Opioid and substance use disorders (SUD) continue to affect families beyond pregnancy; in 2017, about one in eight U.S. children lived in a household where at least one parent had a SUD in the prior year.
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.
Learn about state regulation of hemp, following federal deregulation and public health challenges including adverse effects of hemp products.
Health Agencies Keeping Cottage Foods Safe Heather Tomlinson Rows of homemade jams at the local farmer’s market and a neighbor’s birthday cake on social media have something in common: they are both cottage (or homestead) food products. Cottage foods are home-based, home-made food products prepared outside of a commercial kitchen and sold to the public. Cottage food producers operate on a small scale, often from a home kitchen, selling goods locally. Although cottage foods provide opportunities to small, locally owned businesses, they also create complexity in selling food products to the public that are not inspected and may not meet basic food safety standards. And while home kitchens are not considered food establishments in the FDA Food Code, states are able to define “food establishments” by amending provisions in their food code adoption process or enacting legislation or regulations. In addition to regulating, state health agencies can play a role in keeping cottage foods safe through education, training, and other mechanisms. Cottage Food Regulation Currently, all 50 states and Washington, D.C. allow the sale of cottage food products directly to consumers. Several foodborne illnesses have been linked to products improperly prepared at home, such as botulism outbreaks in home-canned products and E.coli contamination of jerky. Many foodborne illnesses can be prevented by safely preparing, processing, and storing foods, processes often outlined by health regulations. Health agencies use a variety of tools to regulate cottage food production. Types of Foods: The types of foods permitted can vary across jurisdictions with some allowing only non-time/temperature controlled for safety (TCS) foods (e.g., baked goods, jams, candies), while others allow a wide range of products including TCS foods and items that require specialized processes (e.g., pickled vegetables). Some jurisdictions may use an exhaustive or illustrative list outlining permitted foods, while others limit specific food production processes but allow all other food items. Licensing and Inspection: Cottage food producers must follow a variety of rules in the form of permits, licenses, and registration. Although cottage foods are exempt from many inspection requirements, at least fifteen states require an initial inspection of home kitchens before they can sell items. All states allow the investigation of foodborne illness complaints; some states require annual licensure. Food Safety Training: States can require a food safety course to ensure that all cottage food producers understand the basic food safety requirements. Sales Caps: Gross sales caps limit the scale of operations allowed without full food safety precautions. After a cottage food operation exceeds their gross sales cap, they would be required to register as a food establishment and permitting rules would take effect. Sales Venues: States typically only allow direct-to-consumer sale of cottage foods (e.g., farmers’ markets) but some states permit online sales. Federal food safety regulations, which prohibit cottage foods, apply when food products are sold across state lines. Cottage food sales, whether in-person or online, should remain within the state they were created to avoid violating federal regulations. Labeling: All states have a labeling requirement for cottage foods. These labels can vary but typically include the food producer’s name and address, the product name, an ingredients list, allergens, product weight, date of production, and a disclaimer identifying that the product was prepared in a home kitchen that is not inspected. Recent Cottage Foods Legislation in the States Legislators often face tension in weighing the balance between maintaining food safety regulations and supporting small cottage food businesses by reducing the entry barriers (e.g., leasing commercial kitchen space). In recent years, there has been an increase in legislation expanding cottage food parameters ranging from product and preparation inclusions to modifying the gross sales cap. The Arizona House of Representatives passed and the Senate is currently considering HB 2864, which would expand the state’s cottage food item list to include precut and processed freeze-dried fruits and vegetables. Arizona enacted HB 2042, which expands the definition of cottage foods to include foods that require time and temperature control if they're exempt under federal regulations. The Hawaii legislature passed HB 2144 which is now awaiting action from the Governor, which would expand the definition of cottage foods to include pickled products and non-hazardous products that do not contain dried meat or seafood, permit the sale of products in retail stores, and allow for customer delivery via third party vendors or shipping. Several states have introduced legislation to increase the gross sales cap for those who qualify as a cottage food producer. Mississippi (MS SB 2638) and Washington (WA SB 5107) introduced bills that proposed to increase the annual gross sales cap, but both failed in session. There has also been legislation surrounding cottage food preemption. Massachusetts is considering S 2761, which would establish a cottage food regulatory framework and prohibit local health agencies from being able to establish their own cottage food regulations. Microenterprise Home Kitchens In expanding cottage food production, there has been increased legislation on microenterprise home kitchens. Microenterprises typically allow the production of more types of foods, including fully prepared hot meals, but also require stricter regulations (such as preparing and selling the food on the same day). Minnesota (MN SF 4501) and Hawaii (HI HB 1591) have introduced legislation that would allow microenterprise home kitchens and establish a regulatory framework for licensing and safety standards. Raw Milk Considerations Raw milk is an animal milk that has not gone through pasteurization (process of heating milk to a specific temperature for a set period of time) to kill harmful bacteria. Raw milk can carry dangerous bacteria that can cause food poisoning and has recently been shown to test positive for the recent highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) virus. As of March 2024, 30 states allow the interstate sale of raw milk. This session, West Virginia passed legislation (WV HB 4911) and at least six states, Michigan (MI HB 5603), Hawaii (HI HB 1989), Missouri (MO HB 1711), Massachusetts (MA S 43), Louisiana (LA HB 467), and New Jersey (NJ A 1086), considered legislation that would allow unpasteurized, raw milk to be sold to consumers. How State Health Agencies Can Keep Cottage Foods Safe Health agencies consider cottage food inclusions based on food production risks. For instance, many agencies will allow baked goods but do not permit pickling due to the botulism risk associated with pickling. Health agencies evaluate food science to educate their legislatures on the considerations of cottage foods and where they would recommend public health regulations. Health agencies also ensure cottage food guidance is easily accessible and written in plain language, so producers have the needed information to follow regulations. Relevant information may include the permitted products, how to become a cottage food producer, and food safety considerations when preparing home-made foods. For example, the Illinois Department of Health, in collaboration with a diverse collection of stakeholders, created a robust cottage food guide to help producers and regulators understand state requirements and cottage food safety standards. Author card spacing 4 State policy surrounding cottage foods is constantly evolving. ASTHO will continue monitoring these changes and provide relevant updates. website yes
In-depth analysis on state health policy surrounding the public health workforce. This is part of ASTHO's annual legislative prospectus series.
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
In-depth analysis on state health policy surrounding immunization. This is part of ASTHO's annual legislative prospectus series.
States Reassessing Vaccine Policy and Public Health Powers Shalini Nair, Andy Baker-White Review of state policies to weaken vaccine requirements and reduce public health powers. Immunization is a key pillar of public health, crucial for protecting communities and preventing infectious diseases from spreading. State and territorial health officials and their departments play critical roles in setting and implementing immunization requirements, managing disease surveillance and outbreak response, and ensuring access to vaccines. In recent years, however, the immunization landscape has evolved as legislative changes alter public health authority and access to vaccines. As these challenges persist, public health officials must be informed and prepared to navigate the dynamic policy environment to ensure immunization programs’ continued effectiveness at protecting public health. The True Cost of Vaccine Skepticism and Misinformation In the years since the pandemic, rates of routine vaccinations among U.S. children have steadily declined; there has simultaneously been an increase in non-medical exemptions. While reasoning behind personal decisions about vaccination are not always clear, increasing prominence of vaccine-related myths is a significant contributor to this phenomenon. Perhaps the most glaring consequence of this decrease is best illustrated by the 2025 measles outbreak and the first measles-associated deaths in more than a decade. Previously considered to have been eliminated, measles is now under threat of resurgence as vaccine rates fall below the thresholds to uphold herd immunity. Health officials are also seeing declines in coverage for several other vaccine preventable diseases like pertussis, mumps, hepatitis, and even polio. Legislation Restricts Innovation and Sows Doubt About Vaccine Components The use of mRNA technology expanded in 2020 following its breakthrough success in COVID-19 vaccines. These mRNA vaccines prevented more than 120 million additional COVID-19 infections and 3.2 million additional deaths. Researchers are currently assessing mRNA technology to address pandemic influenza, HIV, Zika, and even cancer. During 2025 sessions, at least seven states introduced legislation to ban or limit using mRNA vaccines. Iowa’s SF 360 sought to prohibit any “gene-based vaccines” (i.e., those developed using mRNA or DNA technology); the bill was based on a widely debunked myth that mRNA vaccines can interact with and alter human DNA (they can’t). New York’s A 4798 would prevent administering COVID-19 mRNA vaccines until the department of health conducts a risk-benefit analysis. Several states have introduced legislation to prohibit selling — or require labeling foods that contain — vaccine or vaccine material. This bill is based on another common internet rumor that mRNA vaccines are being introduced into the food supply via livestock and produce (they aren’t). Nonetheless, Utah enacted a bill (HB 84) requiring that food intended for human consumption that contains a vaccine or vaccine material be designated as a drug. Similar bills were introduced in Florida (HB 525), Alabama (HB 316), and Tennessee (SB 616, HB 1100). Vaccine Authority’s Shifting Landscape While the federal government plays an important role in putting forth policy recommendations, the ultimate power to impose or revoke vaccine requirements and determine exemptions outside of health emergencies rests with states. In many jurisdictions, state health agency expertise determines the vaccines required for school enrollment. These decisions, while ultimately at the feet of state health officials, rely heavily on input from experienced, knowledgeable, and skilled agency staff. Recent legislative actions in several states seek to shift authority for determining school-based immunization requirements solely to the legislature. Idaho’s new law (H 290) removes the state board of health’s authority to determine which immunizations are required for daycare and school enrollment, as well as the manner and frequency of their administration. The bill also repeals a former law establishing the Idaho Childhood Immunization Policy Commission, created in 2010 to issue recommendations to the legislature and board of health. A similar effort in Maine (LD 727) would remove health department authority to determine school vaccine requirements as part of a larger repeal effort responding to the 2019 law disallowing vaccine exemptions based on religious or philosophical grounds. In New Hampshire, existing statutes define required immunizations for school attendance and allow the state health official to add to this list via the rulemaking process. Recently, lawmakers introduced a bill (HB 357) that would remove this add-on ability. If passed, existing commissioner-led requirements for vaccines such as varicella, hepatitis B, and Hib would expire in June 2026 and no future amendments could occur under this authority. Several other bills introduced in Texas (HB 468, HB 3304, SB 94, SB 117, HB 3852), West Virginia (SB 108, HB 2203), and North Carolina (HB 89) target shifting authority and/or modifying vaccine requirements for certain school types. Evidence-Based Policy as the Path Forward State and territorial health agencies are foundational to preventing the spread of infectious diseases through vaccine education and administration. ASTHO has identified public health expertise in developing vaccination policy as one of three recommended strategies that prioritize evidence-based public health authority and support agencies to protect and improve health. As this landscape further evolves, ASTHO will continue tracking legislative and executive action on this important public health issue. article yes
Ripple Effect: What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law What USPSTF Recommendations Mean for State and Territorial Health Law Andy Baker-White This Health Policy Update highlights how U.S. states and territories are using policy to codify important public health recommendations. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is a volunteer panel of national experts that issues evidence-based letter-grade recommendations on clinical preventive services. Under the Affordable Care Act, services with an A or B grade must be covered by most private health insurance plans without cost-sharing, with similar requirements for Medicaid enrollees and Medicare beneficiaries. An estimate by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that in 2020, these services reached approximately 264 million Americans. States and territories implement these recommendations through statutes and rules. ASTHO identified over 200 state and territorial laws referencing the USPSTF, including in insurance statutes, Medicaid rules, disease-specific laws, and state employee health plan requirements. Over the past year, the stability of USPSTF recommendations has come into question. The U.S. Supreme Court's June 2025 ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood confirmed the HHS Secretary’s authority to block USPSTF recommendations and remove task force members. News reports in July 2025 indicated that HHS Secretary Kennedy intended to remove all USPSTF members, and in May 2026 fired the chair and vice-chair of the task force. Questions are being raised about whether USPSTF recommendations will be rescinded or downgraded and, if so, what the impact would be on states and territories. In addition, if the USPSTF fails to convene in the future, it cannot review newer data on preventive services, meaning existing recommendations could become outdated and USPSTF can’t make recommendations for new services. To meet these challenges, states and territories are taking steps to ensure the continued scientific basis for preventive health services within their own law. Dynamic References to USPSTF Recommendations States and territories often use dynamic references to USPSTF recommendations in regulating health plan coverage of preventive services. This allows the jurisdiction to automatically require coverage for the most current USPSTF recommendations. Laws in West Virginia (state employee health plans), Oregon (regulated health plans), Hawaii (health director standing orders), and Alaska (adult Medicaid enrollees) use this approach. While dynamic references allow jurisdictions to stay up to date with the recommendations, if the task force withdraws any guidance, then those preventive services would no longer require no-cost coverage without additional action from those jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions address this by specifying that certain USPSTF guidance changes will not apply. For example, Guam’s law requires continued no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings and authorizes the health director to adjust diabetes screening recommendations if USPSTF recommendations cease. Illinois specifies that the 2009 USPSTF recommendations for breast cancer screening and mammography are not to be considered current because national medical bodies created differing recommendations for screening. Another way jurisdictions avoid the unpredictability of using dynamic references is locking in the date of the USPSTF recommendations that are used for coverage requirements. For example, Massachusetts requires its state employee health plan to cover USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect by July 1, 2023. Using a version of USPSTF recommendations from a specific date maintains a base level of coverage regardless of future changes, though adopting new recommendations or removing outdated recommendations would require separate action. During this year’s legislative sessions, several states enacted or proposed legislation to remove dynamic USPSTF references. For example, Maryland passed legislation (HB 637 and SB 385) to lock in the USPSTF A and B recommendations that were in effect on December 31, 2024. Washington enacted HB 2242 requiring coverage of USPSTF A and B recommendations in effect on June 30, 2025, as well as recommendations adopted by the state insurance commissioner. A bill passed in Delaware, HB 338, would require the use of the USPSTF recommendations from January 1, 2025. Overall, however, neither dynamic nor fixed references to USPSTF recommendations address how jurisdictions can keep up with new scientific data and advances in preventive services in the absence of ongoing USPSTF review and recommendations. To fill this need, some states have enacted legislation that creates processes for reviewing data and establishing recommendations. For example, the new Maryland law mentioned above also authorizes the state’s health secretary to adopt preventive service recommendations that have not been recommended by or that differ from USPSTF. The new process requires notice and a 30-day comment period, an analysis by the Maryland Health Care Commission, and citations to the authoritative medical body upon which the recommendation is based. Disease-Specific Statutes: USPSTF Grades as Care Standards and Thresholds Many states also use USPSTF grades as thresholds for specific preventive services, establishing the standard of care, or issuing standing orders. For example, Arkansas law defines "follow-up colonoscopy" by reference to a colorectal screening assigned an A or B grade by the USPSTF, while Nevada’s law directs primary care providers to use criteria set out in USPSTF recommendations to screen adult women for BRCA mutations. In Hawaii, the state health director is authorized to issue public health standing orders for current USPSTF A and B recommended services, and in Idaho the law uses USPSTF guidance for applying ocular antibiotic prophylaxis to newborns as the standard for medical practice in the state. Some states are considering legislation to distance preventive service coverage requirements from USPSTF recommendations. For example, while New Jersey's current law requires no-cost coverage for colorectal cancer screenings in accordance with the method and frequency recommended by the USPSTF, introduced legislation (A4916 and S4254) would remove the reference to USPSTF recommendations and instead authorize one screening per year for persons aged 33 or older. More broadly, Hawaii considered legislation (HB 1898 and SB 3133) that would have authorized the state’s health department to “make recommendations relating to clinical preventive service recommendations of the [USPSTF] Force that have been assigned a grade of A or B as of July 1, 2025” and require no-cost coverage for the department’s recommendations. However, this legislation did not pass. State Employee Benefit Plans USPSTF recommendations may also be used to establish preventive health services covered by state employee health plans. A West Virginia statute requires the state’s employee health plans to cover mammograms consistent with "current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force," while the health plan document further states that preventive services are "subject to change as USPSTF…recommendations are updated.” In Ohio, a regulation requires state employee health benefits include all USPSTF-recommended tobacco cessation services and authorizes the state health director to update covered services if USPSTF guidance changes. Missouri law requires full coverage of USPSTF graded A and B recommended prescription and prescribed over-the-counter drugs for state plan members. The Path Forward USPSTF recommendations have helped millions of Americans receive critical health services at no cost, and states and territories have built practices, programs, and standards on that foundation. From adopting fixed-date references to establishing state-level recommendation authority to creating new state review bodies, legislative activity this year reflects a broad effort to address ripple effects from potential future changes to or lack of USPSTF guidance. Health officials may be asked to assess their jurisdiction’s laws and their use of USPSTF recommendations, and coordinate with insurance commissioners, Medicaid directors, and employee benefits administrators to confirm consistent agency interpretation and identify where action is needed. ASTHO will continue to monitor these policies as they develop. article yes
During the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal government enacted the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, temporarily expanding the use of telehealth technologies by removing various requirements and waiving certain restrictions. Many states also expanded telehealth access through changes to state Medicaid laws. These temporary policy changes created an uptick of telehealth use that improved access to care for millions of Americans—but questions remain about which policy changes will stick around beyond the pandemic. Currently, states are making decisions about what temporary policies to permanently implement and which policies to end without disrupting the delivery of care and further exacerbating health disparities.
The 2020 holiday season is coinciding with a nationwide surge of COVID-19 cases. With great concern that holiday travel to see loved ones may exacerbate community spread of the virus, many states are increasing public health measures before the winter holiday season. As of November 16, 2020, 13 states and D.C. had a quarantine requirement for out-of-state travelers. The U.S. territories also have instituted travel restrictions to limit the spread of COVID-19.
Three ways policymakers are addressing access to care are through telehealth, safety net and emergency services, and adjusted reimbursement rates to Medicaid-enrolled providers.
There are a number of court cases playing out across the country that could affect the options state and territorial health officials have to limit the spread of disease and promote health and well-being.
Public health leaders are positioned to prevent illness from the "tripledemic” of COVID-19, Influenza, and RSV with approved vaccines and preventative antibody treatments.
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
States have largely dismissed weakening policies, but legislatures are likely to continue considering vaccine-related bills, which may allow public health leaders to work collaboratively toward improving vaccination rates and bolster the positive impact vaccines have on population health.
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.
As many state legislatures seek to expand vaccine exemptions, it’s important to understand the fundamental differences in exemption type and their impact on a community.
Adopting a public health approach to substance use by implementing harm reduction policies across all levels of government can help communities address the overdose crisis. This post analyzes e
Public health agencies are working to reduce dementia risk and to optimize the health and well-being of people living with dementia and their caregivers.