Latest News
LRA Clarifies: Restaurants Not Subject to Act 172
Jun 30, 2026
Act 172 of the 2026 Regular Session (HB 725) enacted La. R.S. 3:4749.4, requiring retailers to maintain records of seafood purchases for at least six months and authorizing civil penalties for failing to maintain those records or for knowingly creating or submitting false or fraudulent purchase records. The Act applies only to "retailers" and does not define that term.
A review of the statutory framework governing the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry's authority under Title 3 demonstrates that Act 172 does not apply to restaurants.
The Legislature has expressly granted Louisiana Dept. of Agriculture and Forestry (LDAF) authority to regulate restaurants in one limited context: the Louisiana Catfish Marketing Law, La. R.S. 3:4731 et seq. Under that Part, "food service establishment" is specifically defined, and "retailer" is expressly defined to include food service establishments unless otherwise provided. By expressly including restaurants within the definition of retailer, the Legislature demonstrated that it knows how to extend Title 3 regulatory requirements to restaurants when it intends to do so.
The Imported Seafood Safety provisions, La. R.S. 3:4749 et seq., are materially different. Those statutes contain no definition of either "retailer" or "food service establishment." Instead, the statutory scheme regulates seafood processors, distributors, and other entities involved in the wholesale handling and distribution of seafood. Nothing in that Part extends LDAF's regulatory authority to restaurants or incorporates the retailer definition found in the Louisiana Catfish Marketing Law.
Act 172 was enacted within the Imported Seafood Safety provisions and did not amend those definitions or otherwise expand the scope of entities regulated under that Part. Consequently, the Act cannot be read to incorporate the separate retailer definition applicable only to the Louisiana Catfish Marketing Law.
The legislative history further supports this conclusion. As originally introduced, House Bill 725 specifically referenced restaurants in its short title, signaling an intent to regulate restaurant seafood purchases. During consideration by the House Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, Aquaculture, and Rural Development, that language was intentionally removed. The bill was amended to eliminate any reference to restaurants and instead adopted the narrower term "retailers." The Legislature subsequently enacted the bill in that amended form.
Under well-established principles of statutory construction, courts presume that amendments adopted during the legislative process are intentional and are given substantive effect. The Legislature's decision to remove references to restaurants while retaining the term "retailers" reflects a deliberate choice not to impose these recordkeeping requirements on restaurants.
Accordingly, Act 172 should be interpreted consistently with both its statutory context and its legislative history. Because the Imported Seafood Safety provisions do not define restaurants as retailers, do not otherwise regulate food service establishments, and because the Legislature affirmatively removed references to restaurants before final passage, Act 172 does not confer authority upon the LDAF to require restaurants to maintain seafood purchase records under La. R.S. 3:4749.4.