Search results: food policy action

Food Policy Action started keeping score on congressional votes on food issues in 2013, but the last time I wrote about its scorecard was in 2017.2020

It has just published its 2020 interactive Scorecard, which you can use to check how your state’s legislators score on food issues.

As Food Policy Action puts it, the “scorecard underscores Senate’s failure to feed hungry, protect workers.”

Food Policy Action identifies six ways Trump has hurt eaters, food workers and farmers.

The purpose of the Scorecard is to hold legislators accountable.  Now is the time to do that.

Vote with your votes by November 3.

Food Policy Action has released its annual scorecard, evaluating how our federal legislators vote on food issues.  In case you haven’t noticed, they aren’t voting on much these days so there wasn’t much to score.

In the Senate, there was only one vote (on the nomination of Scott Pruitt as USDA Secretary), although ten bills were introduced.

In the House, there were five votes and 11 bills.

Overall scores averaged 49%—dismal.

The site has a handy interactive map; click on it to see how your legislators are voting.

In case you want to see just how badly Congress is doing, I’ve been posting these scorecards since they started:

• 2016
• 2015
• 2014
• 2013

One thought: maybe it’s just as well.

This year, only three Senators—Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Richard Durbin—got top scores from Food Policy Action for their votes on food and farm issues.  This is down from the 29 who earned perfect scores in 2015.

In the House, 79 representatives got perfect scores as opposed to 87 in 2015.

The annual Scorecard ranks lawmakers on whether they support legislation on issues such as GMO labeling, hunger, fisheries management, food waste, pesticides, the EPA’s waters of the U.S. rule, among others.

It’s disappointing that fewer legislators are getting top scores, since one of the purposes of this activity is to hold them accountable and encourage more liberal voting on food and farm issues.

I went yesterday to the press conference for the release of the Food Policy Action 2015 Scorecard.

This was outdoors at Campos Community Garden in Manhattan’s East Village, attended by classes of schoolkids.  The speakers:

• Tom Colicchio: co-founder of Food Policy Action (FPA) and owner of Crafted Hospitality
• Bill Telepan: executive chef of Wellness in the Schools (WITS) and chef/owner of Telepan
• Ken Cook: co-founder of Food Policy Action and president of Environmental Working Group (EWG)

Food Policy Action aims to improve national discussions of food policy issues by informing the public about how elected officials vote on these issues.  Hence: the Scorecard.

As I discussed last year, points are awarded for votes on bills introduced or co-sponsored that deal with:

• Domestic and international hunger
• Food safety
• Food access
• Farm subsidies
• Animal welfare
• Food and farm labor
• Nutrition
• Food additives
• Food transparency
• Local and regional food production
• The environmental effects of food production

In the Senate, for example, there were just 5 bills to be voted on an 10 that were co-sponsored (but not voted on).  In the House, there were votes on 10 bills and 12 that were co-sponsored (no vote).  This leaves lots of room for improvement, even among the best.

The speakers explained to the kids that the Scorecard gave grades to members of Congress, just like they get, and took them through a discussion of thumbs up and thumbs down appraisals of legislators’ votes on key food issues.  Congress is doing a little better this year than last, they said, but still has a long way to go.

Those of us in New York are lucky.  Both of our Senators, Kirsten Gillbrand and Charles Schumer scored 100.

Here are my reports on the Scorecards from 2013 and 2014.  The Scorecard is a great first step in holding legislators accountable.

Food Policy Action announced the release of its second annual National Food Policy Scorecard last week, ranking members of the House and Senate on their votes on key food-related issues.

Food Policy Action is unique among food advocacy organizations in its explicit use of the political process.  Its goal is to

promote policies that support healthy diets, reduce hunger at home and abroad, improve food access and affordability, uphold the rights and dignity of food and farm workers, increase transparency, improve public health, reduce the risk of food-borne illness, support local and regional food systems, protect and maintain sustainable fisheries, treat farm animals humanely and reduce the environmental impact of farming and food production.

How?  By holding legislators accountable for their foods on food and farming issues.  Hence: The Food Policy Scorecard.

I discussed the previous scorecard in December 2013.

On this round, Food Policy Action awarded scores of 100 to 71 members of Congress – 54 in the House of Representatives, 17 in the Senate.

It awarded scores of zero to 35 members.

The scores are given for votes on bills related to key food issues:

• Hunger
• Food aid
• Food labeling
• Farm subsidies
• Sustainable farming

The website makes it easy to track your legislators’s votes.

I looked at Senators from New York.

• Kirsten Gillbrand scores 85 (she lost points by voting against reducing federal insurance subsidies for rich farmers and against protecting states’ rights to require GMO labels)
• Charles Schumer scores 100

This is a valuable tool for anyone who cares how politics works in America.  Let’s hope it encourages citizens to hold their representatives accountable and legislators to think twice before voting against consumer-friendly food and farming bills.

Washington is such a mess that you can’t tell the players without a scorecard, and this one is really useful.

Food Policy Action to the rescue.

Food Policy Action is a project of the Environmental Working Group.  Ken Cook of EWG is its chair.  Tom Colicchio is listed as the first board member.

The 2013 National Food Policy Scorecard ranks each member of the Senate and House on their votes on food issues.

The interactive map lets you click on a state and see how our congressional representatives are voting.  According to the scorecard, 87 members are Good Food Champions.  We need more!

• Senate Good Food Policy Champions
• House Good Food Policy Champions

I looked up New York.  Senator Charles Schumer gets a perfect 100%.  Yes!

But Senator Kirsten Gillibrand only gets 67%.

How come?  Click on her name and the site lists her votes on key legislation.  Oops.  She voted against GMO labeling and against a key farm bill amendment on crop insurance.  If you click on the button, you get to learn more about this vote and the legislation.

This kind of information is hard to come by.  Food Policy Action’s scorecard is easy to use and performs a terrific public service.

Thanks to everyone responsible for it.

Today, the Lancet publishes three major papers on ultra-processed foods and human health: science, policy, and politics (I am a co-author on the policy and politics papers).  Here’s Peter Bond’s photo, the logo for the series.

THE PAPERS

I.  SCIENCE

Ultra-processed foods and human health: the main thesis and the evidence. Carlos A Monteiro, Maria LC Louzada, Euridice Steele-Martinez, Geoffrey Cannon, Giovanna C Andrade, Phillip Baker, Maira Bes-Rastrollo, Marialaura Bonaccio, Ashley N Gearhardt, Neha Khandpur, Marit Kolby, Renata B Levy, Priscila P Machado, Jean-Claude Moubarac, Leandro F M Rezende, Juan A Rivera, Gyorgy Scrinis, Bernard Srour, Boyd Swinburn, Mathilde Touvier.

This first paper defines ultra-processed foods and diets as including three specific elements:

• Industrially produced
• Made from cheap ingredients extracted from whole foods, combined with additives
• Designed to maximize industry profits

It presents the evidence in support of three hypotheses about ultra-processed dietary patterns.  These:

• Globally displace traditional diets based on whole foods.
• Reduce dietary quality.
• Are a key driver of the escalating global burden of diet-related chronic diseases.

II.  POLICY

Policies to halt and reverse the rise in ultra-processed food production, marketing, and consumption. [Full text here] Gyorgy Scrinis, Barry M Popkin, Camila Corvalan, Ana Clara Duran, Marion Nestle, Mark Lawrence, Phillip Baker, Carlos A Monteiro, Christopher Millet, Jean-Claude Moubarac, Patricia Jaime, Neha Khandpur.

This paper presents evidence in support of policies to:

• Reduce intake of ultra-processed foods as well as those high in sugar, salt, and fats.
• Restrict the marketing, availability, and affordability of ultra-processed foods (examples: taxes, warning labels, advertising bans, limits on use in schools, etc).
• Restrict the marketing and political power of transnational food corporations (manufacturers, retailers, fast food chains, agricultural producers).
• Support the production, availability, and affordability of minimally processed foods.

III.  POLITICS

Towards unified global action on ultra-processed foods: understanding commercial determinants, countering corporate power, and mobilising a public health response.  [Full text here] Phillip Baker, Scott Slater, Mariel White, Benjamin Wood, Alejandra Contreras, Camila Corvalán, Arun Gupta, Karen Hofman, Petronell Kruger, Amos Laar, Mark Lawrence, Mikateko Mafuyeka, Melissa Mialon, Carlos A Monteiro, Silver Nanema, Sirinya Phulkerd, Barry M Popkin, Paulo Serodio, Katherine Shats, Christoffer Van Tulleken, Marion Nestle, Simón Barquera.

This paper describes how the food industry is the main barrier to reducing intake of ultra-processed foods.

Food companies exert political power through corporate political activities, coordinated through a global network of front groups, multi-stakeholder initiatives, and research partners.  They:

• Engage in direct lobbying,, infiltrate government agencies, and litigate
• Promote corporate-friendly governance models, forms of regulation, and civil societies
• Frame debate, generate favorable research evidence, and manufacture scientific doubt

To counter such corporate practices, actions are needed to

• Disrupt the ultraprocessed business model
• Redistributing resources to other types of food producers
• Protect food governance from corporate interference
• Implement robust conflict of interest safeguards in policy making, research, and professional practice.

This paper also addresses and responds to criticisms of the ultra-processed concept.

KEY MESSAGE: Reducing production and consumption of ultra-processed foods is a priority global health issue.

Thereore, ultra-processed foods require a global response to:

• Confront corporate power,
• Reclaim public policy space
• Restructure food systems to prioritize health, equity, and sustainability over corporate profit.

No excuses.  Get to work!

RESOURCES

Reports about one or another aspect of food systems are issued constantly and are hard to keep up with.  Here are links to two major sources.

I.  The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems.

This group produces impressive food-system reports at regular intervals.

Its most recent is Fuel to Fork: What will it take to get fossil fuels out of our food systems?

Our food system is hooked on fossil fuels. From fossil-fuelled fertilizers and pesticides to plastic packaging, ultra-processed foods, and long-haul cold chains, fossil fuels are entwined at every link in the food chain. Food systems now consume 40% of all petrochemicals and 15% of fossil fuels globally – making them a key growth frontier for Big Oil. Yet food remains glaringly absent from the climate conversation…This report sets out what it will take to break that addiction – and why it must start now.

II.  FAO Committee on World Food Security, High Level Panel of Experts  

This group produces reports aimed at faciliating policy debates and policy making.  Its most recent is Building Resilient Food Systems (September 2025)

This report addresses the urgent need to enhance food system resilience amidst escalating environmental, political and economic challenges. It provides focused and action-oriented policy recommendations to build resilient food systems capable of withstanding shocks and stresses…The report highlights the need to shift…to approaches aimed at “bouncing forward” by means of transformative changes that address structural and systemic vulnerabilities…In sum, the report calls for immediate and sustained action to build food system resilience and ensure the right to food for all and the well-being of the planet for future generations.