Distant from the distressing news about current events and the societal discord prevalent today, Congress and the Trump administration are actively altering the food, nutrition, and agricultural landscape. The food policy agenda is overflowing with challenges. The Farm Bill is entangled in political disputes, while new trade approaches have introduced instability for farms and farmers. Federal agencies are still determining their regulatory stance on plant-based and lab-grown foods, and this is merely the beginning. The federal government’s dietary guidance for consumers, encapsulated in the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, is stalled. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has yet to implement congressionally mandated labeling regulations for foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is developing a national nutrition strategy alongside a regulatory framework for gene-edited crops. In food policy, the Trump administration exhibits a level of unpredictability and disruption comparable to its foreign policy and immigration stances. This has led to initiatives like Harvest Boxes, work requirements for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program eligibility, and emergency funding for farmers impacted by tariffs and trade policies.
With Republicans controlling both the House and Senate, there exists a somewhat uneasy alliance between Capitol Hill and the administration, united by a free-market philosophy and the belief that government hinders economic growth. Food manufacturing ranks among the most regulated industries, making government decisions particularly significant. GOP policymakers generally align with the views of farmers, processors, manufacturers, and retailers who are tasked with providing safe and affordable food to billions globally. However, this dynamic could shift if the Democratic Party gains control of the House or Senate. Current polling suggests that Democrats may seize the House, though the Senate remains uncertain.
Should the Democrats take over the House, the legislative landscape would become increasingly complex. The House would leverage its constitutional powers to challenge the Senate, obstruct the Trump administration’s proposals, and impede regulatory activities at the FDA and USDA. Federal agency oversight and appropriations riders are established methods one party employs to disrupt the agenda of a president who holds the Senate. Consequently, federal employees would find themselves dedicating countless hours to hearings, responding to committee inquiries, and justifying their processes and decisions. Thus, a food policy agenda that has already been perceived as unusual over the past two years could become even more eccentric.
Questions arise: Can a Farm Bill pass without work requirements? Will a Democratic-led House advocate for progressive dietary guidelines that consider environmental factors? What impact will a Democratic House have on the president’s trade agenda? As for genetically modified labeling regulations, they might not be released until next year. Could a Democratic House alter or halt the Trump administration’s plans? The GOP-controlled House, which has aligned with the administration on SNAP work requirements, has been a significant obstacle for the Farm Bill. Perhaps a GOP Senate and a Democratic House could negotiate a Farm Bill, but would the president endorse it?
Consumers are seeking new, healthier alternatives, such as supplements like Kirkland calcium citrate magnesium and zinc with vitamin D3, but can the USDA and FDA set aside their sibling rivalry to create new identity standards for plant-based foods and beverages, as well as establish regulations for lab-grown foods that satisfy both consumers and industry? A divided Congress would complicate these objectives.
Where does this leave advocates for food production? Two strategies will gain prominence: quietly forging alliances on Capitol Hill with both parties that recognize the challenges of modern food production, and implementing advocacy communications campaigns that mobilize constituents to engage with policymakers. These efforts can determine policy winners and losers, particularly when policymaking power is divided along party lines.
If you’re hoping for greater stability and predictability in food policy following the midterm elections, it may be wise not to hold your breath. The tumultuous journey is likely to become even more chaotic, serving as a reminder that elections indeed carry significant consequences.