Major change coming to M&M's and other foods as RFK sets sights on nation's favorites
Americans may soon see a new label on their favorite snacks, warning them they are full of potentially dangerous ingredients.
A new bill expected to be signed into law would require companies to print a label on their food products if they contain additives, including dyes and bleached flour.
The legislation, backed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, is targeting additives and ingredients that are mostly banned or require warnings in other countries.
While Senate Bill 25 is moving through lawmakers in Texas, because of the nature of production and sale of goods in the US, it is likely people across America will soon see the warning labels.
The bill lists more than 40 ingredients, such as synthetic dyes, titanium dioxide, bleached flour, partially hydrogenated oils, melatonin and various food colorings, including Red dye 40 - which have been associated with childhood behavioral problems, cancer and infertility.
This could affect popular food products such as Doritos chips, Mountain Dew soda, Kellogg Co.'s Froot Loops and Mars Inc.'s M&Ms.
If enacted, Texas would become the first state to require such disclosures and signal a huge win for Kennedy Jr's 'Make America Healthy Again' movement.
The labels would contain language such as: 'This product contains an artificial color, chemical, or food additive that is banned in Australia, Canada, the European Union, or the United Kingdom.'
The requirement would begin in 2027.
According to Bloomberg, Texas Rep. Lacey Hull, who was one of the bill's sponsors in the House, said she received a call from Kennedy Jr when it passed the legislature.
DailyMail.com has reached out to Kennedy Jr and the Health and Human Services department for a comment.
But despite alleged support from the federal government, Gov. Abbott has not yet publicly stated whether he will sign the bill into law.
However, Andrew Mahaleris, his press secretary, said in a statement before the bill reached him: 'Governor Abbott will continue to work with the legislature to ensure Texans have access to healthy foods to care for themselves and their families and will thoughtfully review any legislation they send to his desk.'
If Gov Abbott decides to pass the bill and make it law solely in Texas, experts predict manufacturing giants may choose to print labels on all their products nationwide to streamline their operations.
Enforcement of the potential law will be managed by the Texas Attorney General, and violations may incur penalties of up to $50,000 per violation plus reimbursement for enforcement costs.
In addition to the labels, the bill also establishes a state nutrition advisory committee - making 30 minutes of daily physical activity necessary during the school day for grades below six.
It also instructs Texas schools to implement new nutrition education curriculum.
Texas is not alone in its overhaul. Both California and West Virginia are passing laws to ban some artificial food colorings. There are at least 30 others, mostly Democratic state, considering similar legislation.
This is not the first time lawmakers have sought to make America's food safer - and companies are being pressured to respond.
Last week, Mars Wrigley, the global confectionery giant behind Skittles, quietly reformulated its recipe after a blistering new health report chaired by the secretary linked one of its ingredients to DNA damage and possible cancer risks.
The company confirmed it removed titanium dioxide from its rainbow-colored candies in the United States.
The move follows growing international scrutiny of the additive's potential health effects.
Titanium dioxide is widely used in processed foods to give a bright, opaque appearance but it has increasingly come under fire for what experts warn may be genotoxic and carcinogenic properties.
The change comes in the wake of a bombshell report from the Make America Healthy Again Commission, led by Kennedy Jr.
The report warned titanium dioxide, among other food additives, 'may cause cellular and DNA damage' - particularly in children, who are exposed to such chemicals at higher rates through snack foods, candies, and sauces.
For decades, titanium dioxide has been considered a 'safe' additive by US regulators but in 2022, the European Union banned its use entirely, citing concerns over its genotoxic effects after extensive European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviews.
The sudden change made by Mars Wrigley to its product formula in order to comply with the agency may also be adopted by other manufacturers.
Last month Kennedy Jr sought to have food petroleum based food dyes removed from sweets, cakes and other treats sold in the US - including Blue 1, Red 40, and Yellow 6.
The dyes are often made by combining a product from petrol with another substance to create the brilliant color, but natural alternatives are available, and are already used in multiple products in Europe - including in Skittles.
The dyes have been linked to multiple health problems in animal studies, including cancer and a higher risk of developing tumors.
There are also concerns the bright colors could encourage people to eat more sweet treats, leading to weight gain, which is linked to a whole host of chronic diseases.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Trump's proposed ‘immigrant worker tax' will drive money transfers underground, experts warn
Donald Trump's proposed tax on immigrant workers sending money home from America will take billions out of poor economies and drive the transfers underground, aid and industry experts have warned. The US president wants to impose a 3.5 per cent tax on remittance transfers sent by anyone who is not an American citizen, as part of his 'big beautiful' tax bill currently passing through Congress. The new tax would apply to an estimated 40m people in the US, including those with green cards or on working visas, and would include Britons working in America. The tax comes as part of broader legislation to cut down on illegal migration, and will make America the most expensive G7 country for workers to send money home from. The measure would effectively cut the amount of money being sent back home, experts say, hitting families that rely on remittances as an economic lifeline. Some countries in Latin America stand to lose as much as one per cent of their Gross National Income from the measure, research has estimated, with more money sent home from the United States than any other country in their world. The proposed tax also comes on top of sweeping cuts to US foreign aid which has already left large holes in the government budgets of many poor countries. Mexico stands to lose the most money in absolute terms, or around $2.6bn (£1.9bn) annually, according to modelling from the Centre for Global Development, a Washington-based global development think tank. But in terms of the proportion of their income, the worst hit will be El Salvador at just over 1 per cent, Honduras at 0.9 per cent and Jamaica at 0.7 per cent. Several African countries will also be badly hit, including the Gambia and Liberia. The centre said: 'For many countries, the remittance tax would be a further crushing blow after the recent cuts to US aid. 'For example, Liberia is a country heavily reliant on both foreign aid and remittances: a quarter of the country's foreign assistance came from the US, and remittances totalled more than three times Liberia's bilateral foreign aid in 2023. 'The US aid cuts were already projected to remove the equivalent of 2 per cent of GNI; even though it is small, the remittance tax will remove another 0.2 per cent.' Remittances sent back to Mexico have already fallen sharply, as Mr Trump has vowed to toughen up immigration enforcement and enact mass deportations. Mexico earlier this week said it had received 12 per cent less in April from a year earlier. Economists said the fall was due to a slowing US labour market and fear of deportation among immigrant workers. Gabriela Siller, director of economic analysis at Grupo Financiero Base, told Bloomberg: 'This was due to the fact that migrants in the United States are afraid to go out to work and send remittances because they could be deported.' Remittances are a huge part of the global economy, with the World Bank estimating that some $656bn (£484bn), equivalent to the GDP of Belgium, was sent home by workers abroad in 2023. The flow of money is deemed so important for development, that the United Nations has targets to bring the cost of remittances down by 2030. World Bank figures show that in the third quarter of 2024, the global average cost of sending a remittance of $200 (£148) was 6.62 per cent. The majority of that cost was taken up by fees to the provider, such as a bank, mobile phone app, or transfer firm like Western Union. The rest of the cost was due to foreign exchange margin. Looking at the G7 richest countries alone, the average cost to send money home was an average of 6.14 per cent, including 6.03 per cent in the US and 5.75 per cent in Britain. Mr Trump's new tax would put the US cost close to 10 per cent. Under the legislation, the tax would start in 2026 and hit anyone who is not a US citizen or US national, including green card holders and those visiting for work. Banks and money transfer services would collect the tax for every transaction and hand it on to the US Treasury, according to FXC Intelligence. Yet experts said the measure risked instead forcing large sums out of heavily regulated financial channels and into more informal underground routes which have no safeguards against money laundering, or criminal financing. The Atlantic Council this week said: 'Countries that have enacted punitive measures on cross-border payments and currency exchange have often undermined their own ability to combat financial crime, thereby weakening their economies and diminishing their foreign influence.' An original version of the bill wanted the tax to be set at five per cent, but it was cut back at the last minute. The current version is heading to the Senate and is expected to still face stiff opposition from transfer companies. Payments-industry trade groups representing companies like Western Union and Visa have written to Congress members saying the measure would hit migrants sending money back to relatives, on top of posing a greater money-laundering risk. The letter said: 'This provision would create a dangerous new precedent with respect to government overreach by invading the privacy of Americans, harming American businesses, and - for the first time - intruding on payment transactions between private individuals.' 'Everyday Americans would be asked to turn over sensitive identification information in order to use a regulated and licenced financial services provider to conduct ordinary, everyday financial transactions.'
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Musk didn't have to defeat the swamp, he had to defeat Maga and he failed
Elon Musk's mistake, it seems, was believing Republicans and Donald Trump when they told him they cared about America's debt. Just a week or so ago, when Musk was taking leave of the White House, he had a ceremony in which Trump praised him and his efforts, and gave him a pretty model of a key, saying he could come back any time. But now Musk has broken ranks and broken silence, calling Trump's only significant piece of legislation a sham. Musk's right. It is. But it might be too late to save America's fiscal position. For a hundred and thirty days, Musk and his boys prowled the bureaucracy, looking for fat to trim. They got access to databases and to bank accounts. They found – in their own estimation – hundreds of millions of dollars of, for instance, redundant annual subscriptions for unused software. And they were used as a battering ram and an excuse for many very dubious cuts, some of which will cost lives: cuts to USAID, cuts to disease prevention, cuts to things that cost very little but have such extraordinary externalities in terms of keeping African birth rates manageable by decreasing child mortality that cutting them is the falsest of false economies. But let's take Musk at his word. He wants to cut the budget so the US government can control its debt. Interest rates are rising – returning to historically normal levels. This is murder, it's death, it's failure, to countries like Britain and America who are currently borrowing more than ever before and running unsustainable deficits on top of that borrowing. Debt interest will drown us. Our states will collapse. Everything will cost more than it has ever cost. This is inevitable without a sound fiscal policy. But most Republicans only say they care about that in an election year. They want to increase spending in their districts. They want their favoured groups to get subsidies. They all have squeaky wheels in mind that need the grease. Trump's headline piece of legislation, the Big Beautiful Bill, is guaranteed to jack up American borrowing to end of the world levels. Musk correctly calls the bill a 'disgusting abomination.' He correctly says that those with conscience must 'kill the bill.' He threatened those Republicans in the House of Representatives who voted for the bill with primary challengers; he said they have betrayed their country and there will be consequences. But apart from three all House Republicans voted for the bill. Even a man as rich as Musk can't fund that many primary opponents. There is safety in numbers, particularly if you are exploding the national debt for selfish, short-term reasons of your own popularity. Musk is right. America's national debt is terribly large. He's right that the federal budget is insane and needs radical surgery. He's correct that the trend in American fiscal policy is one of deranged adding to the debt at all times. Correct, too, that democracy dies when the people – or the vested interests – discover they can vote themselves more money until the state capsizes. (The same thing has been happening in Britain since the First World War.) But Musk was wrong when he believed Donald Trump or those of his surrogates. Trump has declared corporate bankruptcy a number of times. He is continually receiving cash injections from supporters, from people who want things. His previous presidency precipitously increased America's national debt, even as – for most of those four years – the economy boomed and roared ahead. Trump loves debt. Trump loves borrowing. He'll borrow until the end. Musk ought to have learnt that lesson by now.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
British defence giant to make satellites for Trump's missile shield
British defence giant BAE Systems is to build satellites for a new American missile-tracking system that is poised to form part of Donald Trump's 'Golden Dome'. On Thursday, the FTSE 100 company said it had secured a $1.2bn (£880m) contract from the US Space Force to provide 10 satellites for the Pentagon's missile warning and missile tracking programme. The constellation will sit in a medium Earth orbit – between 1,000 miles and 22,000 miles above the planet's surface – and track threats including intercontinental ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles. It is eventually expected to form part of the US president's broader Golden Dome, a $175bn proposal to stitch together a network of land and space-based sensors and interceptors to shoot down missiles aimed at the United States. Lt Col Brandon Castillo, of the US Space Force, said the system being provided by BAE would 'provide accurate real-time information to decision-makers'. He added: 'This allows for additional resiliency in the missile warning and tracking satellite architecture.' The satellites will use infrared sensing technology and, along with another batch commissioned under the same programme, will have 'the ability to track hypersonic missile threats anywhere on the globe', Space Force said. They are planned for delivery from 2029 onwards. Mr Trump announced the Golden Dome plans last month, reviving an idea for a global missile shield that was first mooted by former president Ronald Reagan in the 1980s – dubbed 'Star Wars' at the time. The Reagan proposals have since been credited with kicking off a fresh arms race that piled fresh financial pressures on the Soviet Union before its eventual collapse. However, experts have questioned whether, even today, it is technically and financially feasible. The Trump administration's idea has also been partly inspired by the 'Iron Dome' missile shield used by Israel to defend itself against rocket attacks, over a smaller area. Interest in the system has grown amid fears about the capabilities of new hypersonic missiles developed by China and Russia, which American defence planners fear could slip through their defences in a conflict. Mr Trump has vowed that his system will be able to block all kinds of missiles, including nuclear weapons, using 'super technology'. 'This is very important for the success and even survival of our country. It's a pretty evil world out there,' he said last month.
