Americans are once again demanding higher standards for the food they eat, insisting that companies stop using chemicals known to harm health. But instead of listening to their customers, the world’s largest food and beverage companies have launched a “transparency” campaign – fronted by a longtime tobacco industry ally – and they are betting their old, tired political playbook will allow them to keep profiting from manufacturing unhealthy foods.
A wave of food safety bills across the U.S. – pushed by the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) coalition and others – has the ultra-processed food industry playing defense. Lawmakers in dozens of states have introduced at least 89 proposals this year seeking to restrict or ban synthetic dyes, chemical additives or ultra-processed foods. Their drive is based on strong scientific evidence tying ultra-processed foods to serious health concerns, especially cancer, obesity, Type 2 diabetes, dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and early death – and evidence showing that many ultra-processed foods are designed to be addictive.
Red and blue states alike are responding by advancing legislation to improve the quality of America’s food supply. Texas and Louisiana will require warning labels on foods containing any of more than 40 dyes or additives. California banned multiple food dyes from school lunches and was the first to ban ultra-processed foods from schools. Utah and Virginia approved similar restrictions on synthetic dyes in school meals. Arizona and West Virginia passed measures to reduce ultra-processed foods and chemical additives served to children.
Claiming ‘transparency’ to perpetuate business as usual
In this new political moment of invigorated consumer and public health movements, the food industry is dusting off strategies long associated with Big Tobacco – erecting front groups, casting doubt on evidence their products cause harm, and attempting to reframe the debate. Under banners like “Americans for Ingredient Transparency” and the “Good to Know Transparency Initiative,” big food and beverage brands are striving to position themselves as champions for our right to know.
But the real purpose of these campaigns is clear: to protect profits and evade stronger public health protections. Funded by General Mills, Kraft Heinz, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola and dozens of other food and beverage corporations and trade groups, the newly launched Americans for Ingredient Transparency (AFIT) is pushing for a federal law that would override tough new state-level food safety laws in favor of a weaker federal standard.
A look into the background of AFIT’s senior advisor and public spokesperson, Julie Gunlock, reveals the group’s real agenda. Gunlock has built a career on dismissing concerns about harmful food ingredients as “alarmism.” She publicly defends vaping, sugary junk food, hormone-disrupting chemicals in plastics, GMOs, and pesticides. She is director of the Independent Women’s Forum, a group that received money from tobacco firms and promoted e-cigarettes as beneficial to women.
Calling herself a “MAHA mom,” Gunlock argued in the Daily Caller that consumers should simply trust the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to keep their food safe. In other words, she’s promoting blind faith in a regulatory system long shaped by the very corporations trying to escape tougher rules.
AFIT’s other advisor, Andy Koenig, is a senior operative in the Charles and David Koch-organized political network – the same machine that has worked methodically to dismantle federal regulation of harmful industries. Koch foundations have poured millions into the Independent Women’s Forum, which presents itself as a champion of women’s freedom while railing against “big government.” Now, in an ironic twist, these same anti-regulatory voices are urging people to put their trust in the federal bureaucracy.
Their effort isn’t going well so far. After sustained pressure from MAHA moms and allied groups, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, a Republican from Kansas and chairman of the MAHA caucus, removed language that would have preempted state-level food-safety laws from a bill he is advancing. He told the New York Times, “I couldn’t believe how much pushback I got.”
Ignoring decades of science
Leading sugary beverage companies launched a related PR campaign this summer that employs another familiar deception: using the language of transparency to distract from growing scientific evidence of harm. Their “Good to Know Transparency Initiative” presents itself as an educational resource to help families make “informed choices.” But a closer look shows its real function: to reassure consumers about controversial ingredients, even where decades of independent research tie those ingredients to health harms.
For example, the site promotes the artificial sweeteners sucralose and aspartame as “safe and well-tested.” Yet a robust scientific record links these additives to diabetes, fertility problems, metabolic dysfunction, gut microbiome disruptions, and more. The World Health Organization classified aspartame as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2023, and advised consumers not to use artificial sweeteners for weight control. (Evidence shows sucralose and aspartame may actually increase appetite and cause weight gain.)
Recent poll: 69% of Americans believe foods containing pesticides or artificial dyes are unsafe to eat even when FDA approved.
But consumers won’t find this information on the Good to Know website. The site highlights only that sucralose and aspartame are approved as safe by the FDA.
Here again, food and beverage companies are ignoring a core problem: Public trust in the FDA is low and falling, in part because many ingredient reviews rely on industry-submitted data and outdated safety assessments. A recent Axios/Ipsos American Health Index poll found that 69% of Americans believe foods containing pesticides or artificial dyes are unsafe to eat even when they are approved by the FDA. Fewer than half said they trust current federal food safety standards.
Instead of addressing valid consumer concerns grounded in decades of science, these companies are asking the public to place faith in an agency that has too often served industry interests over public health.
Big food’s previous salvo against our right to know
The last time food companies opposed grassroots efforts for honest labeling, it didn’t work out well for the big brands. More than a decade ago, the largest pesticide and ultra-processed food companies poured over $100 million into campaigns to defeat four state ballot initiatives that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. After the first defeat in California (disclosure: we worked on that campaign), consumer groups called for a boycott of organic brands owned by the corporate funders of the anti-labeling effort.
Fearing brand damage, the companies secretly funneled millions of dollars in dark money through their trade group, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), to defeat a similar labeling initiative in Washington State. The scheme backfired. The GMA was caught, admitted wrongdoing, and paid a $9 million fine, one of the largest campaign finance penalties in U.S. history.
The scandal effectively destroyed one of Washington D.C.’s most powerful lobbying groups. Between 2016 and 2018, GMA lost half its revenue as major food companies fled the group “amid deep disagreements over how to handle thorny food policy issues,” Politico reported. “Every single major food company is struggling, in one way or another, to find solid footing in a marketplace where consumers are increasingly asking questions about what they’re eating.”
GMA soon rebranded to the Consumer Brands Association, promising a “consumer-first mindset.” But CBA is now backing the Americans for Ingredient Transparency campaign. The industry is once again ignoring consumer demands and falling back on its old playbook: denying its products cause harm, backing messengers who dismiss consumer concerns, and seeking to roll back state food safety laws, just as they did with GMO labeling.
In the summer of 2016, just days before Vermont’s first-in-the-nation GMO labeling law was set to take effect – as food companies were already printing new labels – industry lobbyists persuaded Congress to pass a weaker national standard that preempted Vermont’s law and banned states from enacting their own.
Dubbed the “DARK Act” by consumer groups (for Deny Americans the Right to Know), the law enabled companies to use vague “bioengineered” symbols or QR codes as labels, while exempting highly refined ingredients and most ultra-processed foods from labeling at all. (Just last week a federal court ruled that exemption is unlawful.)
All these years later, Big Food is hoping that the public will forget, and that Congress and the FDA will once again favor corporate profits over consumer demands for safer food.
But history shows that when companies bet against the concerns of their customers, they lose public trust that no amount of rebranding can buy back.