Displaying 10 results for

Policy Trends Shaping Healthy Food and Chronic Disease in 2026 Policy Trends Shaping Healthy Food & Chronic Disease in 2026 Learn about policy trends shaping healthy food and chronic disease in 2026, such as regulating ingredients and modifying SNAP. A growing focus on links between nutrition and public health outcomes is driving legislative efforts across the country, with states actively responding to rising rates and the cost of chronic disease. As state legislatures consider ways to combat chronic diseases, they are also implementing policies aimed at addressing the food environment by introducing and enacting bills that regulate ultra-processed foods (UPFs), adjust SNAP benefits, and improve access to healthy food. Regulating Food Ingredients and Ultra-Processed Foods While efforts to define and regulate UPFs are still in development at the federal level, several states have decided to move forward with legislation targeting the use of specific artificial dyes and chemical preservatives in food products. West Virginia enacted HB 2354, prohibiting the sale or manufacturing of any food containing a list of specified dyes and certain preservatives. Similarly, Vermont is considering H 260, and New York is considering companion bills S 1239/A 1556. These bills aim to ban the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food containing a core group of chemicals (e.g., potassium bromate, propylparaben, and Red 3). Meanwhile, North Carolina introduced HB 440, which would prohibit additional color additives and ban the sale of food products containing nine specific dyes and chemicals. Pennsylvania introduced HB 1134, which focused on warning labels and would require foods with dyes Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, or Yellow 6 to include a label that states, “This product contains synthetic colors, which may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children.” Leg Prospectus-2026 - CD - CA Restricting Ingredients in School Meals While previous years have focused on access to school meals, a growing wave of recent state legislation aims to eliminate UPFs, synthetic dyes, and chemical preservatives from children's diets. Several states have enacted or advanced bans on specific chemical additives in school meals: Utah’s HB 402 and Virginia’s HB 1910 prohibit schools from offering food containing common food dyes (Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 3, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) or certain preservatives like potassium bromate and propylparaben. Similarly, Texas enacted SB 314 prohibiting specific additives in free or reduced-price school meals and SB 25, which mandates warning labels and expands state nutrition curriculum. In addition, other jurisdictions have introduced but not passed numerous bills proposing similar restrictions including South Carolina's HB 4339, which would prohibit certain additives in school meals. Modifying SNAP SNAP is the nation's largest federal food assistance program, providing benefits to low-income households. While the program is federally funded and administered by USDA through its Food and Nutrition Service, individual state agencies operate and manage eligibility and distribution. Since SNAP is governed by federal law, states must obtain a USDA waiver to implement changes that deviate from the federal rules. Several states are exploring waivers to limit the use of SNAP funds for purchasing candy and sweetened beverages or soft drinks, with Arkansas (SB 217), Idaho (HB 109), and Texas (SB 379) having passed legislation. Arkansas's new law requires the Department of Human Services to request a waiver to exclude candy and soft drinks, and reapply annually if denied. This dual ban was also the subject of bills introduced in Wyoming (HB 323) and South Carolina (HB 4061). Indiana (HB 1486) considered broader restrictions on “accessory foods,” aiming to prohibit the use of SNAP benefits for items like chips, energy drinks, sweetened beverages, soft drinks, and prepared desserts while New Jersey (A 5697/S 4348) introduced a narrower set of proposed restrictions, focused on soft drinks (including soda and sugary/sweetened beverages). Expanding Detection and Coverage for Chronic Diseases In response to high chronic disease rates — including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, and respiratory illnesses — states are enacting and proposing legislation focused on treatment coverage, awareness, and prevention. Several states are directly addressing obesity and pre-diabetes by mandating insurance coverage. Colorado (SB 25-048) enacted legislation requiring large group health plans to cover treatment for obesity and pre-diabetes, including medical nutrition therapy and metabolic/bariatric surgery. In Nevada, AB 555 caps patient cost-sharing for a 30-day supply of insulin for people with state-regulated commercial health plans. To aid early detection of diabetes, New Hampshire (SB 102), Louisiana (SB 26), and Florida (SB 958) enacted new laws requiring the creation of informational materials on Type 1 diabetes risk factors, warning signs, and screening available to students and parents. To reduce financial barriers to necessary cancer screenings, several states have enacted bills to mandate insurance coverage and/or lower the cost of diagnostic breast exams and supplemental testing. Virginia (HB 1828), Florida (SB 158), and Oklahoma (HB 1389) have enacted bills to limit or lower the cost of such breast imaging. Meanwhile, Colorado enacted HB 25-296, clarifying that health insurers cover medically necessary diagnostic and supplemental breast imaging that goes beyond routine screening. Looking Ahead ASTHO expects state and territories to continue advancing legislative proposals that focus on the prevention of chronic diseases and access to healthy foods in 2026. Future legislative action may include: Establishing policies to address food insecurity and promote access to nutritional foods by targeting food deserts. Exploring policy and leadership options to discourage the consumption of high-sugar drinks. Developing and adopting standards for healthy food procurement policies for state agencies and public institutions to increase the demand for nutritious products. Continuing to enact insurance coverage mandates for comprehensive chronic disease screenings and treatment. OE22-2203 PHIG article yes

Vaccines are one of the greatest public health achievements of the last century, as well as some of the most powerful and cost-effective tools to prevent disease, disparities, disability, and death among children and adults. The COVID-19 pandemic and the unprecedented development and distribution of the vaccines against the novel coronavirus have generated much focus on state laws related to vaccinations. As state and territorial legislatures prepare to convene in the coming weeks, we can already identify several topics within vaccine law that policymakers across the country will consider.

State and Federal Actions to Reduce Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances’ Impact on Public Health safe drinking water act, per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, water supplies, contaminated groundwater, chemical companies, pfas contamination, forever chemicals, synthetic chemicals, maximum contaminant levels, industrial pretreatment program, polyfluoroalkyl substances pfas, chemical sales, chemical industry, bottled water, safe drinking water act sdwa, unregulated contaminants, companies in the world, united states, consumer products, 1996 amendments, national primary drinking water, surface water, water system, largest chemical companies, pfas strategic roadmap, primary drinking water regulations, pfas chemicals, pfoa and pfos, drinking water, testing for pfas, astho, association of state and territorial health officials Maggie Davis, Beth Giambrone State and Federal Actions to Reduce PFAS Impact on Public Health Since 2018, when the city of Stuart, Florida filed its lawsuit, communities across the United States have filed lawsuits against manufacturers that produce Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), alleging that they contaminated groundwater and exposed residents to these harmful chemicals. In June 2023, manufacturer 3M agreed to pay at least $10.3 billion to settle the Stuart lawsuit and others across the country with public drinking water systems. Similarly, chemical companies DuPont, Chemours, and Corteva reached $1.18 billion settlement with local communities that have detected PFAS in their water supplies. PFAS are synthetic chemicals used in products like nonstick cookware and firefighting foam, which can migrate to soil, water, and air during production and use. Most of these chemicals remain in the environment without breaking down—hence the nickname “forever chemicals”—and can cause harmful health effects (e.g., higher risks of kidney or testicular cancer, and pre-eclampsia or high blood pressure among pregnant people) and are prevalent across the nation. Evidence shows the widespread nature of exposure to the chemicals and the economic costs of exposure. For example, a 2023 USGS study estimated that at least 45% of tap water nationwide could have one or more PFAS, while recent research estimates the annual cost of the disease burden attributable to long-chain (i.e., six or more carbon) PFAS exposure to be at least $5 billion. As communities seek restitution for PFAS contamination, federal and state policymakers are working to eliminate PFAS from ground water and drinking water and to mitigate exposure to these forever chemicals. Eliminating PFAS in Drinking Water Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA has the authority to regulate the public drinking water supply in the United States. These regulations establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Treatment Techniques and non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for public water systems. EPA’s recently proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation could potentially add six different PFAS compounds to the list of regulated contaminants. Within the PFAS chemical family, PFOA and PFOS are proposed to each have MCLs of 4.0 parts per trillion (ppt), while PFNA, PFHxS, PFBS, and GenX would be regulated collectively as a mixture using EPA's Hazard Index approach. The proposed rule also could require public water systems to monitor and notify the public of PFAS levels and reduce the levels in drinking water if they exceed proposed standards. According to a survey conducted by the Environmental Council of the States, state guidelines vary; at least eleven states have established statewide MCLs for PFAS in drinking water. Some states prohibit their agencies from setting standards more stringent than federal ones and, in the absence of a federal standard, state agencies may hesitate to establish one that could easily be invalidated. In other cases, a lack of resources inhibits the agency’s capacity to set and enforce a PFAS standard. When a federal standard is established by EPA’s final rule, expected by the end of 2023, state primacy agencies will need to enforce the federal standard and adopt standards aligned with the federal standard or stronger within two years. Additional State Efforts to Reduce PFAS Exposure Even without MCLs, states are finding ways to mitigate the public’s exposure to PFAS. In 2023, states enacted legislation on banning PFAS in consumer products, increased requirements for testing and reporting of PFAS, and PFAS mitigation. Banning PFAS in Products Indiana enacted HB 1341 prohibiting fire departments from purchasing gear unless it contains a permanent label indicating whether it does or does not contain PFAS as of June 30, 2024. Minnesota’s HF 2310 prohibits selling or distributing products containing intentionally added PFAS beginning January 1, 2026. An exception may be made if the manufacturer submits information to the commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency such as the product, the amount of PFAS used, and the amount of PFAS in the product. The Oregon legislature enacted SB 543, which prohibits the selling or using polystyrene foam containers for prepared food, food containers containing intentionally added PFAS, and polystyrene packaging peanuts. Washington enacted HB 1047, which prohibits manufacturing, distributing, and selling cosmetic products with PFAS and other chemicals or chemical classes as of January 1, 2025. Testing/Reporting Indiana enacted HB 1219, establishing a pilot program that collects blood samples of previous or current firefighters, analyzes the samples for serum PFAS levels, and determines whether there are corresponding health implications associated with elevated serum PFAS levels. Maine’s LD 1248 requires bottlers who extract water from the state to sell as bottled water to test, regularly monitor, and report the presence of PFAS to the Department of Health and Human Services and post the results on a public-facing website. Sales of bottled water are prohibited if PFAS levels in the water source exceed the state or federal community water system standards, whichever is lower. Currently, Maine has an interim MCL standard of 20 ppt. Virginia’s HB 2189 directs the State Water Control Board to adopt regulations requiring industrial users of publicly owned treatment works to test waste streams for PFAS before and after cleaning, repairing, refurbishing, or processing items the user knows or reasonably should know uses PFAS chemicals. West Virginia’s HB 3189 requires its Department of Environmental Protection to identify and address sources of PFAS in raw sources of public drinking water systems. It also requires facilities to report the use of PFAS if they discharge to surface waters under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works under an industrial pretreatment program. Mitigation Connecticut enacted SB 100 establishing a PFAS testing account, which provides municipalities with grants or reimbursements for testing and remediating PFAS in drinking water. Maine enacted LD 289, which requires the state to purchase the real estate of a commercial farm found to be contaminated by PFAS before January 1, 2023 at the assessed fair market value but at no less than $20,000 per acre, and provides that the fair market value assessment cannot take PFAS contamination into consideration. Two enacted bills in Rhode Island (SB 724 and HB 5861) amend current law to add that if PFAS in drinking water exceed the state’s interim standard of 20 ppt, the state and the public water supply will enter into an agreement that requires dates for submittal of water treatment plans that will reduce the PFAS levels to or below the interim level. As more information emerges about the health effects of PFAS, states will be sure to continue their work to combat, mitigate, and report on their presence in the environment. ASTHO will continue to monitor and report on all legislative and regulatory activity around this issue. Special Thanks-Blog - State and Federal Actions to Reduce PFAS Impact on Public Health website yes

A mid-session legislative update on five of ASTHO's top 10 public health state policy issues to watch in 2023: tobacco, HIV, mental health, PFAS, and opioids.

This ASTHOReport serves as a primer for state and territorial health agencies seeking to assess the public health impacts of lead exposure in drinking water.

Geographic Information Systems and other data visualization tools have become integral parts of public health decision-making workflows and provide crucial support to topic areas such as environmental health, the COVID-19 pandemic response, and chronic disease investigation and prevention.

The ASTHO State Health Policy team provides brief updates on 5 of the ten state health policy issues to watch in 2022: mental and behavioral health, rural health, e-cigarettes and flavored tobacco products, HIV and PFAS.

Earth Day is a natural time to examine current and future climate change policies that impact human health, including clean air, safe drinking water, access to food, and secure shelter.

Learn how states are regulating kratom, a plant-derived substance growing in popularity, in this Health Policy Update.

States Continue to Address PFAS in U.S. Food and Water Supply States Continue Addressing PFAS in Food and Water Supplies Heather Tomlinson, Beth Giambrone Read how federal and state actions aim to tighten regulations to reduce PFAS exposure in the U.S. food and water supply. Use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), manufactured chemicals that resist water and heat, has steadily increased since they were first developed in the 1940s. PFAS are present in a wide variety of consumer products. PFAS do not degrade easily and can result in increasing concentrations of contamination in water and soil. PFAS exposure has been linked to a variety of health impacts, causing state and federal governments to enact legislation and create policies that reduce their presence in consumer products. States are also working on ways to address and communicate about PFAS contamination and elimination. PFAS in Food and Food Packaging FDA has been evaluating potential dietary exposure by testing foods most commonly eaten by the U.S. public for PFAS through the Total Diet Study (TDS). The initial findings indicate that the vast majority do not — 97% of the 810 fresh and processed foods samples, to be precise. Nevertheless, some specific food subtypes have shown a higher prevalence, with over half of TDS seafood samples detecting at least one type of PFAS. As part of their technical assistance to states, FDA can test foods produced in areas with known environmental contamination to evaluate potential contamination of human and animal food. One recent example came from two dairy farms in New Mexico with known PFAS groundwater contamination; this sampling resulted in milk samples from one farm showing PFAS levels at a potential health concern threshold and lead to them being discarded prior to entering the food supply. Consumers can also be exposed to PFAS through food packaging. As of February 2024, FDA announced that grease-proofing materials containing PFAS are no longer sold for food packaging in the United States, eliminating the primary source of dietary exposure from food contact surfaces. At least 17 states have introduced legislation in their 2025 sessions to prohibit selling food packaging that contains PFAS, with bills in seven states seeing significant movement. In April 2025, New Mexico enacted HB 212, which prohibits selling food packaging and other products containing PFAS starting January 1, 2027. Bills in California SB 682, Illinois SB 1531, and New York S 187 that would prohibit manufacturing, distributing, and/or selling products containing PFAS (including food packaging) advanced in the first chamber. Regulating Drinking Water In April 2024, EPA used their authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS found in drinking water. This National Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) established individual MCLs for PFOA,PFOS, PFNA, PFHxS, and GenX and a Hazard Index MCL for mixtures of two or more PFAS (specifically PFHxS, PFNA, GenX Chemicals, and PFBS). Under the rule, public water systems must complete initial monitoring for PFAS by 2027 and continuously monitor thereafter. In addition, they must inform the public about PFAS levels in their drinking water and, beginning in 2029, any public water system that exceeds one or more of the MCLs must reduce the PFAS levels and notify the public of the violation. A recent announcement from EPA stated that while they intend to retain the current MCLs for PFOA and PFOS at four parts per trillion (ppt), they will “rescind the regulations and reconsider the regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA (commonly known as GenX), and the Hazard Index mixture of these three plus PFBS.” The agency will also propose to give drinking water systems until 2031 to come into compliance with the PFAS rule. A proposed rule is planned for a fall release, with finalization in the spring of 2026. Finally, EPA plans to establish a framework for exemptions and provide assistance to drinking water systems through the PFAS OUTReach Initiative. EPA delegates responsibility for enforcing regulations for public water systems to states that meet certain requirements. Under the current federal rule, states have two years to establish regulations that are at least as stringent as current EPA standards. At least 20 states currently have regulatory standards for at least one PFAS in drinking water, and so far in the 2025 sessions, at least six states introduced legislation to establish new or updated MCLs: Indiana (HB 1366), North Carolina (SB 384), and West Virginia (HB 3475) introduced bills directing their health departments to establish MCLs for certain PFAS contaminants. North Carolina’s bill also requires the Commission on Public Health to consider adopting MCLs for PFAS contaminants not listed in their legislation if at least two other states have set MCLs or issued guidance. The New York state Senate recently passed S 3207, which would tighten MCLs for PFOS and PFOA from 10 ppt to 4 ppt, and establish MCLs of 10 ppt for PFNA, PFHxS, and HFPO-DA. The measure is currently in the Assembly for consideration. Pennsylvania HB 578 would establish MCLs for PFAS at 10 ppt, and would allow MCLs established by the Environmental Quality Board or executive order of the governor to supersede current MCLs. Vermont H 286 would establish MCLs for PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHPA), and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) at zero ppt, and MCLs for any other testable PFAS at 20 ppt. Two states also introduced legislation modifying requirements for monitoring or reporting PFAS. Maine recently enacted LD 1326, which codifies the requirements to monitor and report PFAS compounds in accordance with EPA’s final rule and requires public notification of the type and level of PFAS in drinking water if they exceed the federal standard. Delaware SB 72 would require the Department of Health and Social Services to create a website where residents can access information related to the level(s) of PFAS in public drinking water systems, and require water utility companies to provide notice of excess PFAS levels to residents who receive water from that system. The measure passed the Senate in May and is currently in the House for consideration. PFAS is a cross-cutting issue, impacting health departments, agricultural agencies, environmental agencies, and the public. State and territorial health agencies can collaborate with community groups to create a broad coalition that can work together across their respective areas to address PFAS contamination. Many states have created internal cross-agency workgroups to evaluate and address PFAS exposures. ASTHO will continue to provide updates on PFAS elimination and MCL implementation. article yes