Many candies contain Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6. They are among the food dyes banned in West Virginia by a measure signed into law in March. Such bans are just one example of how the "Make America Healthy Again" movement has made inroads in state legislatures. (Photo by Carol Johnson/Stateline)

This article first appeared on KFF Health News.

When one of Adam Burkhammer’s foster children struggled with hyperactivity, the West Virginia legislator and his wife decided to alter their diet and remove any foods that contained synthetic dyes.

“We saw a turnaround in his behavior, and our other children,” said Burkhammer, who has adopted or fostered 10 kids with his wife. “There are real impacts on real kids.”

The Republican turned his experience into legislation, sponsoring a bill to ban seven dyes from food sold in the state. It became law in March, making West Virginia the first state to institute such a ban from all food products.

The bill was among a slew of state efforts to regulate synthetic dyes. In 2025, roughly 75 bills aimed at food dyes were introduced in 37 states, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Chemical dyes and nutrition are just part of the broader “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Promoted by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., MAHA ideas have made their deepest inroads at the state level, with strong support from Republicans — and in some places, from Democrats. The $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program — created last year as part of the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act to expand health care access in rural areas — offers incentives to states that implement MAHA policies.

Federal and state officials are seeking a broad swath of health policy changes, including rolling back routine vaccinations and expanding the use of drugs such as ivermectin for treatments beyond their approved use. State lawmakers have introduced dozens of bills targeting vaccines, fluoridated water and PFAS, a group of compounds known as “forever chemicals” that have been linked to cancer and other health problems.

In addition to West Virginia, six other states have targeted food dyes with new laws or executive orders, requiring warning labels on food with certain dyes or banning the sale of such products in schools. California has had a law regulating food dyes since 2023.

Most synthetic dyes used to color food have been around for decades. Some clinical studies have found a link between their use and hyperactivity in children. And in early 2025, in the last days of President Joe Biden’s term, the Food and Drug Administration outlawed the use of a dye known as Red No. 3.

Major food companies including Nestle, Hershey  and PepsiCo have gotten on board, pledging to eliminate at least some color additives from food products over the next year or two.

“We anticipate that the momentum we saw in 2025 will continue into 2026, with a particular focus on ingredient safety and transparency,” said John Hewitt, the senior vice president of state affairs for the Consumer Brands Association, a trade group for food manufacturers.

This past summer, the group called on its members to voluntarily eliminate federally certified artificial dyes from their products by the end of 2027.

“The state laws are really what’s motivating companies to get rid of dyes,” said Jensen Jose, regulatory counsel for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit health advocacy group.

Andy Baker-White, the senior director of state health policy for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, said the bipartisan support for bills targeting food dyes and ultraprocessed food struck him as unusual. Several red states have proposed legislation modeled on California’s 2023 law, which bans four food additives.

“It’s not very often you see states like California and West Virginia at the forefront of an issue together,” Baker-White said.

Although Democrats have joined Republicans in some of these efforts, Kennedy continues to drive the agenda. He appeared with Texas officials when the state enacted a package of food-related laws, including one that bars individuals who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — SNAP or food stamps — from using their benefits to buy candy or sugary drinks. In December, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved similar waivers sought by six states. Eighteen states will block SNAP purchases of those items in 2026.

There are bound to be more. The Rural Health Transformation Program also offers incentives to states that implemented restrictions on SNAP.

“There are real and concrete effects where the rural health money gives points for changes in SNAP eligibility or the SNAP definitions,” Baker-White said.

In October, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that sets a legal definition for ultraprocessed foods and will phase them out of schools. It’s a move that may be copied in other states in 2026, while also providing fodder for legal battles. In December, San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu sued major food companies, accusing them of selling “harmful and addictive” products. The lawsuit names specific brands — including cereals, pizzas, sodas and potato chips — linking them to serious health problems.

Kennedy has also blamed ultraprocessed foods for chronic diseases. But even proponents of the efforts to tackle nutrition concerns don’t agree on which foods to target. MAHA adherents on the right haven’t focused on sugar and sodium as much as policymakers on the left. The parties have also butted heads over some Republicans’ championing of raw milk, which can spread harmful germs, and the consumption of saturated fat, which contributes to heart disease.

Policymakers expect other flash points. Moves by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that are making vaccine access more difficult have led blue states to find ways to set their own standards apart from federal recommendations, with 15 Democratic governors announcing a new public health alliance in October. Meanwhile, more red states may eliminate vaccine mandates for employees; Idaho made them illegal. And Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is pushing to eliminate school vaccine mandates.

Even as Kennedy advocates eliminating artificial dyes, the Environmental Protection Agency has loosened restrictions on chemicals and pesticides, leading MAHA activists to circulate an online petition calling on President Donald Trump to fire EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin.

Congress has yet to act on most MAHA proposals. But state lawmakers are poised to tackle many of them.

“If we’re honest, the American people have lost faith in some of our federal institutions, whether FDA or CDC,” said Burkhammer, the West Virginia lawmaker. “We’re going to step up as states and do the right thing.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

A small cannabis plant. (Photo by Getty Images)

President Donald Trump’s administration is looking “very strongly” at reclassifying cannabis from the strictest category of controlled substances, Trump said Monday.

In a brief affirmative response to a reporter’s question in the Oval Office, the president confirmed he is considering a reclassification of marijuana to unlock research funding.

“A lot of people want to see it — the reclassification — because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify,” Trump said. “So we are looking at that very strongly.”

Marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Food and Drug Administration’s classification of controlled substances. The FDA defines drugs on the list, such as heroin and cocaine, as lacking any medicinal value and carrying a high likelihood of abuse.

The designation carries a host of consequences, including a virtual ban on funding research for medicinal or other uses of the drug.

While marijuana use, both medicinal and recreational, is legal in many states, it remains illegal to possess or use in any amount for any reason under federal law.

Advocates have sought for decades to legalize or decriminalize the drug, which many see as less harmful than other Schedule I substances.

The growing split in recent years among many states and federal law has ramped up pressure on federal policymakers to alter the drug’s legal status.

Marijuana businesses in states where it is legal lack access to financial institutions, which cannot lend to businesses considered illegal by federal authorities.

States, meanwhile, have had difficulty regulating the environmental and health aspects of their industries.

And lawmakers, especially Democrats, have increasingly highlighted the frequent injustice of marijuana prosecutions that disproportionately affect communities of color and poor communities, though the drug is widely used across race and economic status.

A billboard advertises an artificial intelligence company in San Francisco in September. California is among the states leading the way on AI regulations, but an executive order signed by President Donald Trump seeks to override state laws on the technology. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

State lawmakers of both parties said they plan to keep passing laws regulating artificial intelligence despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to stop them.

Trump signed an executive order Thursday evening that aims to override state artificial intelligence laws. He said his administration must work with Congress to develop a national AI policy, but that in the meantime, it will crack down on state laws.

The order comes after several other Trump administration efforts to rein in state AI laws and loosen restrictions for developers and technology companies.

But despite those moves, state lawmakers are continuing to prefile legislation related to artificial intelligence in preparation for their 2026 legislative sessions. Opponents are also skeptical about — and likely to sue over — Trump’s proposed national framework and his ability to restrict states from passing legislation.

“I agree on not overregulating, but I don’t believe the federal government has the right to take away my right to protect my constituents if there’s an issue with AI,” said South Carolina Republican state Rep. Brandon Guffey, who penned a letter to Congress opposing legislation that would curtail state AI laws.

The letter, signed by 280 state lawmakers from across the country, shows that state legislators from both parties want to retain their ability to craft their own AI legislation, said South Dakota Democratic state Sen. Liz Larson, who co-wrote the letter.

Earlier this year, South Dakota Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed the state’s first artificial intelligence law, authored by Larson, prohibiting the use of a deepfake — a digitally altered photo or video that can make someone appear to be doing just about anything — to influence an election.

South Dakota and other states with more comprehensive AI laws, such as California and Colorado, would see their efforts overruled by Trump’s order, Larson said.

“To take away all of this work in a heartbeat and then prevent states from learning those lessons, without providing any alternative framework at the federal level, is just irresponsible,” she said. “It takes power away from the states.”

Trump’s efforts

Thursday’s executive order will establish an AI Litigation Task Force to bring court challenges against states with AI-related laws, with exceptions for a few issues such as child safety protections and data center infrastructure.

The order also directs the secretary of commerce to notify states that they could lose certain funds under the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program if their laws conflict with national AI policy priorities.

Trump said the order would help the United States beat China in dominating the burgeoning AI industry, adding that Chinese President Xi Jinping did not have similar restraints.

“This will not be successful unless they have one source of approval or disapproval,” he said. “It’s got to be one source. They can’t go to 50 different sources.”

In July, the Trump administration released the AI Action Plan, an initiative aimed at reducing regulatory barriers and accelerating the growth of AI infrastructure, including data centers. Trump also has revoked Biden-era AI safety and anti-discrimination policies.

The tech industry had lobbied for Trump’s order.

“This executive order is an important step towards ensuring that smart, unified federal policy — not bureaucratic red tape — secures America’s AI dominance for generations to come,” said Amy Bos, vice president of government affairs for NetChoice, a technology trade association, in a statement to Stateline.

As the administration looks to address increasing threats to national defense and cybersecurity, a centralized, national approach to AI policy is best, said Paul Lekas, the executive vice president for global public policy and government affairs at the Software & Information Industry Association.

“The White House is very motivated to ensure that there aren’t barriers to innovation and that we can continue to move forward,” he said. “And the White House is concerned that there is state legislation that may be purporting to regulate interstate commerce. We would be creating a patchwork that would be very hard for innovation.”

Congressional Republicans tried twice this year to pass moratoriums on state AI laws, but both efforts failed.

In the absence of a comprehensive federal artificial intelligence policy, state lawmakers have worked to regulate the rapid development of AI systems and protect consumers from potential harms.

Trump’s executive order could cause concern among lawmakers who fear possible blowback from the administration for their efforts, said Travis Hall, the director for state engagement at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for digital rights and freedom of expression.

“I can’t imagine that state legislators aren’t going to continue to try to engage with these technologies in order to help protect and respond to the concerns of their constituents,” Hall said. “However, there’s no doubt that the intent of this executive order is to chill any actual oversight, accountability or regulation.”

State rules

This year, 38 states adopted or enacted measures related to artificial intelligence, according to a National Conference of State Legislatures database. Numerous state lawmakers have also prefiled legislation for 2026.

But tensions have grown over the past few months as Trump has pushed for deregulation and states have continued to create guardrails.

In 2024, Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed the nation’s first comprehensive artificial intelligence framework into law. Under the law, developers of AI systems will be required to protect consumers from potential algorithmic discrimination.

But implementation of the law was postponed a few months until June 2026 after negotiations stalled during a special legislative session this summer aiming to ensure the law did not hinder technological innovation. And a spokesperson for Polis told Bloomberg in May that the governor supported a U.S. House GOP proposal that would impose a moratorium on state AI laws.

Trump’s executive order, which mentions the Colorado law as an example of legislation the administration may challenge, has caused uncertainty among some state lawmakers focused on regulating AI. But Colorado state Rep. Brianna Titone and state Sen. Robert Rodriguez, Democratic sponsors of the law, said they will continue their work.

Unless Congress passes legislation to restrict states from passing AI laws, Trump’s executive order can easily be challenged and overturned in court, she said.

“This is just a bunch of hot air,” Titone said. “It doesn’t hold any water and it doesn’t have any teeth because the president doesn’t have the authority to supersede state law. We will continue to do what we need to do for the people in our state, just like we always have, unless there is an actual preemption in federal law.”

California and Illinois also have been at the forefront of artificial intelligence legislation over the past few years. In September, California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the nation’s first law establishing a comprehensive legal framework for developers of the most advanced, large-scale artificial intelligence models, known as frontier artificial intelligence models. Those efforts are aimed at preventing AI models from causing catastrophic harm involving dozens of casualties or billion-dollar damages.

California officials have said they are considering a legal challenge over Trump’s order, and other states and groups are likely to sue as well.

Republican officials and GOP-led states, including some Trump allies, also are pushing forward with AI regulations. Efforts to protect consumers from AI harms are being proposed in Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah.

Earlier this month, Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis also unveiled a proposal for an AI Bill of Rights. The proposal aims to strengthen consumer protections related to AI and to address the growing impact data centers are having on local communities.

In South Carolina, Guffey said he plans to introduce a bill in January that would place rules on AI chatbots. Chatbots that use artificial intelligence are able to simulate conversations with users, but raise privacy and safety concerns.

Artificial intelligence is developing fast, Guffey noted. State lawmakers have been working on making sure the technology is safe to use — and they’ll keep doing that to protect their constituents, he said.

“The problem is that it’s not treated like a product — it’s treated like a service,” Guffey said. “If it was treated like a product, we have consumer protection laws where things could be recalled and adjusted and then put back out there once they’re safe. But that is not the case with any of this technology.”

Stateline reporter Madyson Fitzgerald can be reached at mfitzgerald@stateline.org.

The November Farm Foundation® Forum, Growing Together: Trends and Transformation in U.S. Agriculture Labor, highlighted some of the findings from a recent multi-day symposium that explored the future of the U.S. agricultural workforce. The symposium, held by Farm Foundation and the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, aimed to convene a network of researchers and stakeholders to engage in productive discussions focused on farm labor issues. The primary goal was to strengthen and enhance ongoing farm labor research.

This forum highlighted the critical importance of farm labor to the competitiveness of US agriculture, particularly for labor-intensive commodities like fruits and vegetables. The discussion was moderated by Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, and featured panelists: Philip Martin Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Davis; Andrew Padovani, senior research associate with JBS International; and Alexandra Hill, assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

The Forum covered a wide range of topics, including wage rates and competition, legislative and regulatory challenges, litigation and legal actions, mechanization and labor alternatives, and economic and demographic trends.

Numerous Issues to Consider

One point brought up was that there has been no significant agricultural labor reform since 1986, making it difficult to address current labor issues. Farmers must also contend with many new regulations, including those related to wage rates and worker protection. The impact of the Adverse Effect Wage Rate and competition with countries like Mexico was also discussed.

One solution to rising labor costs is a push toward mechanization, which brings about its own set of questions around adaptation to this change. In some cases, robotic harvesters are not yet fast enough or inexpensive enough to replace human hand pickers, but the gap may be closing fastest for crops like apples.

The H2-A program was also a large part of the discussion. The use of H-2A workers is increasing, but the program’s costs and regulatory requirements are significant. The anticipated impacts of the incoming administration on the potential for ag labor reform was also briefly discussed during audience question and answer session.

Overall, the Forum underscored the urgent need for comprehensive agricultural labor reform to ensure the sustainability and competitiveness of US agriculture. The discussions highlighted the complex interplay of wage rates, regulatory challenges, and the need for mechanization and alternative labor sources.

The two-hour discussion, including the audience question and answer session, was recorded and is archived on the Farm Foundation website. 

The post Farm Foundation Forum Underscores Need for Comprehensive Agricultural Labor Reform appeared first on Farm Foundation.