Senate Bill 14, a bill by Chairman Senator Patrick McMath that would curb specified additives and ingredients in school meals, restrict certain beverages from purchases with SNAP benefits, and require brief continuing-education changes for clinicians, advanced out of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare on April 30 by a 4–3 vote.

The bill’s sponsor, Chairman Patrick McMath, told the committee: "What senate bill 14 does, the first 1 is it it prohibits certain ultra processed foods, that's defined by ingredients, from our school lunches." He told members he chose ingredient-based prohibitions rather than an unresolved definition of "ultra-processed" and said the proposal was intended to protect children and change long-term health trends.

The bill's lead provisions, as amended in committee, are:
- School meals: prohibit a specified list of additives, artificial dyes and some sweeteners in school breakfasts and lunches; the language in committee uses the term "prohibited ingredients" rather than "ultra-processed foods." The effective dates for school-menu changes were moved later in the bill to allow time for implementation.
- Nutrition continuing education: require a minimum of one hour of nutrition-related continuing medical education every two years for certain physicians and nurses (the committee instructed boards and stakeholders to help set content and delivery).
- SNAP purchases: direct the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to prepare a list of "ineligible beverages" (the bill's guardrail language defines an ineligible beverage as a nonalcoholic drink that contains more than 5 grams of added sugar or any artificial sweetener) and to request a federal waiver; the committee adopted a timetable that delays DCFS's waiver request until spring 2026 to provide transition time for retailers and vendors.
- Labeling/transparency: replace a proposed on-package warning label with a QR-code requirement linking consumers to ingredient information and health context; the committee also exempted dietary supplements from the QR-code requirement.
- Restaurant disclosure: require simple disclosure on menus where restaurants use specified seed oils (the bill frames this as consumer transparency, not a ban).

Why the proposal matters: supporters told the committee they view SB 14 as a public-health response to rising chronic disease. Chairman McMath cited state health data and costs, saying the state spends "over $28,000,000,000 annually combating chronic disease," and argued ingredient restrictions in schools and ingredient transparency would reduce exposure among children. Deputy Surgeon General Wyche Coleman testified on behalf of the Louisiana Department of Health, saying SB 14 "further focuses that effort on the subset of the population who is unable to choose for themselves and that is our children." He added that many dyes and additives offer no nutritional benefit and should not be part of meals served to children.

Supporters from medicine, hospitals and public-health groups framed the bill as a preventive investment. Pediatrician Elaine Bullock told the committee she has seen increases in pediatric chronic conditions and argued that removing certain additives from school meals could lessen inflammation and other health problems in children. A registered dietitian with Baton Rouge General, Kristen West, testified that artificial dyes and several additives are associated in the literature with behavioral effects and other harms in children.

Business groups, manufacturers and beverage industry representatives told the committee they support increased ingredient transparency but warned that the bill could create implementation and supply-chain challenges. Erin Reardon of the Consumer Brands Association urged a federal solution and flagged potential costs and the multi-year timelines manufacturers typically need for relabeling. Representatives of bottled-beverage bottlers said many ingredients are already disclosed and noted the industry’s voluntary school-beverage practices that removed full-calorie sodas years ago.

A major point of debate was the SNAP provision. Brian Sikma, a visiting fellow with the Foundation for Government Accountability Action, said the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program "is the only federal program... that does not have nutrition standards in place for consumers" and argued state-level waivers are an allotted route to set limits on non-nutritive beverage purchases. Opponents and some members of the committee raised concerns that restricting SNAP purchases could unintentionally single out low-income recipients, and argued the state should invest in incentives for healthier purchases and other supports (for example, the committee heard that the federal Double Up Food Bucks and other pilots can pair incentives with healthier purchases).

Amendments: the committee approved several changes before advancing the bill. Among the measures adopted were the chairman’s amendment that replaced the phrase "ultra processed foods" with a defined list of "prohibited ingredients" and added sweeteners and ingredient clarifications (adopted by unanimous consent), an amendment preserving local-school concession and vending exceptions put forward by Senator Luno (adopted), and an amendment clarifying that beverages containing electrolytes or vitamins for rehydration could be exempted from the ineligible-beverage definition (adopted). A high-profile amendment that would have exempted Louisiana-based food manufacturers with 40 or more years of in-state operations failed on a roll call (2–5).

Committee action and next steps: after debate and public testimony, the committee voted to report SB 14 as amended. Chairman McMath made the motion to report the bill; the roll call recorded four yes votes and three no votes, and the motion carried. The committee will forward the amended bill for consideration by the full Senate. If passed by the Senate, the bill must still clear the House and the governor to become law.

Context and dissent: members who opposed parts of the bill emphasized implementation costs, the limited time for industry to relabel and reformulate products, and the equity question about restricting choices for SNAP recipients. Senator Boudreaux, who proposed and later supported some technical adjustments, objected during the final committee consideration to the bill's potential economic effects and messaging toward low-income communities; that objection was noted but did not change the final roll-call outcome.

Votes at a glance:
- Adopted (by unanimous consent): Chairman’s ingredient-definition amendment (amendment set 4-27) — adopted without recorded roll call.
- Adopted (by unanimous consent): Amendment preserving concession/vending exceptions for schools (amendment 10-85).
- Adopted (by unanimous consent): Clarification excluding beverages with added electrolytes/vitamins from the ineligible beverage definition (amendment 10-88).
- Failed (roll-call): Amendment to exempt Louisiana-based companies with 40+ years of in-state operations (amendment 10-82) — vote: 2 yes, 5 no.
- Reported out of committee (roll-call): Motion to report SB 14 as amended — vote: 4 yes, 3 no.

What the committee record shows and what it does not: the bill text adopted in committee focuses on ingredient lists (prohibited ingredients) rather than an atmospheric definition of "ultra-processed." The record provides a timeline for DCFS to prepare the SNAP ineligible list by October and delays the federal-waiver request until April 2026 to allow affected retailers and vendors time to adjust. The committee also replaced a straight on-package warning requirement with a QR-code disclosure linking to ingredient details; dietary supplements were carved out of that QR-code requirement. The record does not enact a dollar change to SNAP benefits, nor does it create an immediately effective ban on specific grocery products without the federal waiver in place.

The committee took extensive public testimony, and members repeatedly urged additional stakeholder engagement with industry, health systems and federal agencies as language is finalized. The bill, as reported, continues to move through the legislative process with implementation details and federal approvals still required.