With 2026 reaching its halfway point, most state legislatures have wrapped up their legislative sessions. As such, it is important to take stock of notable food related legislative actions that have occurred. This article is the second edition of a 2026 state food law update and highlights legislation that was enacted after the first article’s publication. The first article is titled “Food Law in the State: 2026 Update Part 1,” and it can be read here.
Alternative Proteins
In keeping with the trend of the past several years, many states enacted legislation in 2026 related to alternative proteins. The term alternative proteins encompasses both cell-cultured proteins and meat substitutes, such as those derived from plants or insects. Typically, these laws will fall into one of three categories – creating labeling requirements for alternative proteins, a restriction on the sale or manufacturing of cell-cultured proteins, or a prohibition on the use of state money for their purchase. Part 1 of this update detailed alternative protein laws passed in South Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, Idaho, and Mississippi. For more information on state alternative protein laws, click here to visit NALC’s Alternative Protein Laws State Compilation.
Arizona
On June 19, 2026, Arizona’s governor signed HB 2762 into law. This legislation will require that “a food product derived from cultivated cells” bear a label that states “cell-cultivated” or “cell-cultured.” The law will be codified at ARS § 36-917, and it goes into effect on September 12, 2026.
Louisiana
This year, Louisiana passed several pieces of legislation related to alternative proteins. First, it enacted SB 152, a ban on the manufacturing, distribution, selling, or offering for sale of any cell-cultured food product for human consumption. This legislation creates the “Cell Cultured Food Products Act,” and will be codified at La. Stat. Ann. § 3:4750.1 – 4750.5. Notably, this law only takes effect if “a final ruling by the United States Supreme Court hold[s] that prohibitions on cell cultured food products do not violate the United States Constitution.” It also includes an exception for research conducted on cell cultured food products by accredited institutions of higher education in Louisiana. Second, also related to the banning of cell-cultured proteins, Louisiana enacted HB 512. This law adds provisions related to cell-cultured proteins to Louisiana’s Meat and Poultry Inspections Laws, including a prohibition against mixing cell cultured food products with certain agricultural products. This section will be codified at La. Stat. Ann. § 3:4201(24), 4210.1, 4233(A), and like SB 152, its effectiveness will be dependent upon a US Supreme Court ruling upholding the constitutionality of cell-cultured protein bans.
Next, Louisiana enacted HB 717, which creates additional labeling requirements for cell cultured food products in Louisiana. Previously, La. Stat. Ann § 3:4744 merely prohibited a cell cultured food product from being represented as a meat product. Now, cell cultured food products must “bear a clear and conspicuous disclosure identifying the product in a bold typed print of not less than thirty-point font.”
Additionally, Louisiana enacted HB 783, a law that creates rules to regulate “non-lactational dairy protein products.” A non-lactational dairy protein product is a “food product containing dairy-identical or dairy-derived proteins produced through microbial fermentation and not derived from the natural lactation of a mammal.” Section 1 of this law requires that any non-lactation dairy protein product contains the following disclosure, “Produced through microbial fermentation. Not derived from mammalian lactation.” The disclosure is required to meet certain font, typeface, color, and product placement requirements. Section 2 of the law includes a provision that bans the manufacturing for sale, selling, holding, offering for sale, or distribution of any non-locational dairy protein product in Louisiana. Further, it prohibits non-lactational dairy protein products from being “labeled or marketed as milk, cheese, yogurt, butter, ice cream, or any other diary product intended for human consumption.” Section 1 of the law became effective on June 6, 2026 upon the governor’s signature, but Section 2 will only become effective when HB 512, one of cell-cultured protein ban bills, does. This means that Section 2 is similarly dependent upon a decision of the US Supreme Court.
Food Ingredients
Another food-related legislative trend that many states have enacted over the past several years is related to the regulation of foods that contain certain ingredients. The most prevalent trend relates to prohibitions on foods with certain food or color additives from meals served in schools. However, there have been other states that have passed laws that would mandate warnings or disclosures on the packaging of foods with certain ingredients.
Alaska
Last month, Alaska’s governor signed SB 187 into law. This law will prohibit food and beverages containing certain food additives from being served in school meals. Specifically, it pertains to “breakfast or lunch provided by the school to enrolled students during a school day.” It lists the following color additives as restricted: Red Dye No. 3, Red Dye No. 40, Yellow Dye No. 5, Yellow Dye No. 6, Blue Dye No. 1, Blue Dye No. 2, and Green Dye No. 3. This law takes effect on January 1, 2028.
Iowa
In May, HF 2676 became law after it was signed by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds. HF 2676, also known as the “Iowa Make America Healthy Again Act,” enacted several ‘MAHA’ priorities, such as over-the-counter sales of ivermectin and the reinstatement of the presidential physical fitness test. Specifically, it included a provision that restricted foods and beverages with certain food and color additives from being served in schools. Notably, the Iowa list of restricted ingredients extends beyond just FDA approved color dyes to include potassium bromate and propylparaben. Further, the Iowa law clarifies that the food ingredient prohibition does not “apply to food and beverages received as part of a direct delivery from the foods in schools program of the [USDA].” The provision also does not apply to food and beverage sales that occur on school campuses outside of the school day. This provision of the Iowa law will apply to school years beginning on or after July 1, 2027.
New Hampshire
Signed by the Governor on July 2, 2026, SB 577 makes restrictions and recommendations for the use of foods containing certain color additives in school meals. Specifically, this legislation will prohibit public elementary and secondary schools from offering or making available as part of school breakfast or lunch any food with Red Dye No. 3, Citrus Red No. 2, and Orange B. Further, SB 577 encourages schools “to avoid offering foods containing” the listed color additives in school meals. The listed color additives include Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2, Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, and Yellow No. 6. The legislation also encourages schools to work with vendors “to transition away from foods containing such color additives where feasible.” The provision does not extend to foods offered at schools outside of the meal programs, such as vending machine items and school fundraisers. This law will go into effect on July 1, 2028.
Louisiana
In its 2026 legislative session, Louisiana passed legislation that amended its landmark ‘MAHA’ bill from 2025. Last year, Louisiana and Texas passed first-in-the-nation legislation that, among other things, created labeling disclosure requirements for food products with certain listed ingredients. Specifically, Louisiana’s law required that food items which contained any of 44 listed ingredients include a quick response code (QR code) on its packaging that would take the scanner to a website containing additional safety information about the ingredient. Initially, this law applied to “food or beverages intended for human consumption.” However, in SB 57, the 2026 amending legislation, the law was narrowed to only apply to food or beverages with ingredients required by the FDA “to be named on a food label.” Effectively, this would exclude unlabeled ingredients such as an incidental additive or a processing aid. Further, SB 57 delays the effective date of this provision by a year – requiring that food manufacturers be in compliance with the QR code requirements by January 1, 2029. To learn more about Louisiana’s 2025 bill, click here to read “’MAHA’ Movement: New Texas and Louisiana Laws.”
Cottage Foods
Since the publication of NALC’s first state food law update, Colorado passed and enacted legislation that would dramatically update their cottage food laws. This law is particularly notable because it now permits Colorado cottage food operations to sell products that contain meat. To learn more about this law, click here to read NALC article “Colorado expands Cottage Food laws with the passage of the ‘Tamale Act.’”
Farm to School
California
Included in an omnibus piece of legislation, California’s legislature passed the California Farm to School Act. Specifically, the law establishes the California Farm to School Program and sets up the Office of Farm to Fork for its administration. The California Farm to School Program will aim to “increase procurement of foods that are grown or produced in California and are whole or are minimally processed from food producers in California for school meal programs.” Further, the program is instructed to encourage hands-on food education opportunities, cultivate relationships between school staff and local agricultural producers, administer grant money, and collect data for program evaluation. The Office of Farm to Fork is authorized to implement initiatives such as those that advance the California farm to school network, create of a state Interagency Working Group, expand youth leadership, strengthen supply chain infrastructure.
On our radar:
Though most state legislatures have concluded for 2026, a few remain in session. As such, there are food-related bills that are still being considered. Additionally, there are some bills that have passed both chambers of their state’s legislature but as of July 20, 2026, are still awaiting the governor’s signature before becoming official law. This is a list of bills that are not yet enacted but are on our radar.
- New Jersey S 4193 – If enacted this law would require that corn masa flour manufactured, sold, delivered, distributed, held, offered for sale, or used as an ingredient in food sold in New Jersey contain folic acid at a level of 0.7 milligrams per pound. Also, it would require all wet corn masa products to contain a folic acid level of 0.4 milligrams per pound. This law has passed both chambers of New Jersey’s legislature and is awaiting the governor’s signature.
- Delaware HB 337 – This is a similar law requiring folic acid at a level of 0.7 milligrams in corn masa flour and 0.4 milligrams in wet corn masa flour products. It is also awaiting the governor’s signature and has been passed by both chambers of Delaware’s legislature. (For more information on folic acid fortification, see part 1 of NALC’s state food law update.)
- New York S.1239 – This proposal would be a first-in-the-nation legislation related to foods that contain “generally recognized as safe” ingredients. Specifically, it would require the manufacturers of this food to submit mandatory reports about their presence and safety and would create a public database for that information. S.1239 would also prohibit the sale, manufacture, and distribution of foods containing potassium bromate, propylparaben, or Red Dye No. 3, and would create restrictions on foods with certain color additives served in school meals. This legislation has passed both New York’s legislative bodies and is waiting for the governor’s signature.
- New York S.7618B – New York’s General Assembly and Senate have both passed a bill related to date labels on food products. If signed by the governor, the Food Date Labeling Act would establish uniform date label terms that can be used on food for human consumption. While the use of date labels remains voluntary, this law would require that food manufacturers and producers who choose to use them are limited to the terms “use by” to indicate safety and “best if used by” to indicate quality.
- California AB 2244 – California’s AB 2244 has passed the California General Assembly and is currently being considered by the Senate. This bill would establish the “Non-UPF” certification program. This program, overseen by California’s Department of Public Health, will certify foods as not ultra-processed through accredited certification agents. Foods that meet the certification would be able to bear a “seal,” which marks them as a non-ultra processed food. If passed by the Senate and signed by the governor, California would be the first state in the nation to pass legislation of this type.
- Michigan HB 5069 – This legislation would ban food that contains brominated vegetable oil, propylparaben, Red Dye No. 40, Green Dye No. 3, Blue Dye No. 1, Blue Dye No. 2, and Yellow Dye No. 6 from being sold or offered for sale in Michigan. It was passed by Michigan’s House of Representatives on June 24, 2026, and is now being considered by the Senate.
Conclusion
State lawmakers across the nation have been busy this year passing and enacting legislation related to food law. While most state legislatures have concluded their 2026 sessions, a few are still considering legislation. To stay informed on state food-related issues, click here to subscribe to NALC’s biweekly newsletter, “The Feed.”