During webinar, Loren Israelsen, founder and president of the United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA), zoomed out on the wider implications of state legislation concerning unhealthy foods, highlighting that most legislative actions, primarily in Republican-led states, focus on food dyes and additives deemed unhealthy, with West Virginia and Texas taking notable steps.
Looking back at the 2025 legislative session, the UNPA team shared some key insights.
“It should be no surprise to anyone that 100% of the states that introduced or passed legislation are Republican states,” Israelsen said.
“All of them have a supermajority where the Senate and the House are Republican. Arizona is an exception where they have a united Republican Senate and House and a Democratic governor. I would certainly call it ‘MAHA territory.’ So it should not surprise that these are the states that are going after the MAHA-related issues and agenda, unlike New York, New Jersey and Virginia.”
He described two groups, with the first from MAHA territory, mostly focused on dyes and food additives. The second group, he noted, on the opposite side of the political spectrum, is made up of blue states focused more on restricting sports nutrition and weight loss products to minors.
“Then we get to the dietary supplement states, for age restrictions, for weight loss and muscle building supplements,” he said. “So far, New York, Virginia, Jersey introduced a bill, but that didn’t pass, but we expect it to come back next year. Texas has introduced a bill, New Hampshire, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, also [have done] similar things, so that has become a real hotspot for the other associations.”
While Israelsen acknowledged the second group, the webinar would focus more on the first—a group that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared to rustle up out of the woodwork.
MAHA moms emerge
Israelsen detailed how Secretary Kennedy essentially woke up a very large community on the campaign trail, which would become known as MAHA moms.
“The active community is thought to be between 10 and 15 million people,” he said.
“More urban and suburban than rural, more independent. Some republican, some democrats. They represent an unusual political ideology, which is more centrist, but one which is all about, ‘let’s get it done, and we don’t care who gets it done, but something has to change. Our diet is terrible. Our kids are sick. Our land and soil is dirty and polluted.’ RFK read the signals right and he brought that group to life.”
The movement mirrors UNPA’s prior DSHEA experience, Israelsen said: “As we went out to talk about health freedom for dietary supplements, we did not know going into it that it would create such a large populist movement, and we are seeing the same thing again.”
He added that this group of 10 to 15 million MAHA moms will be a very critical voting bloc in next year’s midterm elections and that they have already helped to fuel a very fast-paced slew of legislation. Due to FDA’s regulatory processes that take more time, pressure was put on states to take action—a move that Israelsen called a “risky strategy.”
“Encouraging the states to pass legislation that normally is for FDA…creates the obvious problem of all of these different states with laws that are all somewhat different that would require different labeling practices,” he said
He pointed to Texas, which proposed a warning label for many additives, referencing regulations in the UK, Canada and Australia. He expressed concern over Texas’s intent to adopt international regulatory practices, suggesting it could undermine local standards. Notably, Texas dietary supplements were exempt from certain warning requirements, while new labeling laws for cell-cultured and insect-based meats emerged in South Dakota and Utah.
As political dynamics shift, local state laws threaten to complicate public health regulations, leading to a patchwork of differing labeling practices across the nation.
“We could end up with 35 different state laws that affect the labeling of foods and probably dietary supplements in a number of cases, and that would require creating 35 sets of labels in order to remain in compliance,” Israelsen said.
How we got here
At first, all the fast-paced action in the states seemed remarkable, but upon reflection, Israelsen said it all makes sense.
Along the campaign trail, Secretary Kennedy held rallies and spoke with a number of lawmakers, asking them to pass food labeling legislation to get rid of unhealthy chemicals and foods.
“And for the Secretary of HHS to openly tell states to pass laws that have historically been the jurisdiction of FDA, I think is unique, it never happened before, but it had the desired effect,” Israelsen said.
“The states acted and it was essentially as if it was a signal from the White House to the governor’s mansions and the legislatures of supportive states: ‘you go up and you can do it fast’ and that’s exactly what they did.”
Israelsen noted that lawmakers can now take credit for taking effective action in a significant number of states in a relatively short amount of time.
“Usually you get a year, sometimes two years for compliance, but wow, when you see these very, very short dates of months, not only is that a nightmare for industry, but it is intended to satisfy those that want to see action,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘our kids are growing up, but they’re going to be 15 years old by the time anybody gets legislation passed in Congress, if ever.’ So hence this tremendous activity within the states.”
During a March 2025 press conference, Secretary Kennedy credited West Virginia’s passage of HB 2354, which banned several food dyes and additives, for providing leverage for food companies to come to the table.
“When I went and spoke for the first time, and I met with the heads of all the food industry companies, one of the things that they said to us is that the worst thing for us is if we have a patchwork of legislation in all these different states,” Kennedy said. “Those bans have given us leverage to make demands in the food industry.”
“So they knew going in what the effect would be, which is to complicate the regulatory process for industry, but it accomplishes the political objective,” Israelsen said.
The current landscape underscores the growing tension between lawmakers and industry practices, setting the stage for what is shaping up to be significant changes in food regulations.
“To what degree now is this movement bringing big food closer to natural foods? And how will this be in the eyes of the consumer?” Israelsen asked.
