‘Make Texas Healthy Again' passes in the Senate
The first of these bills, Senate Bill 25 — filed by Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, R – Brenham — requires daily physical activity in public schools, a nutrition curriculum and food labels to warn Texas consumers which ingredients are banned in other countries. The bill passed unanimously 31-0.
'Make Texas Healthy Again' push begins in Senate
'Sixty percent of Americans have chronic diseases, and we're spending $4.3 million a year—that is five times our military budget,' Kolkhorst told senators. 'These are some of the statistics that should make us sit up in our chairs, stand up and say, 'What is wrong?''
SB 25 also establishes the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee to create nutritional guidelines for Texans and examine links between food additives and chronic health.
The bill's bipartisan support was apparent as senators on both sides shared personal testimony.
'I can tell you that in San Antonio, you mentioned diabetes in your bill layout, we have some of the highest numbers of diabetes, hypertension, and because of that, we also have some of the highest numbers of per capita chronic renal failure,' said Sen. José Menéndez, D – San Antonio. He added, 'It is the most ridiculous thing that is preventable, that's the worst part about it.'
'When I grew up, it was eggs were bad for you and steak was bad for you, right? So we're told. So we were taught all these things that were wrong,' said Sen. Mayes Middleton, R-Galveston. He added, 'So I think that's one of the most critical components of your bill, is that nutrition education.'
In a statement, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick also praised the bill's passing, naming SB 25 as one of his legislative priorities earlier in the session.
'I named SB 25 as a priority of mine because making Texas healthy again is the perfect way to ensure Texans can capitalize on our bright future,' said Patrick in a statement. 'The commonsense reforms included in SB 25 highlight how important nutrition and exercise are in maintaining overall health.'
School choice, border, affordability among priorities in upcoming legislative session
SB 314, filed by Sen. Bryan Hughes, R – Mineola, also passed in relation to 'Make Texas Healthy Again.' The bill bans seven chemicals in food commonly found in reduced-price or free lunch programs at public schools. It passed 30-1 in the Senate.
Both bills will now move to their respective House committees for further voting.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
14 hours ago
- The Hill
Daylight saving time: Will this be the last time we ‘fall back?'
(NEXSTAR) — It can be hard to imagine the dark, cold nights of November when you're in the throes of August, but believe it or not, we're not far from those drearier days. That means we're also not far from the biannual tradition you either appreciate, despise, or otherwise forget about: the changing of the clocks for daylight saving time. You don't have to rush to check your calendar; we're several weeks from November 2. But not long ago, it seemed the U.S. may have been gearing up to treat it like any other Sunday. Within the last several months, bills to 'lock the clocks' have been introduced, a Senate committee hearing has been held, and even President Donald Trump has weighed in on the discussions. Nonetheless, introduced bills have stalled, no more hearings have been held, and the need to set your clocks (in most states) back an hour remains. 'Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work? So what does the future of the biannual changing of the clocks look like for the U.S.? So far, a lot like its past. More than a century ago, the U.S. temporarily observed permanent daylight saving time — setting the clocks forward an hour without setting them back a few months later — during World War I. It lasted roughly a year and returned during World War II. That then set off decades of states and cities deciding what time to observe without much guidance. There was a brief reprieve from the chaos when Congress passed the Uniform Time Act in 1966, formalizing when the country was on daylight saving time and standard time. A few years later, we tried permanent daylight saving time during an energy crisis, only for it to lose favor and be ditched. Since the mid-1970s, we've changed our clocks twice annually. Most recent efforts targeting the practice — primarily led by Congressmen from Florida — have focused on putting the country back on permanent daylight saving time, a move many health experts disagree with. As in years past, the Senate and House bills to do as such have received bipartisan support and been passed off to committees, only to stall out. What would change if daylight saving time became permanent? The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation did hold a hearing in April that examined 'the various issues around whether the country should continue 'springing forward' and 'falling back' each year with time.' Witnesses who support permanent daylight saving time and an alternative, permanent standard time, shared their opinions, and the bill advanced out of committee. It still needs a revote in the Senate, a spokesperson told Nexstar. 'Americans are sick and tired of changing their clocks twice a year — it's an unnecessary, decades-old practice that's more of an annoyance to families than a benefit to them,' Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) previously said while introducing his Sunshine Protection Act alongside Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). Representative Vern Buchanan (R-FL) introduced companion legislation in the House. 'President Trump and the American people are on board with locking the lock, and now it's time we pass the Sunshine Protection Act to make Daylight Saving Time permanent.' 'It's clear that Americans want to do away with changing their clocks twice a year, and my bill will end this outdated practice,' Rep Buchanan said in a statement to Nexstar. 'We've had very promising conversations with House leadership, Energy and Commerce committee members and the Trump team about holding hearings and acting on my bill this Congress. It's clear that public support and political headwinds are on our side, and I look forward to my bill becoming law.' Some states, meanwhile, have taken it upon themselves to enact legislation that would put them on permanent daylight saving time — in most cases, however, they need Congress's approval. Only two states observe year-round standard time, an option afforded them by Congress' 1966 Uniform Time Act. States cannot opt for permanent daylight saving time. In most cases, the states standing on that side of the clock have introduced or passed measures calling on Congress to enact permanent daylight saving time or outlining conditions in which the state would observe daylight saving time permanently, typically based on actions by Congress or neighboring states. Why experts say keeping standard time is 'undeniably' better for us A House bill to give states the power to observe daylight saving time all year has been introduced and referred to committee. Multiple other states, however, have seen legislation introduced during their current legislative sessions to observe permanent standard time or exempt it from daylight saving time. Such bills in Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia have failed to pass already this year. Legislation to observe permanent daylight saving time in Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia was also unable to pass. Some states have not considered clock-locking legislation, either this year or in recent history. That includes Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. In the last five years, no related proposals have been brought forth in the District of Columbia or Rhode Island.
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
FDA reinstates ousted top vaccine regulator Vinay Prasad
Vinay Prasad, a top vaccine regulator ousted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late last month, is set to return to his post, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 'At the FDA's request, Dr. Vinay Prasad is resuming leadership of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,' an HHS spokesperson told The Hill in a statement. 'Neither the White House nor HHS will allow the fake news media to distract from the critical work the FDA is carrying out under the Trump administration.' Prasad's July 30 resignation as the FDA's chief science officer followed criticism from right-wing figures — including activist Laura Loomer and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) — that ran parallel to a regulatory showdown with drug manufacturers over a gene therapy treatment for boys with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Loomer, a key ally of President Trump with noticeable influence, lavished attacks on the FDA official in recent weeks — calling him a 'saboteur' and 'trojan horse' for HHS's 'Make America Healthy Again' initiative. Prasad was named head of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research in early May as a replacement for Peter Marks, who resigned from the position in March after clashing with HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The doctor, just one of several health officials tapped by Trump who criticized COVID-19 vaccines, had been in the role for less than three months when the FDA announced he would step down. 'Dr. Prasad did not want to be a distraction to the great work of the FDA in the Trump administration and has decided to return to California and spend more time with his family,' an HHS spokesperson said at the time. 'We thank him for his service and the many important reforms he was able to achieve in his time at FDA.' The division at the time was also involved in a dispute between the administration and Sarepta Therapeutics. The FDA had paused shipments and clinical trials of its Elevidys treatment for those with Duchenne muscular dystrophy following reports of two patients that died after receiving the drug. Prior to his role in the administration, Prasad had argued against the treatment's approval after Marks overrode multiply agency reviews. He also recently made headlines for restricting the approval of two COVID-19 vaccines while disregarding recommendations from government scientists. Two memos issued last month by the FDA showed how the doctor personally intervened to place limitations on drugmakers Novavax and Moderna after their coronavirus shots were approved for anyone 12 years or older.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Sorry, but RFK Jr.'s beloved beef tallow fries won't save Steak 'n Shake
Steak 'n Shake has jumped on the Make America Healthy Again bandwagon in a desperate last-ditch effort to resuscitate its finances. The chain's gratuitous pandering to red-state America will go down as a sad final act for a storied restaurant chain. Indianapolis-based Steak 'n Shake is not only adopting MAHA-approved ingredients – beef tallow for the fries and cane sugar for the soda – but also coordinating with the Trump administration and expanding MAGA universe to create the most right-coded infomercials this side of MyPillow and gleaming gold coins. 'We RFK'd our fries,' Daniel Edwards, Steak 'n Shake's chief operations officer, boasted to Fox News in February. That's, of course, a reference to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., America's top health official, who opposes vaccines but says "Hell, yeah!" to Americans mainlining soda and fries. RFK Jr. appeared on "Hannity" to eat Steak 'n Shake's shoestring fries, an explicit endorsement of fast food as a path to better health. RFK Jr.'s ascent to a position of health authority is a culmination of America's doing-my-own-research era. Steak 'n Shake is happy to glom onto it in a play to find a market for its waning products. Opinion: RFK Jr. defunds mRNA vaccine research. His anti-vax policies will kill people. Better ingredients, same junk food I should note there are merits to both beef tallow and cane sugar. Many skilled chefs prefer to cook with beef tallow because it cooks better at high temperatures and generally tastes better. Cane sugar likewise fares better in taste tests, and it is less processed than alternatives, including high-fructose corn syrup. Opinion: Is Coke with cane sugar really healthier? MAHA's claims are missing the point. Here's the thing: Fries are fries and sugar is sugar. If you overeat at Steak 'n Shake, you can expect similar health outcomes to overeating at any other fast-food joint. Steak 'n Shake is not becoming a health-food restaurant. It's introducing these products as a business decision. And for good reason. Steak 'n Shake has closed 200 restaurants since 2018. Parent company Biglari Holdings Inc. disclosed an interesting nugget in its first-quarter earnings report: Customer traffic continued to fall at Steak 'n Shake, but same-store sales increased by 3.9%. Therein lies the financial power of MAGA. The MAGA premium By tapping into politics, Steak 'n Shake is extracting more money out of fewer customers who feel like they are doing their part in the culture war by RFK'ing their diets. Steak 'n Shake's food costs went up this year because of the switch to beef tallow, according to the earnings report. Customers are paying a premium to dine from a menu that fits their political orientation. There's a risk that appealing to MAGA will alienate other customers. But most Steak 'n Shake locations fall in Trump-friendly states (although it does have dozens of locations in blue-state Illinois). Steak 'n Shake's well-publicized pivot to MAGA likely is improving the chain's short-term outlook. The long term is another matter. Short-term gain, long-term pain President Donald Trump will leave office, media coverage will dissipate and the novelty of "Make Frying Oil Tallow Again" merch and consuming 2,000-calorie meals to own the libs will fade. When that happens, Steak 'n Shake will fall right back to where it was before: a brand lacking identity and lost in the shuffle of competitors with more premium products. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. My guess is that Steak 'n Shake's cynical alignment with America's anti-vaxx crusader will afford the chain two to three years of relative stability before it runs out of steam. After that, Steak 'n Shake's descent toward obsolescence will resume and store closings will accelerate. I'm not cheering for Steak 'n Shake's demise. I have fond memories of meals and late-night study sessions. I was under no illusions about the products. I was there for the greasy food, caffeine and sugar high. Now, Steak 'n Shake is selling its customers a lie. That rarely ends well for any business. James Briggs is the opinion editor at the Indianapolis Star, where this column originally appeared. Contact him at or follow him on X and Bluesky: @JamesEBriggs You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Steak 'n Shake sells RFK, Trump's beef tallow fry lie | Opinion
