Latest / REAP/SOW / Live in DC – A Forked special event on MAHA momentum
Transcript
- This transcript was exported on 11/14/2025 - view latest version here Theodore Ross: Welcome to Forked, Food Politics in the MAHA age. I'm Theodore Ross, Editor-in-Chief of the Food and Environment Reporting Network, and I'm joined by my co-host, Helena Bottemiller Evich from Food Fix. This episode is a special one, a first-ever live taping. Helena and I are down in Washington, DC, along with 100 of our closest Forked friends talking all things MAHA. We're also joined by two special guests, Scott Faber, a Senior VP on Governmental Affairs from EWG, the Environmental Working Group, and Summer Barrett, a MAHA mom and influential lobbyist from West Virginia, who led the charge on that state's ban on food dyes. It's an in-depth look at the MAHA movement with two very different insiders. Helena, welcome back to Forked. I'm so glad that you're here at this live taping. How are you? Helena Bottemiller Evich: I'm doing well. How are you? Theodore: I'm doing pretty well. Why don't you tell everyone about these special guests that we have here? Helena: I didn't realize we never announced the special guests. This is really a surprise. This is great. I love it. First of all, I just want to say thank you all for being here. Thank you for listening to the podcast. So many friendly faces in here. It's great. It's also Veterans Day, so when we're taping this, we always tape about a week ahead of time. If any of you are veterans, thank you for your service. We have two very special guests today. This is actually-- well, I guess we've done collabs, but this is the first time we've had a panel for our podcast. We are really excited to have, I think, two very insightful guests about the political moment we're in. I often say that we're in this new era. It's not just that we're living in the MAHA era or the Make America Healthy Again era, which is obviously a big thing that's happening in the world right now. I actually think there's some really bigger political realignments that have happened around these issues with that have a lot of policy implications, and we're going to get into it. I think a lot of us are still trying to figure out what is this era that we're living in. We're going to try to get into that a little bit. We have two guests today. We have Summer Barrett, who is a lobbyist, a partner at Access Strategies, also a self-described MAHA mom. The reason Summer is here is that she was a driving force, if not the driving force, behind a really key piece of legislation, now law, in West Virginia. To ban synthetic food dyes and also some preservatives from food statewide. A first-in-the-nation bill. She really brings, I think, a lot of perspective about not just the MAHA movement, but the impact these state bills can have. Then, of course, we have Scott Faber here, who many of you may know here in Washington, who's the Senior Vice President of Government Affairs with the Environmental Working Group. I have to remember your full title. He's also a professor or teaches at Georgetown Law, and I think is one of the only consumer advocates who used to work for the food industry. Are there more of you than just- Scott Faber: There should be more. Helena: There's a few. Maybe not. I think you may be the only one. Scott: It's lonely. I might be. Theodore: That makes you a big food refugee. Helena: There you go. We're going to talk about this. I want you to get into your origin story. Scott used to work for then the Grocery Manufacturers Association, or GMA here in Washington. GMA does not exist anymore because it imploded after fights like GMO labeling and fights over nutrition. Fights that I covered a lot when I was at Politico. You have a unique perspective inside the food industry. You've been on both sides of these fights. Also, you're working a lot on the state bills and also here in Washington. Really good perspective here. Also, I don't know, you are MAHA aligned in your bills, but I don't think you consider yourself part of MAHA. We've got some different perspectives. Is that fair? Theodore: Is there a term for that? Is that MAHA curious, MAHA friendly? How would you term it? Helena: MAHA adjacent? MAHA aligned maybe? You are aligned on certain things. We're going to get into it. Just to kick us off, we're going to unpack where we are. Theodore: You don't have to have a term. If you have a term, you should use it now. This is a good time for it. You can think about it. Helena: Let's start with what are your origin stories? Who are you? How did you guys both come to this work? Summer, we're going to start with you. How did you get involved in this? How are you here now as someone who's spearheaded a first in the nation bill? That's actually changed food policy in the US because now everyone has to get synthetic food dyes out as of January 2028. There is some litigation, but mostly, yes. Summer Barrett: Thank you so much for having me. I guess my origin story goes back to the fact that first and foremost, I'm a wife and a mom. I have a three-and-a-half-year-old and a one-and-a-half-year-old. I guess prior to being a mom, I always considered myself, I guess I was talking earlier, crunchy-ish. I was a gym rat before being a mom, and I tracked everything that went into my body. I was always health-conscious. Becoming a mom really, I don't know, brought it to the forefront even more. I guess maybe a year, year-and-a-half ago, I started really delving into and researching what's in our food. I will admit, a lot of that was brought to light because of the MAHA movement. I'm probably the token Republican in the room. Maybe, I don't know. Maybe there's some others. Theodore: We could poll the audience again on that. You've heard of FERN. You've heard of Forked. Who wants to say that they're a Republican right now? Anybody? You can cheer. Helena: It's a bipartisan audience. For those who are not in the room, it's a bipartisan audience. Summer: I am very proud to be a MAHA mom, and I fully align with MAHA. Scott is probably a closeted MAHA. Theodore: There you go. Now we have the term. Helena: I love that. Summer: I am very boldly pro-MAHA. I am a MAHA mom. In that realm, I started to really focus on a lot of topics that people were talking about in that space and started to research. It's so interesting because a lot of the research comes from organizations like EWG. Those are not Republican organizations or MAHA organizations. They're based in science. Do you align politically really? No, you're bipartisan, non-partisan. Helena: I'm going to say Phoebe and- Summer: I'm going off on a tangent. All of that to say, I really began to delve into it deeper. I watched a documentary called To Die For. If you've not seen that yet, you should watch it. Whitney and Brandon K. Wood, I've come to know them really well over the last year. They were the creators of that documentary. When I watched it, I didn't know them. I just watched it because I was very interested in the topic. We were already removing dyes from our household, but I walked away from it inspired and had a burden for the children of my state. I don't know how much you know about the state of West Virginia, but unfortunately, it's very impoverished in many areas. We've been ravaged by the opioid epidemic. We have a foster care crisis. My children that live in my home, I'm more than willing to say, are privileged. They have something that most children in our state, unfortunately, don't have. They have a guardian reading every food label and researching ingredients and making sure that they have protein and fiber and good foods before they go to preschool. That's just, unfortunately, something most children don't have. I walked away from watching this documentary with a burden to help the children in my state that aren't as fortunate as my children. I took it upon myself that we're going to start to clean up our food supply in West Virginia. So those children that aren't as fortunate as my children have clean, healthy food also. In the last legislative session, I behind the scenes worked as a passion project. I didn't have a paid client. I just did it because I'm passionate about it. I helped push through the legislation that did become the first in the nation statewide ban on synthetic food diets. Helena: I meant to mention your bio because it's, I don't know, we don't always have to mention our husbands, but your husband is a state lawmaker. You had a partner in this to really- Theodore: Can I ask about that? Your husband is a state senator. He was part of introducing the bill. Did you have to convince him? Summer: Yes. Theodore: You were the one who-- Summer: I get told, "She was the driving force." All I did was say, "You need to watch this documentary. I think it will open your eyes to what we're doing in our house. Also, I want us to try to introduce some legislation to help the children in our state that don't have parents as fortunate as us." He watched the documentary and his eyes were opened to it. We had an experience with our son that I don't think it was directly from dyes, but it was certainly from Christmas treats last Christmas where, a three-year-old, he was unlike himself, unrecognizable for five days after having a lot of Christmas treats. My husband was like, "This is the food he's eating." I said, "Yes, it is 100% the food he's consuming." That opened his eyes on a personal level. Then he said, "What do we do?" I talked with Whitney and Brandon K. Wood, the people that did that documentary, and we got connected with EWG and introduced a piece of legislation. Originally, there was a bill in the Senate that tackled it in just school settings, and then a bill in the House that would be a statewide ban. Eventually, those got merged into one, and we got that across the finish line. We have both, a school ban that's already in effect, started this August. Our children are now going to school in West Virginia with no dyes being served to them in the cafeteria, which is amazing. In a couple of years, we'll see it removed from the state. Theodore: Can we also point out, and this is something that, Helena, you've brought up before, and a question of mine, West Virginia banning these dyes is not just West Virginia banning these dyes. It has a national impact. What is that national impact, and what do you make of that? Summer: I always mention the saying, I believe firmly that a rising tide lifts all ships. I think it has been amazing because the state of West Virginia only has 1.7 million people. The fact that we were able to pass a piece of legislation that is, without a doubt, now impacting national food. Every week, it seems like there's another company coming to the table to say, "We're going to make efforts to get rid of the synthetic food dyes in our foods." Now, I hope they hold true to that because there is no federal law making them do this right now. I hope more states follow suit and follow West Virginia's lead and ban it at the state level because that's the only way we can really hold them accountable and to actually ensure that they do remove the dyes from their food. Theodore: The ramification of that is because the food companies can't sell 50 different products in 50 different states. If West Virginia does it, everyone has to follow suit, essentially, which is what you normally hear about California. They are the big regulatory state. Typically, they set a policy, and the rest of the country follows it. I'm only saying that because of you. Summer: California make the case because they have a large economy. Theodore: They are big. Helena: Scott, tell us about your origin story. How did you go from working in the food industry to what you do now? Scott: I remember I was working for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. It's a trade association that represents all the big food companies. Helena: It was literally called Big Food in the headlines when we wrote at Politico. They really hated that. Scott: It was not getting the big food vanity plate. I missed out on that. It's probably too late. Helena: Missed opportunity. Who hasn't? Scott: I'm sitting in my office in 2011 at GMA. The science and regulatory team comes into my office, and they drop this paper on my desk. It's by these two people, Tom Neltner and Maricel Maffini, who were then scientists writing for the Pew Charitable Trust. They'd written, peer-reviewed, published this paper that showed that the thousands-- Tom's estimate was 10,000 chemicals that you're all enjoying, either here or while you're listening to this great podcast, had never been reviewed by anyone but the food chemical companies. I remember listening to them and thinking, "this is really bad," and thinking, "Well, we're going to do something about it, right?" Of course, at that time, no one in the food industry wanted to accept that FDA or anyone should be their regulator. It couldn't be any better for them. They could literally say, "Hey, does this chemical look good to you?" Their scientist or the consultant they'd hire would say, "Looks good." They could just put it in your food without even notifying the FDA. We subsequently learned that since 2000, 99% of the chemicals that have entered commerce to be added to your food have been reviewed for safety by the food chemical companies, not by the FDA. Guess what? Every time they review them, they're safe. Go figure. Theodore: They're generally regarded as safe. Scott: Generally regarded as safe. Yes. Helena: The lawyers would say they do have to have some evidence, but there is no transparency because they don't want to notify the FDA. Scott: They have their own podcast. It's run through Michigan State. You can listen to them. If you want to hear their take on this. Helena: I mean, yes, there is some nuance in that. The truth is they don't have to notify FDA. FDA does not know when grass substances are being added to the food supply unless the food industry voluntarily notifies them, which many of the bigger players do sometimes. Scott: We don't know because the companies- Helena: What year was that? Scott: That was 2011. Then shortly thereafter, I left GMA to work for the Environmental Working Group, which is a nonpartisan organization that has many more scientists than people like me. We decided to try to persuade, we being EWG, CSPI, EDF, Consumer Reports, a lot of other great organizations that you should also support, maybe not $4,500. That's pretty steep. Theodore: Well, this is a pretty Tony crowd. Scott: It is. They can go out and do it. Theodore: They can do it. Scott: We thought, "Okay, this is really F'd up. We're going to go talk to the FDA. We're going to persuade them because we're good looking and persuasive that they should actually review food chemicals before we eat them," which is actually what Congress intended when Congress passed the food additive amendments to the FDCA in 1958. Helena: It's also what consumers assume is already happening. Scott: Yes. Important point. Most of you are like, "What?" Or, "Huh?" No, I'm just kidding. After about five years, literally, of having meetings with FDA, with the nicest people, we realized this wasn't just a problem of the FDA not having enough resources, but a cultural problem. You don't have to take my word for it because something called the Reagan-Udall Commission did a whole report showing that the agency has this bias against action and simply wasn't able to get to know on, literally, thousands of chemicals that are no longer allowed in Europe, but you all are enjoying with your breakfast, lunch, and dinner. We realized after five years of really, really nice, polite, but pretty useless meetings that only the states were going to protect us. This isn't a partisan issue. It's not even a political issue. None of you who are watching or listening think, "Yes, I want more toxic stuff in my food. I want the chemicals in my food that they can't have in Canada or the UK or EU or Saudi Arabia or South Korea." We are so far behind the world that we're eating things that people in most other countries can't eat because they're bad for you. Instead of having yet another year or two years or five years of meetings, we reached out to folks in the states because the states are the only folks who have the power and, honestly, the determination to protect us. That's, again, not a partisan issue. Helena: Are you saying Congress isn't functional right now? Is that what you're saying? Are you suggesting that? Theodore: I don't think I'm breaking news. Helena: The government is still not funded, by the way, as of this taping, but it should be fixed. Theodore: Scott, I want to intervene a little bit. You say that it's not a partisan or a political issue, but it is a partisan and a political issue. Taking it to the states and working with the states means working with 50 different kinds of political systems and partisan ideas. How does your story fit into that? How do you meet? Scott: There are so many of us who've been working in different state legislatures, but I've been personally involved in 2025 in passing laws in five states to ban not just dyes but other toxic chemicals from food. Four of those states were red states. In California, those laws that have passed have been overwhelmingly bipartisan. I really don't think of these issues as partisan or even political issues. In fact, I remember sitting, I was testifying in Sacramento, and the Democrats on one end of the dais were sitting there going, "God, this really ought to be FDA's job. Yes, I hear you. They've been breaking the law for 67 straight years, but maybe this is the year when they're finally going to do their job that Congress gave them in 1958. This is complicated stuff, and maybe we should wait and see what happens." At the other end of the dais is a Republican senator. He's like, "That’s toxic. Why are our kids eating it?" Bang, gavel, over. I think people intuitively, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum, they just want safe food. They want to know somebody they can trust has reviewed it to make sure it's safe. They're not too happy that big chemical companies are deciding whether the chemicals we eat every day are safe. That's an issue that just cuts across all the usual divides in a way that's been fascinating. Theodore: I think it's popular across the entire spectrum of our partisan divides and our political divides. I do think, and maybe we'll get to preemption in a little bit, and we can talk about MAHA first since it comes up. One of the things, you're describing an FDA that didn't get all of these things done under Democratic control or either party's control. A lot of the things that you're describing, I think, have, and this is a term I've heard Helena use, they're left-coded. The banning- Helena: That you need to do more regulation. Yes. Theodore: The fact is, who's getting this stuff done right now is Republicans in ways that many Democrats, I think, are puzzled by. I'd like you both to take on this question. Why is it that the MAHA moms, and the red states are able to do this in a way that Democrats were not able to do. Summer: That's a good question. Scott: That's a great question. Theodore: $4,500 right there. Scott: Yes, really. He's definitely worth it. I'll just offer that one of the things that I think has gotten in the way of the federal government doing their job is a misinterpretation of the law, which has led FDA to think, "We can't ban things until we know for sure they're going to harm you." I'm sorry to play adjunct law professor. I know you're digging it. What the law actually says is if there's no longer a reasonable certainty that this chemical's safe, it shouldn't be in commerce anymore. What we've done, in 1958-- I was not around for this. I just want to be clear. In 1958, Congress had this really great insight, which is, "People are eating chemicals. Somebody ought to check to see if they're safe." It was this guy, James Delaney, great, famous, legendary congressman from New York. At the time, Congress imagined that we were going to make it really, really hard to bring new chemicals into commerce. We were going to make companies share all their science, show their receipts. The FDA was going to go through them all, make sure it all added up, and that perhaps 1% of all these chemicals would come in through this grass loophole that you've all now learned about. Helena: When they made it, baking soda and those common things wouldn't get tied up in red tape. Scott: Don't waste the government's time on things like this. Let's worry about the things that might actually hurt people. Helena: It was conceived of in a very logical way. Theodore: Are you saying that failure to change, and again, Summer, I want to hear you talk about this too, that failure to change is because Democrats, what? They were too respectful of regulation. They didn't think they had the political will. They're in the hands of lobbyists. What is the reason for this happening now? Scott: What happened was that over time, FDA adopted this view that we had to know with great certainty that something was harmful before we could remove it from commerce, which is clearly not what Congress intended in 1958. That view is so encoded in the DNA of every generation of FDA regulator and FDA attorney that they've lost sight of what the law actually did, which was to adopt a precautionary approach to say, "Hey, if we're not sure, then let's take it out of food. It turns out there are thousands of other things we can add to food that do the same thing, make it last longer, make it look great, make it taste great, make it smell great, whatever. This particular chemical may no longer be safe. Let's throw it overboard." Unfortunately, this generation after generation of FDA folk just embraced this view. There weren't folks of either party or any administration that were willing to say, "That's not what Congress meant." Helena: In a lot of ways, the politics here have just totally shaken everything up. They've just turned everything on the head. Now the states are going absolutely crazy. There's hundreds of bills. Not all of them are passing, but it's just the states are being flooded with legislation. They're saying FDA hasn't been doing their job. I'm curious, Summer, why do you think now, and a lot of it is driven by Republicans, some of it's not trusting the institutions. It really has turned, and there's been a realignment within Republicans specifically. We didn't have great polling on food additives across both parties 10 years ago, but I guarantee it looks very different now. Actually, the responses from Republicans and Democrats are really similar. These are similarly popular on both sides. Why do you think that is, that Republicans specifically have realigned on this? Theodore: As the one Republican in the room, you can now tell us. Summer: [laughs] Well, it's a great question. One note I was going to make was, I don't think it's a partisan issue, but it has become political. In my opinion, it was one of the reasons why Donald Trump won the 2020 election, this alliance between MAHA and MAGA. I know for a fact that there's a huge subset of the population that voted for him because of MAHA and nothing else. When Bobby Kennedy joined forces with him, there was an entire group of moms who believed passionately that Bobby Kennedy was committed to cleaning up our food and whatever other MAHA topic you want to talk about, but specifically food in this conversation. I will say I'm one of those people that really believe that he is genuine in his desire to clean up our food supply. I don't think it's for any political gain. I think the distrust portion comes into play a lot now with Republicans. I think things that happened during COVID have really built up a distrust of institutions among Republicans. I think both parties, but specifically Republicans, and there is a greater distrust of institutions like the FDA or the CDC or whoever. When you're talking from, you have that level of distrust, and then you also are hearing, there are 10,000 chemicals in our food that are banned in other countries, you tap into that level of distrust of the FDA. I think that's why there is success at the state level within red states, because they have that distrust of federal institutions. They think, "We know what we're doing here at our state level, we're closest to the people, and we can see positive change." Helena: Even if the food industry hates it, the populist, anti-institution, anti-corporate wave is bigger or rides that. Theodore: You mentioned RFK Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services. That leads us to a broader point about the MAHA movement itself that I think it'd be interesting to hear you talk about. When we talk about MAHA and we talk about RFK Jr., we're not just talking about food and cleaning up the food system, we are talking about vaccines and anti-vaccine policy and beliefs. One of the things we've seen looking at polling is that among Americans across the board, the food, changes to the food system, the food dyes, even things like raw milk, these are very popular. Raw milk is relatively popular. Summer: It's less. Theodore: It's less popular. Summer: From school meals, it's really popular. Theodore: It's very popular. Anti-vaccine policies are not. If you are part of a movement that has both of those things at the same time, I don't know, how do you deal with it? How do you address that when you are talking about food but also talking about vaccines at the same time? They can't be pulled apart. Summer: Can they not? Theodore: I don't think they can. That's my opinion. They can't be pulled apart. Summer: I've never been in a conversation about food chemicals, whether it's here in DC on the Hill or at the West Virginia State Capitol, and someone says, "Oh, but vaccines." That's just not a connection that I've experienced when people-- and you deal with many states, but I've never been involved in a conversation where we're talking about food chemicals and that connection is made to the movement or to policy in general. I think it's a separate issue. Sure, it falls under MAHA because of Bobby Kennedy's position or beliefs on them, but you can have one and not the other. I'm not anti-vax, and I am let's clean up our food supply. Theodore: That's why I asked because I think it's a challenging position to be in. Those are two very- Helena: It's a big tent. I think that makes it complicated and messy sometimes. Scott: Can I just offer that? I think one of the things that, Summer, you were saying that really resonated for me is that lots of folks mistrust the FDA, perhaps for different reasons. I know a lot of you who are here or listening are thinking, "Yes, we should really trust these institutions. It's really important that we have trust and faith in these institutions." The best way for people to have faith and trust in these institutions is for them to do their job. Personally, I would love the FDA to have more resources to review the safety of food chemicals. I live here. I don't live in Charleston, although we should talk. I live here because I really want the federal government to succeed and safeguard us from things like toxins in our food, in our water, in our air. My experience with FDA told me that this problem wasn't merely a problem of inadequate resources. It was a cultural problem. If FDA wants to earn my trust, they should do their job. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. I think a lot of people mistrust the FDA for a lot of reasons, but one of which is that they don't feel like the FDA has done enough to protect them. In some cases, they probably think the FDA hasn't done enough to level with them. I think a lot of this has to fall back on these agencies. Now might be the best time to rebuild trust in these agencies, but in the long run, these agencies need to do their job better, so that state legislators ultimately don't have to step in and protect us. Summer: If you're connecting the two, if they did their job when it comes to food chemical regulation, then perhaps there wouldn't be a level of distrust when it comes to vaccines. Theodore: I think that's a very interesting point, yes. Helena: Does distrusting on one issue, it makes you go, 'Well, what else are they not doing their job?" I will say, as a reporter, I've probably been, I don't know, harder on FDA than most. I did a huge investigation into the agency a couple of years ago, which actually happened to be during the infant formula crisis, which was a real black eye for the agency. All of that said, I think it is true that the FDA has never really been given the resources to commensurate with the job that they've been given. The food supply is so big. We're talking a trillion or two trillion, depending on how you measure it. The FDA foods program is really small compared to the job that we assume they're doing already. That's why it's such, I think, an uphill battle. You're right, it's not just resources, it's cultural, it's leadership. It's like some of it is that the FDA is buried deep in HHS and doesn't have a lot of oversight. Honestly, Congress really doesn't do a lot to really hold FDA's feet to the fire. I've seen that throughout my career reporting on it. I do think it's important to remember that there are some structural reasons. It's not just that they wake up and they're like, "Well, we don't want to review food chemicals." Some of it's funding, it's culture, it's structure. There's a lot of it. Then also, the political folks haven't cared about this. They weren't on the Hill. There weren't a lot of lawmakers that were dragging FDA up and being like, "Tell us what you're doing," until, honestly, the infant formula crisis hit. Then people were like, "What is FDA doing?" That shined a big bright light on the agency. I do want to make sure we get to preemption because that's one of the very big topics of the day. We're dancing around it. The food industry right now is trying to convince Congress to basically put FDA back in the driver's seat, to not have this patchwork of state rules to say, "We're not going to let all these states do what they want. We're going to put FDA back in control, and we're going to preempt or block what you passed in West Virginia and maybe some other labeling laws, depending on how it's written." Now, we're seeing MAHA push back really hard on this attempt to get this through Congress. This, I think, may end up being a big fight or may end up not being a big fight because we're seeing MAHA with some early wins. I want to just set the stage for folks in the room, what's going on right now and how big of a deal would it be for Congress to preempt state laws at this time? Summer: You want to start? Scott: You've all learned. What percent of food chemicals have been reviewed by the food chemical companies since 2000? 99%. 99%, that's right. Helena: You really are going in professor mode. Theodore: You've all faced the exam. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Scott: We all know that FDA, at least today and probably for the next few years, is not coming to the rescue. That means that other than the trial lawyers- Helena: Are there some trial lawyers in here? Okay. We're going to make them raise their hands. Scott: The only protection that we have from toxic chemicals in our food is states. That's it. Of course, they'll be coming after the trial lawyers as soon as they're done blocking the states from passing laws. This crazy federal system we have, at least when it comes to food chemicals, is there's no preemption, which means that states can pass laws to ban food chemicals, and that's not blocked in any way by federal law. What some in Congress are trying to do and what the food industry is raising millions and millions of dollars to persuade them to do is to repeal now about 120 laws that states have passed to ban PFAS from your food packaging and BPA from your baby bottles and synthetic colors and other toxic chemicals, to repeal about 120 laws that are already on the books, and then block states like West Virginia from passing new laws to ban some of the other chemicals that you're eating but that people in Canada and the UK and EU and Saudi Arabia are not eating. This is a really important fight for anyone who doesn't want toxic stuff in their food, which I think is everyone. I think all of us agree, except for the people who are lobbying for preemption. Did I get that right? They probably only get organic. Theodore: That's a good point. We should talk about some of the specifics of this. Helena: Specifically with West Virginia. You worked really hard to fight the food industry to the nail in West Virginia, and then the idea that Congress would block or get rid of the law that you put on the books. Theodore: In a bill sponsored by a Republican from Kansas. Scott: We're going to talk about that. Yes. Helena: As of today, MAHA-- maybe we should explain that. MAHA pushed back really hard on this idea that there would be preemption in Congress. Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas, has a bill that came out last week that was going to include preemption and some grass reform and some other food additive reform measures. Preemption was really why the food industry, the idea that they would support that. He got so much pushback from MAHA moms and other advocates that he pulled the preemption language from that. I called it MAHA winning round one of the fight. We'll see where it goes. How big of a deal would it be for you? You push that boulder uphill, and then to watch Congress, and maybe a Republican in Congress, block or get rid of your law. Summer: When you started talking about it and telling us this is potentially coming, we started lobbying on the Hill and talking to, specifically me, talking to Republican members. In every conversation, I would say, "This is completely counter what we believe in as Republicans. You understand that, right? We believe in states' rights and federalism. That's a founding principle of The Republican Party. I just don't understand why this is even a topic of consideration." Helena: What would they say when you said that? Summer: Well, you're talking to staffers most of the time. They're like, "Of course, my boss is very pro-federalism." Helena: They're not being paid right now. Summer: They clearly listened because they went back and told their bosses, "There are tons of Republican advocates coming to us saying, we cannot do this because this is completely counter to what we believe in." You're right. We think we won this round of the battle, but I'm sure there's more to fight. For us, it would mean completely undoing everything we've done. I always talk about that we know what our people want because we're closest to the people. When you're a state legislature or you are a lobbyist at the statehouse, you're far closer to knowing what your citizens want than the folks in DC. Unfortunately, I don't think they listen as well as state lawmakers do. We know the federal government's been shut down for 42 days now. Is that where we're at? Helena: As of this taping, but we hope the federal government will be reopened by the time this airs. No guarantees. Summer: I don't know, it's an unusual beast. I really don't enjoy lobbying at the federal level that much because you don't see change. I can't imagine being a federal lawmaker and actually being one of the ones that wants to accomplish something because you're just beating your head against the wall most of the time. At the state level, you can really see change, and we did. The thought of Congress preempting and telling the states that they can't protect their own citizens from chemicals in your food or your water or your air, it's insane. The concept of it is truly insane. That's what Big Food and Big Drink and Big Ag has convinced some of these members that this is dangerous. That's what they tell them. They've told them this is dangerous for states to have a patchwork of laws on the books and we can't keep up with it. We can't make food for one state and not in the other. It's pure tactic. Helena: It's chaotic. Summer: It's also fear-mongering because, trust me, they make food for Europe and Canada and other countries without these chemicals. They can easily send those, or they could just not poison the entire country and send it to everyone. Theodore: I think getting to fear-mongering, unless you have one quick point to get, we have to get to our next and last segment. Do you want to talk a little bit about fear-mongering? Scott: No. Fun fact. All of your favorite store brands, the store brands, the great value brand, and when you shop at-- well, none of you shop at Walmart, but you know what I mean. Helena: That's not true. People shop at Walmart. Scott: I love Walmart. Walmart's great. All of those brands- Summer: They seem to be great because they are removing their chemicals. Scott: Yes. They're removing more chemicals from their store brands, as have HEB, Publix, all of the major retailers, than any of the states have. Look, if you need evidence that these big food manufacturers can remove these chemicals, the evidence is right there on the shelves already. All of the store brands have removed more of these chemicals than states have forced them to take out of the name brands that we all love. Helena: A lot of the name brands are saying they're going to comply by 2028, but also there's some litigation. We'll see. Although I don't know that how-- you're the law professor. I think it's an uphill battle for them to strike down West Virginia's law, because there isn't explicit preemption in law already. Scott: The food industry is going to spend whatever it takes to try to knock out this leg of the stool. They have succeeded in really preventing the FDA from keeping you safe. Now that folks like West Virginia and Utah and Texas and Louisiana and Arizona and California and other states are protecting you, they're going to knock out that leg of the stool. Then they'll come for the tort lawyers who are going to come after them as well. I know because I helped write that playbook when I worked for the food industry. There's no doubt they're going to do everything they possibly can to try to preempt laws that protect you, knowing full well that no one's coming to the rescue at FDA. Theodore: I'm going to shift gears a little bit now that you painted that somewhat dark picture of what could happen. One of the things that you- Helena: First of all, I think the politics have shifted so much since you wrote that playbook that I'm not sure if that playbook's going to work. I really think there's open questions about that. We'll see. You're right. They are running. They're running a very similar playbook. Yes. Theodore: Normally on an episode of Forked, we try to end with a note of hope, something called the good vibes. This is something that Helena and I have to think up within the food system and within food politics that we can take a note of hope about, something that's encouraging. Frankly, it's the hardest thing that we have to think of every two weeks when we do the taping. What we've decided to do this time, since we have our special guests, who are also our guinea pigs, they are going to give us our good vibes. What you got? Helena: Anything in the news, study, a book. What's a good book? What's giving you hope right now? Scott: What's giving me hope is that so many folks, regardless of party, are coming together to try to address the risk that these chemicals pose to us every day. I know some of you are wondering, "Food dyes? Really?" The answer is that when California state scientists looked at this question and published a 300-page report looking at animal studies and human studies of what happens when kids actually eat these dyes, they found that some kids do suffer from the neurobehavioral harms that these dyes can cause. What gives me hope is that these aren't political issues, they're not partisan issues, they're just safety issues. People across the political spectrum all agree that our food should not have any of this stuff. It's totally unnecessary, totally cosmetic, doesn't make our food safe, doesn't make our food last longer. We have plenty of safer alternatives. I'm just so grateful that legislators are putting aside the usual politics to work together. Summer: I agree. Theodore: That's it? That's your hope? Helena: You said you had a specific. Summer: I had a specific. I like that. You mentioned earlier my-- what is it called? Theodore: You're a good match. Summer: I was going to just briefly mention that I am hopeful about Operation Stork Speed, which is an effort to clean up our formula in the United States. I think it's relevant because of the botulism outbreak that has happened with one line of formula. From my perspective as a mom with tiny children, I tried breastfeeding and we did for a few months, but then had to move to formula with both kids because of some intolerance of cow's milk and various other things. I had to order. I special ordered my formula from Europe. I just think that it's so wrong that moms in America, if you don't have access to buy your formula from Europe, you are stuck with what's on our shelves at Target or Walmart or wherever you're going. I just think it's a sad reality. I'm hopeful about an effort to clean up my formula. Theodore: What does the program do? Maybe you could tell us about it. Summer: It is an effort of the FDA and Secretary Kennedy to clean up the formula. Helena: Another thing FDA has not done for a while, for decades, we haven't updated actually what's required to be in formula, like the nutrition standards. They allow a lot of things in it that shouldn't be in it. The FDA also did convene a really top-notch panel of scientists. The top scientists in the space. It was a very nuanced, very scientific conversation. I think amid all of this churn and concern about the extent to which this administration always follows the science, on infant formula, they really assembled a really top-notch team. I think everyone involved in that space actually really supports the idea that they're going to take a hard look at that because it's been so long since we have updated the nutrition requirements. Theodore: That is a good vibration. We should get somebody else to come up with these every time we do a podcast because they came up with something. I think we're coming towards the end. I just wanted to say thank you to both of you for being our first special guest. I thought you were terrific. I learned a lot. Helena, I'm going to do what I always do before I sign off. Tell us about this newsletter you do. I hear it's pretty good. Helena: If you're not already on the list, you should read my newsletter. It comes out twice a week or once a week. If you're on the free list, foodfix.co. Get on the list. Just go to Food Fix. You can also Google Food Fix newsletter and find it. If you're into food politics, it's very wonky, but also fun. That's the goal. Thank you, guys, all for being here. It's been really fun to hear from so many people who listen to the podcast. Love it. Thanks for being here you guys. Theodore: Thank you very much. I appreciate you being here. Scott: Thank you. Theodore: Forked is a production of the Food and Environment Reporting Network. Our executive producers are me, Theodore Ross, and Tom Laskawy. Our sound engineer is Lauryn Newson. Our producers and video producers are Maya Okindo and Katie Gardner. Our hosts are Helena Bottemiller Evich and me, Theodore Ross. To find out more about FERN and donate to support our independent nonprofit reporting, go to www.thefern.org. [00:46:35] [END OF AUDIO] Forked ep.11 11.18.25_mixdown.mp3 (Completed: 11/14/2025) Transcript by GoTranscript.com