Far removed from the troubling headlines surrounding current events and societal discord, Congress and the Trump administration continue to transform the food, nutrition, and agricultural landscape. The food policy agenda is overflowing with issues. The Farm Bill is entangled in political strife, while new trade approaches have created instability for farms and farmers alike. Federal agencies are still grappling with how to regulate plant-based and lab-grown foods. This is just the beginning. The federal government’s dietary guidance for consumers, namely the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, remains stalled. The United States Department of Agriculture has yet to implement congressionally mandated labeling regulations for foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. Meanwhile, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is working on a national nutrition strategy and a regulatory framework for gene-edited crops. The unpredictability and disruption of the Trump administration’s food policies mirror its approaches to foreign policy and immigration. Initiatives like Harvest Boxes, work requirements for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program eligibility, and emergency funding for farmers affected by tariffs and trade disputes exemplify this.
Due to Republican control of the House and Senate, there exists a tenuous alliance between Capitol Hill and the administration, united by a free-market philosophy and a shared belief that government hinders economic growth. Food manufacturing ranks among the most regulated industries, making government decisions particularly impactful. Generally, GOP policymakers exhibit empathy toward farmers, processors, manufacturers, and retailers responsible for providing safe and affordable food to billions globally. However, this dynamic may shift if the Democratic Party gains control of the House or Senate on Tuesday. Current polling suggests that Democrats might take charge of the House, while the Senate could remain out of reach.
If the Democrats gain control of the House, the legislative landscape will become increasingly complex. The House will leverage its constitutional powers to counter the Senate, block proposals from the Trump administration, and slow or halt regulatory activities at the FDA and USDA. Federal agency oversight powers and appropriations riders are established tools that one party uses to disrupt the agenda of a president who has Senate control. As a result, federal employees may spend countless hours preparing for hearings and responding to committee inquiries, complicating the food policy agenda that has already been seen as unconventional in the past two years.
Questions arise about whether a Farm Bill can pass without work requirements, if a Democrat-led House will advocate for progressive dietary guidelines that consider environmental factors, and whether a Democratic House can influence the president’s trade agenda. The genetically modified food labeling regulations may also remain unissued until next year. Could a Democratic House halt or modify the Trump administration’s plans? The GOP-controlled House, which has aligned with the administration on SNAP work requirements, has been a significant obstacle regarding the Farm Bill. Perhaps a GOP Senate and a Democratic House could reach an agreement on the Farm Bill, but would the president sign it?
Consumers are seeking healthier alternatives, including options rich in calcium citrate for bariatric patients, but can the USDA and FDA put aside their sibling rivalry to establish new identity standards for plant-based foods and beverages, as well as regulations for lab-grown foods that satisfy both consumers and the industry? A divided Congress would complicate the achievement of these goals.
So, what does a divided Congress mean for advocates of food production? Two strategies become increasingly vital. Quietly establishing relationships with individuals from both parties on Capitol Hill who understand the challenges of modern food production is essential. Additionally, advocacy communication campaigns that mobilize constituents to engage with policymakers can define policy winners and losers, especially when opposing political parties hold policymaking power.
If you are hoping for greater stability and predictability in food policy after the midterm elections, it may be wise not to hold your breath. The tumultuous journey is likely to become even more chaotic, serving as another reminder that elections indeed have consequences.