kids in charter schools – physical activity is already required in public schools.

Supporters of the bill, such as the Episcopal Health Foundation and the Meadow’s Mental Health Policy Institute, see some big benefits for Texans.

“The amount of money and time we’re spending treating diabetes as opposed to preventing it is huge, especially in Texas, especially in certain areas like East Texas,” said Brian Sasser, the foundation’s chief communications officer. “This is an important first step in changing that focus to prevention.”

Diabetes care costs Texas Medicaid up to $8 billion annually.

In a world that pretends the brain is not part of the body, this bill will put tools in the hands of children, parents and teachers to begin truly addressing emotional health and wellbeing, said Andy Keller, the president and CEO of Meadows Mental Health Policy Institute.

“I am proud of the work we have done with the encouragement of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. who personally called me and urged the passage of Senate Bill 25,” Kolkhorst said.

The RFK effect

In the summer of 2024, Kennedy was running for president on a campaign focused on rising chronic health concerns for many Americans, as well as vaccine hesitancy.

At that time Means, who became Kennedy’s right hand in the MAHA movement, was leading a coalition of health and fitness CEOs in pitching policies designed to rein in additives and promote healthier food choices. The end goal was to force “Big Food” to offer healthier versions of food, like those found in Europe and Canada, through similar regulations.

It’s not surprising that Texas lawmakers, who are always on the lookout for the public’s next policy fixation jumped on this opportunity, said Henson, of the Texas Politics Project. Lawmakers have to take advantage of openings to pursue agendas that come with some federal support.

“Without that national influence [some bills] might not have gone anywhere,” he said.

And, the Trump administration knows how important Texas can be to its causes. As the nation’s second largest state, both in size and population, any change in food regulation no matter how small, is expected to have a ripple effect elsewhere.

Thirty years ago, regulations on food, the environment and land use, crafted by California’s State Assembly, became policy standards for the rest of the country. In recent years, that title has shifted to Texas. The aim of Kolkhorst’s bill is to change food formulas or perhaps offer Americans the same formulas sold to countries with stricter additive and coloring standards.

Kolkhorst has maintained that no group had a role in crafting her bill, that it was unique to her and her staff based on the concerns of constituents.

“No outside groups provided any language for the filed version of SB 25,” she told the Tribune.

Nutrition advocates, who often fear legislative cuts to their programs, welcome the plug for more nutrition-backed measures.

Celia Cole, CEO of Feeding Texas, which represents 20 food banks statewide, praised Kolkhorst and Hull for also spearheading the passage of House Bill 26, which creates a pilot program within Medicaid to offer pregnant moms with nutritional counseling and medically-tailored meals.

“We share the Legislature’s goal of improving the health of low-income Texans and were very encouraged to see a focus this session on the link between good nutrition and health,” Cole said in a statement to the Tribune.

Keller found the prospect of state and federal collaboration exciting. Texas ought to lead the nation in the fight for children’s health, he said.

“Nothing actually, really happens at a national level,” Keller said. “Ultimately, all decisions about the well-being of children happen locally.”

Sen. Bryan Hughes agrees. Texas waits for no one, he said. His Senate Bill 314 bars certain food additives in free- and reduced-cost school lunches.

“As in so many cases we’re not waiting on Washington. We’re thankful for what’s happening about health in Washington, but we’re not going to wait on them. Texas will act,” Hughes said in February.

Disclosure: Episcopal Health Foundation, Feeding Texas, and University of Texas at Austin have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

First round of TribFest speakers announced! Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Maureen Dowd; U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, R-San Antonio; Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker; U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California; and U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Dallas are taking the stage Nov. 13–15 in Austin. Get your tickets today!

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/02/texas-maha-food-labels-vaccines-robert-kennedy/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The post In Texas, an unlikely coalition unites over consumer health appeared first on feeds.texastribune.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Right

This article reflects a center-right bias by presenting Republican-led legislative initiatives in Texas positively, particularly those tied to health and food labeling reforms. It highlights the alignment between Texas Republicans and federal figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., emphasizing themes such as transparency, individual choice, and cost reduction, which are traditional conservative priorities. The piece balances concerns from Democrats and industry critics but largely frames the Republican-led efforts as proactive and beneficial. The tone remains factual and measured, showing some bipartisan support, yet the overall narrative favors the Republican health policy agenda and state-level independence from federal oversight.