Policy Priorities
Fueling a Better Future
Policy and funding decisions affecting Louisiana’s food banks and those we serve are regularly made at the local, state, and federal levels.
Feeding Louisiana works every day to educate and partner with our leaders so they can make informed decisions and laws that support our food bank partners and progress towards a hunger-free Louisiana.
2025 Bill Digest
Pros and Cons for Bills Affecting Our Neighbors’ Nutrition
Provides for the gathering of data relative to legal status of individuals receiving state services.
Similar to HB307
Senator Blake Miguez (R-New Iberia)
PROS
Supporters argue that requiring state agencies to identify and track the cost of services provided to individuals who are "illegal aliens" or "unaccompanied alien children" enhances transparency in state spending.
It could help policymakers assess the financial impact of immigration on public services and make data-informed decisions about resource allocation.
CONS
Opponents warn that the law could lead to racial profiling, violate due process protections, and discourage vulnerable individuals, especially children, from accessing critical services.
It also imposes a costly and complex administrative requirement on state agencies to verify immigration status and track benefits, diverting resources from service delivery.
Prohibits the serving and selling of ultra-processed foods in public schools.
Senator Blake Miguez (R-New Iberia)
PROS
Supporters argue that reducing ultra-processed foods in schools can lead to better nutrition, improved academic performance, and lower rates of childhood obesity and chronic illness.
By requiring public certification and transparency, the law holds schools accountable for offering healthier options. With adequate state support for training, meal planning, and access to affordable, fresh foods, this policy could set a strong foundation for lifelong healthy eating habits, especially in underserved areas.
CONS
Opponents caution that healthy, minimally processed foods are often more expensive and logistically difficult to procure, especially for rural and low-income school districts. Without significant new state funding, schools may struggle to meet the requirement, potentially reducing meal participation or stretching already limited food service staff and budgets.
Compliance tracking and certification also create additional administrative tasks for schools and the Department of Education.
Establishes a series of public health measures that prohibit schools from serving foods with certain artificial additives, require nutrition and metabolic health continuing education for physicians, mandate warning labels on processed foods and seed oil disclosures in restaurants, and directs the state to seek a federal waiver to restrict soft drink purchases with SNAP benefits.
Senator Patrick McMath (R-Covington)
PROS
Supporters argue that this bill takes a bold, comprehensive approach to improving the nutritional environment in Louisiana, especially for children and vulnerable populations. Prohibiting certain artificial colors and additives in school meals helps protect students from ingredients linked to behavioral and health concerns. Requiring nutrition-focused continuing education for physicians ensures that medical professionals are better equipped to address chronic disease prevention through diet. Warning labels and seed oil disclosures empower consumers to make informed choices. Requesting a SNAP waiver to prohibit soft drink purchases aligns state policy with long-term health goals.
Overall, supporters argue that this bill could help reduce rates of obesity, diabetes, and other diet-related illnesses in the state.
CONS
Opponents raise several concerns. Schools may face higher food costs and limited supply chains when eliminating certain colors and additives, especially in low-income or rural areas. Mandating specific continuing education for physicians may burden already stretched healthcare providers. For manufacturers and restaurants, labeling and disclosure requirements could be costly and complex to implement, especially for small businesses. Limiting SNAP purchases of soft drinks may stigmatize low-income residents and set a precedent for broader benefit restrictions.
Overall, critics argue that without substantial state funding, technical assistance, and stakeholder input, the proposed mandates could lead to confusion, noncompliance, or unintended consequences.
Transfers family and support programs, such as SNAP and TANF, from DCFS to LWC.
Rep. Stephanie H. Berault (R-Slidell)
PROS
Supporters argue that moving SNAP and TANF under LWC could strengthen the connection between public assistance and employment services, streamlining efforts to help individuals transition from assistance to work.
It may also improve efficiency by centralizing job training, employment support, and benefit eligibility under one agency focused on economic mobility.
CONS
Opponents caution that LWC is not equipped to manage the complex social service functions of programs like SNAP and TANF, which address far more than employment. DCFS brings a holistic understanding of family needs, including nutrition, housing, and child welfare.
A transition could disrupt services, increase administrative confusion, and make it harder for vulnerable families to access the support they need without adequate planning, staffing, and resources.
Rep. Danny McCormick (R-Oil City)
Exempts certain foods and beverages from local sales tax.
PROS
Supporters argue that extending the sales tax exemption to local taxes will lower grocery costs for all residents, especially benefiting low- and moderate-income households who spend a larger portion of their income on food. It simplifies the tax structure and makes nutritious food more accessible, which can contribute to better public health outcomes.
CONS
Opponents caution that eliminating local sales tax on groceries could significantly reduce revenue for municipalities and parishes, potentially impacting funding for essential services like public safety, infrastructure, and schools. Local governments may need to raise other taxes or cut services to offset the lost income, creating new fiscal challenges.
Requires individuals requesting public assistance who are not United States citizens be reported to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Similar to SB 100
Rep. Chance Henry (R-Crowley)
PROS
Supporters argue that the bill helps ensure that public benefits are reserved for eligible U.S. citizens and lawful residents, deterring fraud and preserving limited resources for those legally entitled to receive them.
It may also align state agencies with federal immigration enforcement priorities and provide transparency through mandated reporting to state leadership.
CONS
Opponents warn that the bill could lead to wrongful benefit terminations due to verification errors, discourage immigrant families—including those with mixed status—from seeking essential services like healthcare and food assistance, and erode trust between communities and public agencies.
Additionally, the mandate places a significant administrative burden on state and local agencies and could expose the state to legal challenges if federal protections are not fully followed.
One Goal: Eliminate Hunger in Louisiana
-
We advocate for meaningful state and federal initiatives that increase food access and relieve statewide hunger.
-
We strongly support the expansion of programs that have improved food security among the people that we serve.
-
We are committed to raising awareness and educating the public about the problem of hunger in Louisiana.