From Nutrition to Nannying: Texas SB 25 and the New Public Health Overreach

By Jeffrey A. Singer of Cato. Excerpt:

"A group representing 60 members of the food industry wrote a letter to Texas lawmakers urging them to reject the bill, arguing it “could destabilize local and regional economies at a time when businesses are already fighting to keep prices down, maintain inventory, and avoid layoffs.” The Consumer Brands Association stated in a letter to Governor Abbott urging him to veto the bill:

The ingredients used in the US food supply are safe and have been rigorously studied following an objective science and risk-based evaluation process. The labeling requirements of SB 25 mandate inaccurate warning language, create legal risks for brands and drive consumer confusion and higher costs.

Emerging research links certain ingredients in ultra-processed foods to health risks, but the science is still in its early stages. Most evidence comes from animal or observational studies, which cannot prove cause and effect. Ingredients can vary significantly across products, and factors such as dose, frequency, and individual susceptibility complicate the identification of specific harms. Additionally, it’s challenging to separate the effects of one ingredient from those of others in these complex food mixtures.

Like the architects of the now-discredited Food Pyramid, the MAHA movement—and Texas lawmakers—are rushing to judgment based on assumptions and intuition. But policy should follow evidence, not vibes.

More significant than any economic costs or unintended health effects is the bill’s substantial expansion of government control over personal choices. My book, Your Body, Your Health Care, emphasizes the importance of individual autonomy and illustrates how, in recent decades, government overreach has increasingly eroded the relationship between patients and their health care providers.

A key idea in liberal thought is the harm principle, laid out by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty. He argued that the only reason to limit someone’s freedom is to prevent harm to others—not for their own good. This principle frequently arises in policy debates about health and safety, where the government intervenes not to protect people from themselves but to reduce harm to others, such as secondhand smoke or contagious diseases."