logo
Food dye ban, whole milk in schools part of Pa. Republicans' MAHA push

Food dye ban, whole milk in schools part of Pa. Republicans' MAHA push

Yahoo27-05-2025
This story first appeared in How We Care, a weekly newsletter by Spotlight PA featuring original reporting and perspectives on how we care for one another at all stages of life. Sign up for free here.
Republican lawmakers concerned about nutrition quality in Pennsylvania schools have introduced bills that would ban food dyes and allow whole milk, changes they argue will improve student health.
Similar legislation introduced in recent sessions did not advance, but one sponsor of the latest measures told Spotlight PA she thinks growing public concerns about processed food can help the bills pass.
Improving child nutrition has become a GOP plank as Robert F. Kennedy, the U.S. health secretary, has criticized food policy as part of his 'Make America Healthy Again' effort.
Last week, a long-awaited report from a MAHA commission chaired by Kennedy declared, 'The health of American children is in crisis,' and listed synthetic additives and 'ultra-processed foods' as key contributors.
State lawmakers expressed similar urgency: 'Our food is literally killing us,' reads the memo for the Healthy PA Package, which includes the food dye proposal.
Critics argue some of these regulations are unnecessary given existing state and federal consumer protections. And they question the scientific basis of the proposals.
Title: Healthy Student Act
Prime sponsor: State Rep. Natalie Mihalek (R., Allegheny)
Summary: This bill would ban public schools from purchasing or serving foods containing certain synthetic food dyes.
Mihalek, a parent, told Spotlight PA that the proposal was inspired by 'keeping track of what my kids are buying in the cafeteria.'
She thinks current food offerings are unnecessarily limited. 'The reality is, there are so many more choices — so many healthier choices — out there. There's really no reason to be selling artificial dyes to our kids,' Mihalek said.
Her bill targets six petroleum-based synthetic dyes — Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 — and would not allow foods containing them to be sold on school grounds 'during the school day,' including in vending machines. The bill does not specify consequences for failing to comply or detail how the ban would be enforced.
Mihalek hopes that a growing interest in healthier diets, spurred by Kennedy's political rise, will help move the bill to the governor's desk.
'This is just something that came to the forefront and now everybody's talking about it,' Mihalek said.
Kennedy has received backlash for his wavering positions on the safety of vaccines and his leadership of the federal health system. In recent months, thousands of public health workers have been laid off under a restructuring he's helmed.
The dyes included in Mihalek's bill are approved by the FDA, but Kennedy announced last month that he plans for the agency to begin pushing companies to 'voluntarily phase out' the chemicals.
Other states have enacted similar measures in recent years. California and West Virginia ban the same synthetic food dyes from food in schools, or more broadly.
While there is no definitive proof that synthetic dyes directly cause behavioral issues, some studies have suggested a link between artificial food coloring and hyperactivity and anxiety in certain children.
The proposed prohibition wouldn't take effect until July 2027, a timeline Mihalek said would give school districts time to prepare and identify alternative vendors before the changes are implemented.
Spotlight PA reached out to the Pennsylvania School Boards Association about the impact that the proposal would have on districts, but a spokesperson declined to comment.
Mihalek introduced the measure as part of a broader package of bills focused on food safety and public health. The package includes bills targeting food labeling and ingredients for all Pennsylvanians, including one that would mandate disclosure of the above dyes for any food product sold or manufactured in the commonwealth.
The healthy students bill has been referred to the state House Consumer Protection, Technology, and Utilities Committee, but has not been brought up for a vote.
The Democratic-led committee recently held a hearing on food policy that included a discussion of a potential ban on artificial food dyes, indicating growing interest in advancing related legislation.
Business representatives opposed such a ban during the hearing, arguing it would impose unnecessary regulations.
'At the end of the day, this is all done while no meaningful improvement in public safety outcomes is made,' Aaron Riggleman of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry said at the hearing. 'Because the ingredients have already been reviewed and thoroughly vetted by the FDA.'
Title: Whole Milk in Pennsylvania Schools Act
Prime sponsor: State Sen. Michele Brooks (R., Mercer)
Summary: This bill would allow Pennsylvania schools to purchase and serve whole and 2% milk produced within the state.
Currently, Pennsylvania schools can only offer 1% or non-fat milk, a restriction stemming from a 2010 federal law. The law was aimed at reducing childhood obesity and improving overall nutrition, but Brooks argues whole milk was unnecessarily restricted.
'Thirty years ago, 35 years ago, kids weren't nearly as obese … and we drank whole milk. There was literally cream on top of the milk,' Brooks told Spotlight PA. 'I think there's other ways that we can work on [this.]'
Whole milk contains more calories and saturated fat than non- and low-fat milk. But it also has higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, which are beneficial for brain development and heart health.
Brooks wants to give school districts the option to purchase whole milk, and noted that the bill would not require them to do so.
She said that she's heard from her constituents that kids routinely throw away skim milk because they don't like the taste, adding that it is 'somewhat absurd that [the regulation] was done in the first place.'
A range of lawmakers, including Brooks, have proposed this legislation multiple times, but such a proposal has never made it far in the legislative process.
Currently, the bill is awaiting consideration in her chamber's Education Committee.
While the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, which represents farmers, has previously supported the measure, school districts have remained silent. A PSBA spokesperson declined to comment on the organization's position.
If you learned something from this article, pay it forward and contribute to Spotlight PA at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability journalism that gets results.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

America's openness leaves Mahmoud Khalil free — to abuse our freedoms
America's openness leaves Mahmoud Khalil free — to abuse our freedoms

New York Post

time17 minutes ago

  • New York Post

America's openness leaves Mahmoud Khalil free — to abuse our freedoms

It's a shame we're still debating whether Mahmoud Khalil should be kicked out of the United States, because this hateful zealot should never have been allowed to step foot on American soil in the first place. Khalil, the former Columbia University graduate student who became a poster boy for critics of President Donald Trump's deportation policies, is back in the headlines this week for all the wrong reasons. In a high-profile interview with The New York Times' Ezra Klein, Khalil made a mockery of those who have insisted he's a well-intentioned humanitarian without animus toward anyone. 'It felt frightening that we had to reach this moment in the Palestinian struggle,' he said of Hamas' barbaric Oct. 7 attack on innocent Israeli civilians. Klein asked the gentlest possible follow-up: 'What do you mean we had to reach this moment?' 'Unfortunately, we couldn't avoid such a moment,' Khalil repeated. In a manner that would have been comical were it not for the horrific subject matter, Klein — ever so eager to vindicate his vile guest — afforded Khalil one more chance to describe the largest mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust in a way that didn't make it out to be a vital but tedious chore. But Khalil tripled down. It was, he said, a necessary evil to 'break the cycle' and 'tell the world that Palestinians are here,' you see. This came just weeks after Khalil refused not once, not twice, but three times to condemn Hamas when he appeared on CNN. 'I simply asked and protested the war in Palestine,' he said of the antisemitic uprising he helped lead on Columbia's campus. 'That's my duty as a Palestinian, as a human being right now, is to ask for the stop of the killing in my home country.' Critics exploded with righteous anger. 'Mahmoud Khalil has not been shy about his support for Hamas — a brutal terrorist organization that violently attacks innocent men, women, and children,' observed White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. 'Calling the massacre of Israeli civilians a 'desperate attempt' is not political speech — it's moral depravity,' submitted NY state Assemblyman Ari Brown of Nassau County. 'Mahmoud Khalil must be immediately deported,' Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) declared. 'He is a chief pro-Hamas terrorist agitator.' The Trump administration has already tried. When Secretary of State Marco Rubio launched deportation proceedings against Khalil in March, he did so by claiming the then-student's anti-Israel protests on Columbia's campus 'undermine US policy to combat antisemitism around the world and in the United States.' Yet even many of Khalil's critics chafed at the federal government targeting a legal resident and green card holder for offensive speech — and a New Jersey court forced his release. The First Amendment is, after all, among Americans' most cherished inheritances. Many free-speech champions expressed reasonable concern that removing Khalil might open the door to a slippery slope of censorship. That concern, though, elides the all-important threshold question: Why was Khalil ever allowed into the United States at all? There are legal, prudential and philosophical arguments for granting all legal residents the powerful protections of the First Amendment. But there's nothing in the Constitution — nor embedded in our longstanding American values — that compels this country to admit hateful ideologues. Khalil is a 30-year-old man harboring palpable bigotries ('Having lived in the Middle East most of my life, unfortunately, the only Jew you hear about is the one who's trying to kill you,' he explained to Klein), and a tribal loyalty that blinds him to the basic moral principles underpinning American life. Not to mention his unfriendly feelings toward the United States itself. 'I had my own reservations about the impact of America on me,' he told Klein smugly. 'As a Palestinian or as a Syrian refugee in Lebanon, America's influence in the Middle East was very negative.' The United States is an open-minded, benevolent nation predisposed to accepting people of myriad cultures from across the globe. That's an honorable instinct, and most of the time it's the right one. But a line has to be drawn to protect the national interest. And if that line is so weak and vague as to permit the entry of someone unable to condemn kidnapping, torture, murder and rape for political purposes, it's no line at all. It's 'Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,' as Emma Lazarus put it. Not 'Give me your bigots, your knaves / Your privileged yearning to drive Jews into the sea.' Now that he's here, Khalil has the right to promote his hateful, anti-American worldview in as many 'progressive' media outlets as are willing to amplify it. But he does so as a living testament to both the virtues of America — and the failures of its immigration system. Isaac Schorr is a staff writer at Mediaite.

A look at colleges with federal money targeted by the Trump administration
A look at colleges with federal money targeted by the Trump administration

Chicago Tribune

time17 minutes ago

  • Chicago Tribune

A look at colleges with federal money targeted by the Trump administration

Several elite U.S. colleges have made deals with President Donald Trump's administration, offering concessions to his political agenda and financial payments to restore federal money that had been withheld. Ivy League schools Columbia, Brown and the University of Pennsylvania reached agreements to resolve federal investigations. The Republican administration is pressing for more, citing the deal it negotiated with Columbia as a 'road map' for other colleges. There is a freeze on billions of dollars of research money for other colleges including Harvard, which has been negotiating with the White House even as it fights in court over the lost grants. And on Friday, a White House official said the Trump administration is seeking a $1 billion settlement from the the University of California, Los Angeles. Like no other president, Trump has used the government's control over federal research funding to push for changes in higher education, decrying elite colleges as places of extreme liberal ideology and antisemitism. Here's a look at universities pressured by the administration's funding cuts. Columbia said on July 23 that it had agreed to a $200 million fine to restore federal funding. The school was threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support, including more than $400 million in grants canceled earlier this year. The administration pulled the money because of what it described as Columbia's failure to address antisemitism on campus during the Israel-Hamas war. Columbia agreed to administration demands such as overhauling its student disciplinary process and applying a federally backed definition of antisemitism to teaching and a disciplinary committee investigating students critical of Israel. Federal officials said the fine will go to the Treasury Department and cannot be spent until Congress appropriates it. Columbia also agreed to pay $21 million into a compensation fund for employees who may have faced antisemitism. The deal includes a clause that Columbia says preserves its independence, putting in writing that the government does not have the authority to dictate 'hiring, admission decisions, or the content of academic speech.' An agreement last month calls for Brown to pay $50 million to Rhode Island workforce development organizations. That would restore dozens of lost federal research grants and end investigations into allegations of antisemitism and racial bias in Brown admissions. Among other concessions, Brown agreed to adopt the government's definition of 'male' and 'female' and remove any consideration of race from the admissions process. Like the settlement with Columbia, Brown's does not include a finding of wrongdoing. It includes a provision saying the government does not have authority to dictate Brown's curriculum or 'the content of academic speech.' The Trump administration suspended $584 million in federal grants to UCLA, the university said this week, after the Department of Justice said the college had violated civil rights 'by acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.' On Friday, a White House official said the Trump administration was seeking a $1 billion settlement from the university. The official was not authorized to speak publicly about the request and spoke on the condition of anonymity. UCLA is the first public university to have its federal grants targeted by the administration over alleged civil rights violations. Under a July agreement resolving a federal civil rights case, Penn modified three school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas and said it would apologize to female athletes 'disadvantaged' by Thomas' participation on the women's swimming team. The Education Department investigated Penn as part of the administration's broader attempt to remove transgender athletes from girls and women's sports. As part of the case, the administration had suspended $175 million in funding to Penn. The administration has frozen more than $2.6 billion in research grants to Harvard, accusing the nation's oldest and wealthiest university of allowing antisemitism to flourish. Harvard has pushed back with several lawsuits. In negotiations for a possible settlement, the administration is seeking for Harvard to pay an amount far higher than Columbia. The White House announced in April that it froze more than $1 billion of Cornell's federal funding as it investigated allegations of civil rights violations. The Ivy League school was among a group of more than 60 universities that received a letter from the Education Department on March 10 urging them to take steps to protect Jewish students or else face 'potential enforcement actions.' Like Cornell, Northwestern saw a halt in some of its federal funding in April. The amount was about $790 million, according to the administration. The administration this week froze $108 million in federal money for Duke. The hold on funding from the National Institutes of Health came days after the departments of Health and Human Services and Education sent a joint letter alleging racial preferences in Duke's hiring and admissions. Dozens of research grants were suspended at Princeton without a clear rationale, according to an April 1 campus message from the university's president, Christopher Eisgruber. The grants came from federal agencies such as the Department of Energy, NASA and the Pentagon.

Smithsonian restores Trump to impeachment display in American history museum
Smithsonian restores Trump to impeachment display in American history museum

Boston Globe

time17 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

Smithsonian restores Trump to impeachment display in American history museum

The statement said that the interim sign, which had been in place from September 2021 until this July, was removed because it was not consistent with other sections of the exhibit and blocked the display case. 'We removed it to make way for a more permanent update to the content inside the case,' the Smithsonian said. The removal drew swift outcry from some members of the public as well as several Democratic leaders. The Smithsonian Institution has faced growing concerns about political interference at the education and research complex amid the Trump administration's efforts to exert more control over its work. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer called the removal 'pathetic' during Senate floor remarks last week. 'You can't make this up,' he said. 'This is a man rewriting history - or thinking he can rewrite history. He can't, but he thinks he can.' Advertisement The Smithsonian said last week that no government official asked them to remove content from the exhibit. It also said that no other changes had been made at the museum. In a statement, Lindsey Halligan, a White House official charged with scrutinizing 'improper ideology' at the Smithsonian, reiterated that the White House wasn't involved with the revision. 'That said, it's encouraging to see the institution taking steps that align with President Trump's Executive Order to restore truth to American History. As part of that truth, it's important to note that President Trump was acquitted twice by Senate, fully and on every count - a fact that belongs in the historical record.' Some edits to the display's text are evident, including the addition of the word 'alleged' in the placard's description of the conduct that led to Trump's first impeachment. The display's main panel was also updated to reflect include Trump's name alongside Andrew Johnson, Richard M. Nixon and Bill Clinton. Of Trump's first impeachment, the impeachment display now reads: 'On December 18, 2019, the House impeached Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The charges focused on the president's alleged solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election and defiance of Congressional subpoenas. Trump was acquitted in January 2020.' The temporary placard had read: 'On December 18, 2019, the House impeached Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The charges focused on the president's solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 presidential election and his defiance of Congressional subpoenas. President Trump was acquitted in January 2020.' Advertisement Trump is the only president to have been impeached twice. In 2019, he was charged by the House with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his attempts to withhold military aid meant for Ukraine and pressure its government to investigate his political rival Biden. He was acquitted by the Senate in 2020. Then, just over a year later, Trump was impeached again, on a charge of incitement of insurrection following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He was acquitted a second time, after leaving office. Of his second impeachment, the display reads: 'On January 13, 2021, Donald Trump became the first president to be impeached twice. The charge was incitement of insurrection based on his challenge of the 2020 election results and on his speech on January 6. Because Trump's term ended on January 20, he became the first former president tried by the Senate. He was acquitted on February 13, 2021.' The temporary placard had read: 'On January 13, 2021, Donald Trump became the first president to be impeached twice. The charge was incitement of insurrection, based on repeated 'false statements' challenging the 2020 election results and his January 6 speech that 'encouraged - and foreseeably resulted in - imminent lawless action at the Capitol.' Because Trump's term ended on January 20, his acquittal on February 13 made him the first former president tried by the Senate.' Since returning to the White House in January for his second term, Trump has attempted to exert influence over prominent cultural institutions, including by taking over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, making drastic changes at the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and imposing budget cuts on the National Park Service. Advertisement In March, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate 'divisive narratives' across the Smithsonian museums and 'restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.' Months later, he attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, for being a 'highly partisan' person - though he had no authority to do so. The White House provided a list of 17 instances it said supported the president's claims about her, including the caption for the museum's presidential portrait of Trump mentioning his two impeachments and 'incitement of insurrection.' Early Friday afternoon in the 'American Presidency' exhibition, visitors milled about the display case. Some had been aware of the Trump text's removal. 'I heard it was taken out, and I came here to see it,' said Jodi Lindstrom, 49, visiting from Minneapolis. 'I don't think it's a good idea for the president to have a say over what is history. … You can't erase it. It's what happened. So I'm very happy to see it back in.' Following The Post's reporting about the change, the Smithsonian said it would restore Trump to the impeachment display 'in the coming weeks.' 'It does say four now,' said Ed Burk, 75, of Washington, D.C., leaning in to examine the display. But he wasn't satisfied by the alterations. 'Clinton gets a little more attention. Why not something as big for Donald Trump?' Mindy Kiser, 52, visiting from Wichita, had not previously heard about the exhibition's alterations. Advertisement 'It's disappointing to know that the museum may have caved to outside influences but also reassuring to know that they did the right thing and restored whatever they took away,' Kiser said. Her eyes lingered on the other items in the display case, and then the Trump text, displayed low with two small artifacts: admission to the Senate gallery for impeachment proceedings. 'The fact that he's been impeached twice, it does seem to be a little bit smaller, in my opinion,' she said. But 'in these days, we should just be happy that it's represented at all.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store