Can a new package of bills make Pennsylvania healthy again?

(The Center Square) – Pennsylvania has joined the chorus of states expressing dissatisfaction with federal food regulations.

Republican Rep. Natalie Mihalek of Pittsburgh is leading a bipartisan effort to pass the “Healthy PA” package of bills.

“We cannot afford to sit around and wait for something to change. Our food is literally killing us,” wrote Mihalek.

In an informational meeting of the House Consumer Protection, Technology and Utilities Committee Tuesday, representatives spoke with food safety advocates and representatives of the food industry about the pros and cons of proposed legislation.

Much of the conversation centered around what many view as the failure of the federal government to properly regulate chemical food additives through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Researchers say that additives like certain dyes, brominated vegetable oils, and pesticides are closely linked to adverse health outcomes, but remain in the food supply unchecked. Meanwhile, many of them are banned, restricted, or include warning labels in other countries.

Synthetic food dyes, which are byproducts of coal and petroleum, have come under particular scrutiny due to evidence that they contribute to behavioral issues in children. Despite concerns dating back to the 1970s and the availability of viable natural alternatives, they’ve remained a mainstay of processed foods in the average American diet.

“My interest in food dyes came to me when I realized that Red Dye No. 3 was banned in cosmetics since 1990, and it wasn’t till 2025 that it was banned from food,” said Rep. Warner, R-Connellsville. “Explain to me how that is possible in the United States of America.”

For Tom Neltner, a food chemist and attorney who is now the national director of the organization Unleaded Kids, the answer is simple. He says the FDA is threatened with civil action if they make a determination that impacts the food business, and they’re overwhelmed by a host of different priorities and requests.

“I’m here to tell you that the U.S. food additive regulatory program is fundamentally broken,” said Neltner. “The agency doesn’t actually know what’s going into food.”

The U.S. has relied on a voluntary disclosure system in which corporations are allowed to self-identify their products as “generally recognized as safe” per a 1958 law, bypassing the testing and approval most consumers assume chemicals to have undergone before being fed to the public.

“We’re trying to protect the Pennsylvania consumer who does not have access to that information,” said Mihalek. “We’re asking for transparency.”

In the name of transparency, the Healthy PA package includes a bill that would establish a database of the scientific research manufacturers use to justify their food safety claims. Additionally, bills would require the labeling of products containing endocrine disruptor Butylated Hydroxyanisole, warning labels for products with synthetic food dyes, and creating a statutory definition for ultra-processed foods within the Agriculture Code.

Aaron Riggleman, on behalf of the Pennsylvania Chamber’s Government Affairs team, contended that the public already has access to that information through food labeling and publicly available research, and additional regulations would hamper business in the state.

Still, critics say any American who wants to eat healthy may have a hard time accessing safe foods and has a reasonable expectation that places like school cafeterias aren’t feeding their kids dangerous chemicals. One of the bills would ban the use of food dyes in school lunches.

“In regard to healthy lifestyle choices, there’s no lack of information. There’s lack of implementation,” said Dr. Meagan Grega, a family doctor and fellow of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.

Research shows humans turn to ultra-processed foods for several reasons, including the fact that their chemical makeup hijacks the brain’s reward system and creates patterns akin to addiction. But they also say, it’s about availability. In rural and urban communities, many consumers are left in “food deserts” without readily available and easily affordable nutritious options.

Even as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s appointment to the role of Secretary of Health and Human Services has stirred conversation about food safety, federal action to improve the situation remains slow. As a result, states have taken the matter up on their own terms. West Virginia and California have enacted bans starting with school lunches and expanding to statewide sales, while Virginia has enacted a ban of dyes in school lunches.

Riggleman insisted that “a fragmented state by state patchwork of rules” would make it difficult for Pennsylvania businesses to operate, forcing them to change their business models, though he insisted the interests of the people he represents put safety over profits.

“Our opposition is not rooted in opposition to public health,” said Riggleman.

All the same, he spoke in opposition to a package of bills including one that would ban Paraquat, a chemical used on Pennsylvania farms that has been positively linked to the development of Parkinson’s disease. According to Meg Ringler of the Michael J. Fox Foundation, for those living in the rural “Parkinson’s belt” of the state, exposure to Paraquat doubles a person’s chances of developing the disease.

“Farmers are not the villains here,” said Jeff Tkach, CEO of Rodale Institute, whose organization promotes organic farming practices. “It’s imperative to understand the difference in organic and conventional production methods and the well-documented risks associated with agricultural chemical exposures.”

Tkach noted that the chemicals commonly used in conventional farming are widely believed to cause cancer but can be avoided with different methods. One of the bills included in the package incentivizes farmers to use cover crops, which are a highly effective yet time consuming tool to fight erosion and runoff while limiting the need for pesticides.