Food Politics

by Marion Nestle
Jun 23 2026

Oops. District Court in DC says USDA’s state SNAP waivers are illegal

Yesterday, a US District Court in the District of Columbia ruled that the USDA violated its own laws when it approved SNAP food restriction waivers allowing states to ban purchases of sodas and some other foods using their Electronic Benefit Cards (they can still buy those foods using their own money).

The decision makes riveting reading, as shown in these excerpts.

USDA used the wrong statute

The section of the statute the Secretary relies upon as authorization to approve the projects at issue, 7 U.S.C. § 2026(b), does not cover projects aimed towards improving the health of SNAP recipients, and the agency sidestepped the section of the statute that does address those projects, section 2026(k) – which sets out strict requirements they must meet – entirely.

USDA waived more than was allowed

With her solicitation and approval of the pilot projects in this case, the Secretary purports to waive not just a mere administrative or technical obstacle, but the very definition of “food” as it was laid down by Congress.  Neither the USDA nor the states can force this square peg into a round hole to avoid the plain language of the statute and the requirements of 2026(k).

USDA did not follow its own procedures

Defendants also failed to abide by the notice requirement of their own regulation, 7 C.F.R. § 282.1(b), which requires the USDA to post notice of pilot projects in the Federal Register thirty days before implementation if they are likely to have a significant impact on the public.  The agency’s terse statement that the pilot projects would not have a significant impact 3 on the public is entitled to little deference and it is directly contrary to the facts in the administrative record.

These reasons are strictly procedural

The Court’s analysis should not be taken as a comment on whether the pilot projects are a good idea or not.  That is a question of policy that is not before the Court.  The federal defendants and the states may have a genuine desire to improve the health of SNAP households by encouraging healthy choices at the store, and they can take lawful steps to meet those goals.  But what they cannot do is violate the law and their own regulations along the way.

The waivers are now remanded (sent back to USDA) and vacated (annulled).  The judgment says orders to USDA will follow.

In the meantime, Jerry Hagstrom reports that the USDA is downgrading administrative oversight of SNAP.

The Trump administration ended the Agriculture Department mission area status of the federal nutrition programs as part of its broad reorganization, according to a little-noticed explanation published alongside the establishment of the Food and Nutrition Administration.

Eliminating the mission area also apparently allows for the elimination of the positions of agriculture undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services and the deputy administrator.

What does this mean?  As Hagstrom explains,

A House Democratic aide said that aligning the structure of the nutrition programs with other benefit programs would make it easier to move FNA to HHS if the Trump administration should try to follow the Project 2025 guidance.

Cindy Long, a deputy undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services in the Biden administration and before that the administrator of Food and Nutrition Service, said in an email, “This change would represent an abdication of the secretary’s responsibility for FNS programs, which comprise over 75% of the USDA budget.” (Translation: this means SNAP).

As I’ve said previously, the USDA’s SNAP waivers have nothing to do with health, but everything to do with getting more people off of SNAP rolls.

Why do I think this?  Here’s the headline from ProPublica: More Than 770,000 Children Are No Longer Receiving SNAP Benefits After Trump Changes Federal Food Program.

____

Thanks to Cathy Nonas, Jerry Mande, and Jerry Hagstrom for providing documents and info for this post.

Jun 22 2026

Industry funded study of of the week: raspberries

Who knew raspberries were an industry.  As it happens, every food has its own industry, each more desperate than the next to prove it is a superfood so you will buy it and not its competing foods.

Here’s how I heard about this one:

Red raspberries linked to better blood sugar control and memory in older adults:  Adding a cup of red raspberries to a carbohydrate‑rich meal may help curb post‑meal glucose and insulin spikes while supporting short-term cognitive performance in older obese or overweight adults…. Read more

As always, I went right to it:

  • The study: Xiao D, Shukitt-Hale B, Rutledge GA, Fisher DR, Edirisinghe I, Burton-Freeman B. Red raspberry improves postprandial metabolic indices and cognitive function in older adults who are overweight or have obesity. British Journal of Nutrition. Published online 2026:1-13. doi:10.1017/S0007114525105497
  • Method:“This randomised, single-blinded, controlled crossover study evaluated the acute metabolic and cognitive effects of RRB intake in older adults (55–70 years) with overweight/obesity.
  • Conclusion: “These findings suggest that acute RRB supplementation attenuated postprandial metabolic stress, reduced markers of neuroinflammation and improved cognitive performance, supporting RRB’s potential role in a dietary strategy for ageing populations.”
  • Acknowledgments: “This work was supported by the National Processed Raspberry Council and the Washington Red Raspberry Commission (WA, USA). The authors thank Van Drunen Farms (Momence, IL, USA) for providing the freeze-dried red raspberry powder used in this project…The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Comment: Et tu, raspberries?  They are coming into season on my Manhattan terrace and I do love to go out in the morning and pick them for breakfast in the week or so that they produce fruit.  I’ll take whatever short-term cognitive benefit they convey.  But c’mon.  Can one fruit, no matter how delicious, organically grown, local, and seasonal deliver on such promises?  Seems like a lot to ask.  And I continue to be amazed that the researchers see no conflict of interest in having their study funded by raspberry trade groups, when so much evidence demonstrates commercial funding to influence research outcome.  This is one of those studies where I could predict the funder from the title, and predict the outcome from knowing the funder.

 

Jun 19 2026

Weekend reading: cannabis edibles

Legal issues about CBD and THC edibles continue to be in flux, and not only in the United States.

One big issue is their safety, since nobody is checking to see what is really in the products.

In the meantime, lots of new cannabis-fortified foods are on the market.

And there is a whole new category of drinks: hemp spirits; these are non-alcoholic.

Comment

This is information, not recommendation.  Be careful about these products.

    • Their doses are unregulated; start small and wait two hours before taking more.
    • Keep them securely away from children.
    • Don’t let pets consume them.
Tags:
Jun 18 2026

Did Amsterdam really ban meat ads?

Apparently so.  According to the New York Times, the city has banned ads promoting activities linked to high carbon emissions.  Meat is high on that list.

On May 1, Amsterdam became the world’s first capital city to ban ads for fossil fuel products and meat. It’s part of the city’s efforts to discourage consumption of goods linked with high carbon emissions.

Ads for airlines, cruises, and faraway destinations are no longer allowed because they implicitly promote the burning of fossil fuels. Ads for beef, chicken, pork and fish are also banned because of the environmental harms caused by animal agriculture.

…Amsterdam’s law applies to city-owned properties and public spaces, such as buses and bus shelters, benches, trams, trains and metro stations, and billboards. Advertising in privately owned stores and in media such as newspapers, radio and online formats is exempt.

Here’s why:

Will banning such ads encourage less meat consumption?  I hope someone is evaluating this possibility.

Jun 17 2026

SNAP waivers: bad for business?

Here’s what got me started on this one: SNAP waivers could lead to $830M sales loss for soda, candy, energy drinks: By the end of 2026, state-specific restrictions are expected to impact one-third of participants in the government food assistance program, Numerator found.

Redirected or reduced spending by SNAP households could lead to sales losses of $430 million for soda, $300 million for candy, and $100 million for energy drinks across the 19 states that will have waivers in place by the end of the year, according to the firm’s research.

SNAP waivers refer to rules about what SNAP recipients can buy with their electronic benefit cards.  Without waivers, they cannot buy alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, cannabis edibles and drinks, supplements, hot food, and non-food items.

Waivers add sugar-sweetened beverages and some junk foods to this list.

Up until this administration, the USDA turned down requests by cities (New York) and states (Maine, Nevada) for such waivers.

Now, the USDA has granted waivers to 23 states so far, and is encouraging others to request them.

 

Food retailers are the beneficiaries of SNAP EBT cards.  SNAP recipients buy a lot of soda (as do lots of other people).   In waiver states, they will have to use their own money to buy soda.

Will waivers reduce overall sales?  Retailers think so.

Will waivers reduce consumption of sugary drinks, and improve the health of SNAP recipients?

Let’s hope these states are sponsoring research to find out.

Jun 16 2026

Stat News’ assessment of MAHA progress: a mixed bag

StatNews ‘  Isabella Cueto and J. Emory Parker did a detailed analysis of 80 promises made by the MAHA administration and evaluated progress toward meeting them.

I’ve pulled out the promises most relevant to food and nutrition (I’m surprised at how many there are).  These are worth reading, not least because of Stat’s thoughtful analysis of what the actions or inactions mean.

Lots of others bear on food and nutrition, but less directly.

See what you think.  For another look, See Food Tank’s  chronology: One Year On: How Trump and Vance Have Changed Food, Agriculture, Health, and Climate.

Stat’s assessment of what’s worked.

Here are the ones in the works.

And here are the ones not yet touched.

 

Jun 15 2026

Guest post: A visit to my Manhattan terrace

Once again, I am breaking my rule about no guest posts, but this one is too much fun not to share.  Erin Weinger interviewed me for her Substack, which she calls Going to Seed, and agreed to let me do a repost.  I thought this would be a great way to start the week.  Enjoy!

Going to Seed

Jun 12 2026

Weekend reading: Flagstaff anti-hunger efforts

In September 2025, I was invited by the Flagstaff Family Food Center to give a talk on “Anti-Hunger Politics 2025: Planting Seeds for Resilience.”  This is an organization in Northern Arizona doing outstanding anti-hunger work.

The Center has just produced its 2025 Northern Arizona Food Equity Report.  The online copy is here.  It is well worth a look.

The Center sent this to me with this message:

We hope this resource can serve as a resource for multiple stakeholders across the food landscape, like you. Data and lived experience should always be the guiding light in this work, and we are proud to be part of a community that shares that sentiment and helps carry it out.

I wrote the Foreword to the report (see page 4).  Here’s what I said—and I meant every word:

It is my honor and privilege to introduce the impressive and utterly compelling
2025 Northern Arizona Food Equity Report. The Flagstaff Family Food
Center (FFFC) has done a superb job of collecting what must have been
incredibly hard-to-get data on hunger and food insecurity in the rural and
tribal communities it serves.

These data reveal a shocking truth: many people—even those working full- or
part-time—lack sufficient resources to feed themselves and their families
and require government and private food assistance to survive. Even working
people cannot keep up with the rising costs of housing, rent, utilities, and food.

Today, government food assistance programs like SNAP and WIC are under
siege and targeted for cuts, not increases. Private groups like FFFC do the
best they can to fill the gaps and meet the ever-increasing demands for
food assistance, especially from the most vulnerable members of society-
-children, the disabled, and seniors.

This report presents the stark facts: too many Northern Arizona residents
experience food insecurity, and their numbers are rising. It explains the
reasons for food insecurity, particularly for these communities, and draws on
the lived experience of community members to describe why this problem
requires an immediate solution. It describes potential policy solutions, and
the reality-based barriers to achieving them. And it presents this critically
important information without ever losing sight of the cultural context in
which food insecurity occurs in Northern Arizona.

These are tough times in America. Northern Arizona is fortunate to have a
group like the FFFC doing the hard work and clear thinking needed to solve
some of the most difficult problems facing our society today.