Push to limit food additives in school meals

INDIANAPOLIS — An Indiana bill aimed at restricting certain food additives in school meals is moving forward, drawing concern from agricultural groups like Farm Bureau which warn that the legislation could create higher costs, regulatory confusion and other problems.

House Bill 1137 was amended in the first half of the state General Assembly session to remove the definition of ultra-processed foods, but it still includes a list of 13 ingredients that will be prohibited in school foods and beverages during school hours, said Micha Burkert, director of government affairs at Indiana Farm Bureau.

The bill includes language requiring schools to post menus — with ingredients for each item — on their websites.

Burkert noted that HB 1137 is going through education committees instead of agriculture or health committees. The bill has passed the House and is now before the Senate.

Cameron Castillo, public policy assistant at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said that AFBF is monitoring HB 1137, as well as other statutes they consider related to “Make America Healthy Again” matters.

“If every state has a different definition (of ultra-processed foods), that’s going to be very burdensome and raise costs,” said Brian Glenn, a director of government affairs at AFBF. “We’re pushing for a uniform, science-based approach at the national level.”

Beyond nutrition and ingredient issues, there is broader uncertainty tied to MAHA-related policy discussions.

Stricter pesticide regulations are a concern for ag organizations like AFBF.

“They came out with an assessment in May 2025 that raised a lot of questions around pesticides,” said Glenn of the Environmental Protection Agency. “After this came out, we spoke out along with many other ag groups to demand a seat at the table.”

Since then, he’s noticed a difference in including farmers in pesticide discussions.

“They recognize that farmers are a part of the solution,” he said. “It was a step in the right direction. We can’t stop engaging with EPA and sharing the importance of pesticide programs.”

Glenn said factions of the MAHA movement have influenced the EPA to take a precautionary approach to approving new pesticides.

“That sets a dangerous precedent, if EPA steps aside from science to appease them,” he said.

He felt more optimistic about MAHA’s influence on the Regenerative Ag Pilot Program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“It’s something our farmers and ranchers have been doing for decades,” he said, citing the Natural Resources Conservation Service. “USDA has decided they want to be in the driver’s seat of regenerative ag, which is a good thing. They are investing in conservation practices under NRCS.

“We see this as a good step, generally, to show that USDA is in the driver’s seat and these are longstanding practices that have been around for years.”