Displaying 7 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

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.

Environmental health and public health preparedness staff work closely together to respond to natural disasters and climate change—learn how in this report.

ASTHO's 2024 Legislative Session Update: Part Two Beth Giambrone, Maggie Davis, Christina Severin ASTHO's Public Health Legislative Update on Tobacco, Mental Health, Environmental Health, Workforce, and Containing Infectious Disease By the end of April, at least 36 states will have concluded their regularly scheduled 2024 sessions, with several states passing laws on important public health issues. Earlier this month, ASTHO provided a brief update on five of the top 10 public health state policy issues to watch during the 2024 state and territorial legislative sessions; this update examines the remaining five. Containing the Spread of Infectious Disease Public health agencies have a responsibility to keep their communities safe and healthy by maintaining foundational public health services including identifying, containing, and preventing the spread of communicable disease. ASTHO supports maintaining and guaranteeing robust public health legal authorities allowing public health leaders to meet their responsibilities for containing the spread of infectious disease. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, state and territorial legislatures considered many bills to change public health agency’s legal authorities to meet their responsibility, a trend that ASTHO anticipated continuing into 2024. So far, at least 28 states have considered, and at least two legislatures passed, bills relating to public health authority to address the spread of infectious disease in 2024. For example, the Hawaii legislature passed SB 3122, expanding public health authority by providing the state health official broad authority to issue standing orders for people 18 years and older to receive evidence-based services recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force. In March, however, Utah enacted HB 405, which limits local public health official’s authority to issue an isolation or quarantine order to specific conditions unless the local legislative body agrees that a new, drug resistant, or reemerging pathogen likely to cause high mortality or morbidity needs containment. Environmental Health Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has the authority to set national standards for public drinking water. These standards establish legally enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and non-enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level Goals for public water systems. In April 2024, EPA released a final rule establishing legally enforceable MCLs for six PFAS compounds that occur in drinking water. Public water systems have until 2027 to complete initial monitoring and inform residents of the levels of PFAS in their water, and until 2029 to act if their drinking water levels exceed the MCLs. To date in 2024, at least four states have enacted or are considering legislation that would aid in monitoring and remediating PFAS in drinking water. Virginia recently enacted HB 1085/SB 243, which requires that the Department of Health notify the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) of any results from their monitoring of public water systems that show MCL exceedances, at which time requires DEQ to implement a plan to prioritize and conduct assessments of the public water system's raw water source(s). The Rhode Island House of Representatives passed H 7439, which would require the Department of Environmental Management to determine the maximum number of PFAS detectable by standard laboratory methods, and specifies the types of water systems that will be required to monitor untreated drinking water for those PFAS by June 1, 2025. Massachusetts is considering H 853, which would require the Department of Environmental Protection to maintain a list of municipalities where PFAS levels exceed the MCL and provide vouchers to homes in those municipalities to purchase home water filtration equipment. Strengthening the Public Health Workforce With several successes in 2023, ASTHO anticipated legislatures to continue considering legislation to strengthen the public health and health care workforces that represent the communities they serve during the 2024 legislative sessions. One strategy is establishing career pathway programs that provide students training and support to pursue public health careers. At least six states have considered, and three have passed, bills creating or strengthening a career pathway program during the current legislative sessions. At least two states have enacted programs to address health care provider shortages in April. Maine’s legislature passed LD 2268, which would allow internationally trained physicians to receive a limited license to practice medicine and address provider shortages in rural areas of the state. Washington enacted SB 5582, directing community and technical colleges to develop a plan in consultation with local workforce development councils and health care employers to train more nurses over the next four years. In May, Hawaii’s legislature passed HB 1827 appropriating funds to support public high school health care workforce certificate programs to support graduates seeking entry-level positions in the health care industry. Supporting Mental Health Children and adolescents continue to experience mental health issues, with teen girls reporting significant challenges. Schools can play an important role in supporting the mental health of all students through direct services or policies that address prevention, education or coordination. In 2024, a number of jurisdictions considered legislation related to youth mental health, through training requirements for staff and students, and support for treatment flexibility in the school setting. At least six jurisdictions considered bills related to mental health education for students, including specific suicide and violence prevention content. Virigina enacted HB 603, which requires school health instruction to include information about common mental health challenges, helpful coping strategies, the importance of seeking help from a professional or other adult, and available school resources. Several jurisdictions, including Virginia (HB 224), Minnesota (HF 4363) and Missouri (HB 2471), also considered establishing or amending suicide prevention and related mental health training programs for teachers and other school staff. Finally, several jurisdictions considered legislation to explore or otherwise support using telehealth services in schools for mental health services. Minnesota is considering legislation that would create a pilot program to determine whether the availability of telehealth services in schools increases mental health access (SF 4236) as well as a requirement to provide space at secondary schools for students to receive telehealth mental health services (HF 3542). New York is currently considering S 8976, which would authorize telehealth services in schools to be delivered by licensed providers, while Maryland enacted HB 522 in April, which requires school districts to develop guidelines to allow telehealth appointments at schools starting in the 2025-26 school year. Tobacco and Nicotine Products According to the American Lung Association, 22 states do not have comprehensive smoke-free laws that help protect against the dangers of second-hand smoke in a variety of settings (e.g., multi-family homes, public spaces, restaurants), or reduce the number of people who start smoking. At least 16 states have introduced legislation aimed at creating, promoting, or expanding smoke-free environments. Connecticut recently enacted SB 132, which expands their clean indoor air act to prohibit vaping at dog race tracks. The Maryland legislature passed HB 238/SB 244, which would update their Clean Indoor Air Act to prohibit vaping in public indoor areas, indoor places of employment, and mass transportation. In addition, the Alabama Senate recently passed SB 37, which would prohibit vaping in public places. In addition, at least 14 states have introduced legislation to either prohibit or further restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol products. For example, bills introduced in Hawaii (HB 2441/SB 3130), Minnesota (HF 2177/SF 2123), and New Jersey (S 1947) would prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products, including menthol, within their jurisdiction. In addition, a bill in New York (A 699/S4477) would ban the sale of flavored smokeless tobacco products within five hundred feet of a public or private school. ASTHO’s state health policy team continues to monitor these important public health issues and will provide relevant updates. website yes

This report is on the overlap of climate change and environmental justice.

A training to help clinicians report and recognize the signs and symptoms of a cyanobacterial bloom-associated illnesses.

Do Cottage Foods Really Come from a Cottage? Beth Giambrone Even if you're not familiar with the term "cottage foods," chances are you have purchased them—think getting a loaf of bread from your weekend farmers market or cookies from a friend's home-based baking business. In some cases, they can also be sold online. So, what exactly are they? Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate at a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods in the jurisdiction where they are created. Cottage foods are exempt from many state food and safety regulations, with supporters of expanding cottage food laws asserting that existing laws burden small business and restrict competition and consumer freedom. Those opposing the expansion of cottage foods argue the need to ensure food safety and to protect consumers from food borne illness. Here's a primer on cottage foods and how they're regulated. What's the difference between a cottage food kitchen and a commercial kitchen? Commercial kitchens (sometimes known as shared use kitchens) are large, industrial spaces where food can be produced in high volumes; they can also be rented out for shared use. While every state subjects commercial kitchens to food safety inspection and regulations, a few states require inspection of microenterprise or home kitchens producing cottage foods. Does the government have a role in regulating cottage foods? While several federal agencies regulate commercial food products—such as USDA for meat processing and FDA for produce—cottage foods are not subject to federal regulation because they are typically only sold within a state and not across state lines. At the state level, cottage food producers are subject to the health and safety laws and regulations of the state in which they are operating. Some states require cottage food producers to register their business or to have training and/or certification in safe food handling. Currently, all 50 states and Washington D.C. have some sort of cottage food law in place. Under most state laws, cottage food producers are exempt from food safety laws that apply to food establishments. These exempt rules are usually based on the type of food product produced, the point of sale, and the labeling requirements associated with the food. Although cottage food producers are exempt from certain requirements, all states allow the Department of Health to investigate complaints related to foodborne illness and fine producers if there are violations. Since the 2020 legislative sessions, at least 17 states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming) considered bills related to cottage foods, often centering around product sales, food products, and labeling. An overview of the conditions and a snapshot of the laws passed in states are below. What are common cottage food products? Most state laws limit which food products can be produced and sold as cottage foods. And while specific allowable foods vary state to state, some common restrictions on the type of food sold include foods requiring temperature control (e.g., meat and dairy products) and fermented or pickled foods. Foods such as dairy-free baked goods (e.g., breads and biscuits), candies, and jams are popular cottage food products. Over the last few years, states have expanded the types of foods that qualify to be a cottage food. In 2021, Illinois enacted SB 2007, amending the types of foods permissible under the cottage food law from a delineated list of canned foods (e.g. jams and syrups) to a general standard that mirrors the FDA definition of "low-acid canned food." The New Jersey legislature passed A 3991 in 2022 to exempt raw, unprocessed honey from the state's cottage food regulations. The bill is currently awaiting action by the governor. Oklahoma enacted its "Homemade Food Freedom Act" (HB 1032) in 2021. This new law allows any packaged food or beverage (excluding alcoholic beverages, unpasteurized milk, or cannabis products) to be considered a cottage food rather than only baked goods made without meat or fresh fruits. Additionally, the law allows beekeepers who produce less than 500 gallons of honey per year to qualify for the state's food freedom exemptions if the honey is produced from hives located in the state and sold directly to the consumer. Similarly, the 2022 "Tennessee Food Freedom Act" (HB 813/SB 693) broadly expands the types of homemade foods eligible for sale under the cottage food law to include any non-time/temperature-controlled food item or non-alcoholic beverage. What limitations do states place on cottage food sales? Most states limit cottage food producers to direct-to-consumer sales, such as at a farmers market or roadside stand. More than half of states allow online and direct-to-consumer sales as long as they are to in-state consumers only. While the producer is usually required to deliver the products, at least five states allow delivery by a third party. Several states have considered allowing the sale of cottage food in retail settings. In 2020, Wyoming enacted HB 84, which increased the gross sales cap for producers and allowed producers of non-temperature controlled foods (e.g., jams, vegetables, dried soup mixes) to use third-party vendors like a retail shop rather than solely relying on gross sales. Furthermore, the Wyoming legislature expanded the use of third-party vendors to include the sale of eggs in 2021 by enacting HB 118. A 2021 Arkansas law (HB 248) also allows for the sale of cottage food products at retail stores. Additionally, many states define cottage foods based on the number of items sold or the annual gross sales. The gross sales cap limits vary greatly across states, ranging from $3,000 to $250,000. At least twenty states have no gross sales limit. At least one state (Ohio) places a limit on meals sold per week from home kitchens. What are common labeling requirements for cottage foods? Most states require cottage food producers label their goods. While specific labeling requirements vary state to state, producers generally must provide the name of the product, a list of ingredients, known allergens (e.g., nuts), contact information of the producer, and a statement declaring the product was made in a kitchen exempt from licensing and inspection regulations. In some states, cottage food producers are allowed to use an identification number in place of contact information on product labels. Maryland enacted HB 1017 in 2020, which allows cottage food producers to use a unique identification number issued by the Department of Health in lieu of the business name and address. Arkansas HB 248 (referenced above) also allows producers to use an identification number. What's next? State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving, with more foodstuffs exempt from state food and safety regulations increasing the risk of foodborne illness outbreaks necessitating a public health response. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes