|
The Make America Healthy Again movement is sweeping through statehouses as legislators seek to restrict certain food additives, bar food stamp users from using benefits on sugary foods and limit the use of some ingredients in school meals.
This year’s legislative sessions are just in their early stages, but proposals introduced so far indicate continuing legislative interest in conversations over food ingredients, school lunches, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program waivers that circulated in statehouses last year.
For instance, additional states are considering requesting waivers from the Agriculture Department to limit SNAP purchases of certain foods and drinks. Last year, 18 states secured approval to bar a varying mix of products, including soda, candy and other sugary foods.
In Alabama, one bill filed this year seeks approval to request a SNAP waiver to bar the purchase of soda, energy drinks, candy and prepared desserts with SNAP benefits. Meanwhile, an Indiana bill would request SNAP prohibitions for energy drinks, sweetened beverages, soft drinks, chips, and prepared desserts, while allowing for purchases of unfried or unbreaded hot prepared chicken.
Similarly, a Mississippi measure looks to bar the use of SNAP benefits for candy and soft drinks, while bills in New Jersey and South Dakota seek to do the same for soft drinks. A Washington measure seeks to bar purchases of both candy and sweetened beverages from SNAP.
Food additives and ingredients also appear to be a point of interest for legislators this year.
So far in 2026, bills relating to food additives have been filed in Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York, West Virginia, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, according to a summary from Caprock Strategies, a lobbying firm. Some of these look to bar certain additives, while others aim to impose new labeling requirements.
A Hawaii bill seeks to bar the manufacture, sale, and distribution of food containing petroleum-based synthetic dyes and synthetic chemical additives by early 2027. Three measures have been proposed in Indiana — two of which would bar certain additives and dyes, while another would require warning labels disclosing ingredients not recommended for human consumption by international authorities.
School meals also a focus
Some bills target the use of certain ingredients in school meals, like one filed in New York, one filed in Georgia, one in Kansas, and one in Wisconsin. One Indiana bill would prohibit public schools from serving foods with certain ingredients on school days, while a Virginia bill would allow school boards to restrict the sale of caffeinated beverages in schools.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse here.
A New Jersey bill would provide 10% tax credits for food establishments that purchase locally grown or manufactured ingredients, with credit limits capped at 50% of tax liability and carry-forward options for 20 years, according to the Caprock Strategies summary.
One Hawaii bill would require a “WARNING: Excessive sugar” label on products containing 25 grams or more of added sugars per serving. A Rhode Island bill would require liquid beverages sold in the state to halve added sugars by 2030. In New York, a proposed bill would prohibit television advertisements for junk food from being shown between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m.
John Hewitt, senior vice president of state affairs for the Consumer Brands Association, told Agri-Pulse that last year, his organization followed about 150 food bills, many of which focused on additives and labeling. He believes the Trump administration’s MAHA agenda drove some of the increased interest and expects that interest to continue into 2026. 
John Hewitt (LinkedIn photo)
“There is no one-size-fits-all bill that has been applied and adopted in each of these individual states,” Hewitt said. “They've all taken a slightly different approach.”
In 2025, states approved a number of bills targeting food dyes and chemicals. In Texas, lawmakers passed a bill requiring that food manufacturers provide a warning label for 44 ingredients.
California passed a law establishing a statutory definition of ultra-processed foods and phasing out use of those foods in schools, as well as one that bars schools from serving foods that contain certain chemicals.
The Texas law is being challenged in federal court in Texas by the American Beverage Association, National Confectioners Association, FMI-the Food Industry Association and CBA. A pretrial conference is scheduled for Feb. 25.
Still, the differences in between proposals could pose challenges for food manufacturers, Hewitt noted. He said CBA is part of the Americans for Food Ingredient Transparency, which is seeking “a single national standard on ingredient transparency.”
“Any time that you create a patchwork of regulatory and legislative mandates that you know in one state allow certain ingredients and don't allow others, that creates a manufacturing and logistics supply chain challenge,” he said. “But more importantly, it creates consumer confusion.”
According to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, 20 bills have been adopted in 28 states regarding food chemicals. Among these are an Arizona bill that restricts public schools from serving certain ultraprocessed foods and food dyes during the normal school day, an Arkansas bill that bars food manufacturers from using potassium bromate and Propylparaben, and a Tennessee bill that bars schools from serving food with Red 40.
Melanie Benesh, vice president of government affairs for EWG, told Agri-Pulse that around 30 states introduced food chemical legislation last year and expects this year, “that number will only continue to grow.”
Melanie Benesh (LinkedIn photo)“You see a lot of commonality,” she said of the varying bills. “You see a lot of the same colors being addressed, a lot of the same chemicals being addressed. That's because, I think there is a fairly small universe of chemicals where there's agreement that these are the chemicals of concern.”
She noted that on top of legislation targeting the use of certain dyes or chemicals, some states have also looked at requiring tests and public disclosure of heavy metal levels in baby food.
Olivia Lucanie, a policy manager for Torrey Advisory Group, has also noticed the emergence of some bills related to raw milk. She noted that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has talked publicly about his consumption of raw milk.
One South Dakota lawmaker filed a bill on Friday to allow raw milk sales at farmers markets and retail stores owned by the milk producers, so long as they are not located on the farm itself. Another bill initially introduced in Michigan last November would allow farmers to sell unpasteurized milk directly to consumers.
