Fed Up with Big Food
As the election season came to a close this past week, it got me thinking about a topic that I had rarely thought about prior to this election. The connection between food and politics.
Historically, our food system was largely left out of the debate when it came to our elected officials, at least on the national level. Big food’s interest seemed to be protected by both sides of the aisle as there were significant lobbying efforts by companies like Coca Cola, Tyson, Nestle, and more in D.C. Donations to Republican and Democratic candidates from these organizations dates back to the 1960s. One of the earliest examples of big food lobbying was the sugar industry funding research to downplay risks associated with sugar consumption. In the 80s and 90s, the practice of lobbying expanded significantly, with food companies increasingly hiring professional lobbyists to influence policy decisions. This period saw the establishment of more structured lobbying efforts by large food corporations. By 2020, the food industry was spending over $175 million on political contributions and lobbying. These efforts have been instrumental in shaping policies that affect our food system and are much to blame for the nutrition related health issues that are skyrocketing in America.
In 1964 the SNAP, or food stamp program, was created by the government to improve nutrition for low-income families but has fallen quite short of this. There is ongoing debate about whether SNAP should primarily serve as an anti-poverty program or focus on improving nutritional outcomes. This tension is exacerbated by differing views between public health advocates and anti-hunger groups. The program's structure is influenced by the agriculture and food industries, which benefit from SNAP's role in the marketplace. This relationship has led to criticism that SNAP supports industry interests over public health.
A recent review of the program found, Children participating in SNAP were more likely to have elevated disease risk and consume 44% more sugar‐sweetened beverages (SSBs), more high‐fat dairy, and more processed meats than income‐eligible nonparticipants. The USDA has found that SNAP recipients are more obese than similar income nonrecipients. It begs us to ask the question how is this the case when the whole point of the program was to increase access to nutritional foods? Well, it comes down to the relationships between big food and the government. The single largest purchase item in the program is currently soda and candy, clearly unhealthy options for SNAP recipients. Lobbying by companies producing these unhealthy options have led to favorable policies encouraging government programs, which are aimed at providing nutritious food to our population, to spending money and reimbursing products from these corporations.
Currently government funds subsidize school meals, but as production costs have grown the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) has had to stretch its dollars with cheaper and easier to prepare food, which is often not nutritious. These low-quality lunches are responsible for feeding the almost 10 million children experiencing food insecurity. Over 100,000 public and private schools take part in the National School Lunch Program daily. Due to budget constraints, schools may opt for cheaper, processed foods rather than fresh fruits and vegetables, leading to meals that lack essential nutrients. The federal reimbursement rate for school lunches is around $4.30 per meal, which falls short of what it would cost to provide healthy alternatives, forcing school to prioritize cost over quality.
In the 2024 election cycle, inflation and food prices have been front of mind for voters along with a new topic of conversation: the health impact on our country of big food. With rising obesity and chronic disease amongst our population, many organizations and individuals have started to expose the conflicts of interest that arise between food companies, the government, and the public when big food supports political candidates. On top of all this, skyrocketing inflation has wreaked havoc on our food system with grocery prices rising more than 25% since 2020 making it more expensive to choose healthier options across the board.
The good news is that during this election cycle the topic is finally getting the attention it deserves and candidates from both parties are actively having these important conversations. While most topics present a clear dividing line between Republicans and Democrats, food and our nation’s growing health problem seems to be the one thing they can agree on, or at least acknowledge in the same vein. RFK Jr. made is a huge pillar of his campaign before dropping out to support Donald Trump. With their latest “Make America Healthy Again” push supported by the MAHA Alliance Super PAC, Trump and RFK are aiming “to prioritize regenerative agriculture, preserving natural habitats, and eliminate toxins from our food, water, and air”. On the other side of the aisle, Vice President Kamala Harris has vocally supported multiple acts to improve both nutrition and food insecurity. Her policies, such as increasing the power of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), aim to strengthen regulations on the food sector to ensure improved quality of the food on Americans tables.
While we will never know if real reform in this space would have happened if the Democrats had stayed in power, what I hope is, with Trump as the president-elect and RFK by his side for the victory lap, that we can expect to see a continuation of this discussion going into 2025 and potentially real change on this topic. From our governmental leadership to the big food companies that have for so long taken advantage of our people and their power, there will need to be a full overhaul of how we dealt with issues of food and nutrition in our society and focus on the most important part of the topic, the health outcomes of our citizens.