Farm Bill Presents Opportunity to Address Nation's Food Security; Protect American Growers and Consumers
The United States is at an inflection point: for the first time in our history, the USDA has projected the nation to be a net food importer in 2023 [see chart and explanation on page 51]. While there are certainly a number of contributing factors, the increasing importation of fresh and processed fruit and vegetables is certainly an alarming trend. Additionally, continuing self-inflicted damage to our food and agriculture sectors by limiting food research funding only exacerbates this issue. The Farm Bill presents a unique opportunity to address these concerns. By focusing on key areas such as understanding food security faults, enhancing nutrition assistance programs, and investing in food science research and development, the Farm Bill can protect American growers and consumers while promoting a sustainable and secure food system.
Understanding Our Food Security Concerns
Comprehensively addressing the challenges of our nation’s food security will require work outside of the Farm Bill. One issue that requires immediate attention is the exclusion of tinplate steel, the material used in food and aerosol cans, from the Section 232 tariffs. This exclusion is particularly crucial because our domestic supply falls short of meeting even 60% of the domestic demand. Additionally, the U.S. should explore imposing a 25% duty on processed fruits and vegetables imported from China and other nations that are subsidizing their domestic sectors to make their products substantially more competitive in U.S. markets.
In essence, our processing industry, along with the consumers who rely on their products, is burdened by a 25% duty on raw materials used for packaging. Furthermore, the industry faces increasing imports of finished food products from foreign adversaries, which enter the country without any tariffs. It is no wonder, then, that our domestic growers and packers struggle to compete with these foreign imports, especially when approximately 40% of the cost of a can of fruit or vegetable is attributed to the can itself.
But what is a reasonable improvement that can be accomplished in this Farm Bill? In a proposed rulemaking, the USDA is contemplating a 5% ceiling on imported food product purchases for school food authorities. According to USDA’s Child Nutrition Program Operations Study II for School Year 2017-2018, nearly all of the school food authorities that used a Buy American exception used it to purchase fruit (93%) and vegetables (53%). If a 5% non-domestic ceiling was simply applied to total food purchases, this could still result in significant volumes of foreign sourced fruit and vegetable purchases by schools. Instead, Congress should direct USDA to apply the 5% ceiling on imported food product purchases based on specific food categories instead of total food expenditures. USDA can use the same 5 categories under which AMS groups their purchases - namely, Fruits & Vegetables, Poultry, Livestock, Dairy, and Group Materials like cereals, flour, pasta, rice, etc. As a final correction, Congress should eliminate the “significant cost differential” exception as its application has substantially disrupted sales of domestically produced food products into school food programs.
Enhancing Nutrition Assistance Programs
Nutrition assistance programs play a crucial role in promoting healthier diets and combating food insecurity. However, many programs that focus exclusively on fresh produce fail to address the diverse needs of American families. In fact, a February 2023 Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that many children are not eating fruits and vegetables daily and that over half of the children in 20 states did not each a vegetable daily during the preceding week. In 2017, the CDC also reported that “only 9% of adults ate the recommended amount of vegetables and 12% of adults ate the recommended amount of fruit.” This 2020 publication from the National Institutes of Health accurately summarized the concerning situation in its opening sentence: “the low intake of fruits/vegetables by SNAP participants is a persistent public health challenge.”
Rather than continuing to pursue programs and policies that are clearly ineffective at scale, policymakers should to expand nutrition assistance programs to include all forms of fruits and vegetables, such as fresh, canned, dried, or frozen, as long as they meet the nutritional guidelines of the program. Fresh-only programs often rely heavily on foreign imports, but they also limit accessibility and nutritional options for those who need them most. By embracing all forms of fruits and vegetables, we can support American growers, ensure sustainability, and increase consumption among American families.
Current exclusive fresh carve-outs, such as the DOD Fresh Fruits & Vegetables Program, the USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program, and efforts within the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program, require reform to allow for a broader range of fruit and vegetable options. The taxpayers have been subsidizing nearly $1 billion of fresh-only subsidies each year without measurable results. If we want to improve health for Americans at scale, we cannot continue pursuing restrictive fruit and vegetable assistance programs. The science was settled years ago; from Michigan State University studies and results from the National Institutes of Health to the 2020 USDA/HHS Dietary Guidelines for Americans (pg 28), research has found that all forms of fruits and vegetables are equally nutritious. In fact, in many cases processed fruits and vegetables are of higher nutritional value than fresh given that products for processing are picked at peak ripeness and processed within hours.
Another unintended consequence of fresh-only fruit and vegetable programs is the ableist perspective these policies are derived from. According to USDA data analyzed by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, more than 36% of SNAP recipients nationwide are in families with members who are older adults or are disabled. Preferential treatment for products that require culinary and knife skills, in addition to the time and attention required for cleaning, processing, and cooking fresh produce, does not help meet the nutritional gap in families and individuals that need support the most.
By transitioning to programs that include all forms of fruits and vegetables, we can optimize the impact of these initiatives and ensure that American families have access to a diverse range of nutritious options.
Investing in Food Science Research and Development
In 2018, U.S. agriculture and food (AgriFood) contributed over $5 trillion and accounted for 22.8 million jobs. Despite the critical role this sector plays in our economy, public funding in AgriFood research in the U.S. has drastically declined since 2008. In contrast, developing countries such as China and India steadily increased their funding from 1990-2013, and since 2010, China’s funding has surpassed all countries. Investments in food science research and development are crucial for addressing various challenges in our food system.
The status quo poses risks to public health, food safety, and food security. By establishing another core research area (AgriFood Systems) within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), focused on food science and food technology research, we can address these critical gaps. Increased funding for food science research will drive advancements in food processing, food waste reduction, biotechnology, food traceability, and equity in food systems. It will contribute to sustainable practices, support culturally-appropriate food options, and enhance the overall nutritional value of our food supply.
Additionally, it is essential to ensure that food science perspectives are represented in key advisory committees such as the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board. Including individuals with food science backgrounds in these committees will provide valuable insights and enable informed decision-making in matters related to food and agriculture.
Furthermore, eliminating matching requirements for certain competitive grants, particularly in the field of food science and technology research, will encourage more expansive public research investments. This step is crucial as other countries, such as China and India, have been outspending the United States in publicly-supported research efforts for several years now.
The Farm Bill presents a significant opportunity to address the nation's food security concerns, protect American growers and consumers, and promote sustainable and equitable food systems. By improving Buy America provisions, enhancing nutrition assistance programs to include all forms of fruits and vegetables, and investing in food science research and development, we can create a more resilient and inclusive food system.
Food security is national security. We can reverse the trend of American dependence on foreign food, but it requires pragmatic, thoughtful policymaking. By doing so, we can unlock the potential of food science to address pressing challenges, ensure the availability of nutritious food for all, and position the United States as a global leader in food security, sustainability, and innovation.
