The USDA has finally posted its rules for health claims on meats in the January 16 Federal Register. After dealing with the 44,000 or so comments it received on the issue, the USDA defines what “naturally raised” means for meat and livestock. In sum: no growth promoters, antibiotics, animal by-products, or fish by-products. This is a voluntary standard, but should help.
The USDA says it will be taking samples of meat and poultry products that contain ingredients derived from milk to find out whether they contain melamine and, if so, how much. It will be sampling five kinds of products: baby foods, cooked sausages, breaded chicken, meatballs, and meat and poultry wrapped in dough (including calzones). Great. I’m hoping they will be using the same kinds of methods used by FDA and coordinating closely with that agency. If ever we needed a reason to have just ONE food safety agency instead of the multiple ones we have now (USDA, FDA, EPA, etc), melamine is as good as any.
The new Dietary Guidelines for Americans actively promote meat and dairy intake, especially full-fat dairy. The USDA has long acted as a marketing arm of those industries through its research and promotion (checkoff) programs.
But the current government takes this new levels.
Here are the Secretaries of HHS and USDA:
More on the milk mustache campaign here, here, here, and here.
And how about RFK Jr’s birthday celebration:
Earlier, in 2025, USDA announced its plan to “fortify the American beef industry.”
Comment
I chalk all this up to the extraordinary lobbying power of the meat and dairy industries. Fruit and vegetable growers (“specialty crops”) do not have this kind of clout. Will eating more meat and dairy foods Make America Healthy Again? That seems highly unlikely. In my reading of the evidence, we—and the planet—would be healthier getting more of our calories from plant foods.I
The Eat Real Food Website says “We are ending the war on protein. Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant sources….” But here’s what comes up first and is clearly the first priority.
And here’s an exultant RFK Jr on X:
Protein is well understood to be a euphemism for meat. I’ve already written about how most people already eat twice the protein needed so advice to eat more of it is unlikely to do anyone any good.
And the document, Daily Servings by Calorie Level, makes it clear that you have to eat meat if you are going to reach the level of protein intake recommended. For this, I am indebted to Kevin Klatt, who posted this on X.
What’s wrong with recommending more meat?
Of course, sustainability and equity are non-topics for this administration. But they matter and should very much be on the table for discussion.
We already eat plenty of meat—more than 100 pounds per capita per year of red meat alone (according to USDA). We don’t need to be eating more.
Correction
In my first post on these dietary guidelines, I said:
Some of the instructions don’t make sense: “Consume meat with no or limited added sugars?” Who does this?
Several readers wrote to object. Renata M, for example, said she could think of so many examples, she just had to say something.
Oops. Sorry about that. Thanks!
The USDA requires retailers who accept SNAP benefits to stock a few fruits and vegetables. Formerly, USDA required retailers to provide three varieties of food in each of four categories—dairy, protein, grain, and fruits and vegetables. It allowed stores to meet these requirements by providing a few tired-looking produce items, such as the ones shown here from a Walgreen drugstore.
USDA proposes to expand the number from 3 to 7.
This is confusing. I thought the USDA did this in 2016: Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Clarification of Proposed Rule and Extension of Comment Period.
OK. Whatever. Let’s start with the press release, because I always enjoy USDA rhetoric: Secretary Rollins Strengthens SNAP Retailer Stocking Requirements to Make America Healthy Again.
Right now, the bar for stocking food as a SNAP retailer is far too low, allowing people to game the system and leaving vulnerable Americans without healthy food options. These common-sense changes are designed to minimize benefit trafficking and skimming, among other fraudulent activities, while making more nutritious foods available to families who rely on the program….USDA is actively reorienting SNAP towards better nutrition and emphasizing whole, healthy food for program participants. This includes approving 12 states to exclude certain unhealthy foods from purchase with SNAP benefits.
If you want the details, check the Proposed Rule – Updated Staple Food Stocking Standards for Retailers in SNAP.
This offers complicated explanations of each food category: “The Department is proposing to subdivide protein into the following seven groupings of varieties:
- Perishable meat, poultry, or fish, including fresh or frozen versions for each different kind of animal;
- Shelf-stable meat, poultry, or fish for each different kind of animal;
- Eggs;
- Nuts/seeds;
- Raw beans, peas, or lentils, each of which would count as a distinct protein variety;
- Cooked (e.g., canned) beans,
- Peas, or lentils and multi-ingredient products with beans, peas, or lentils as the main ingredient; and
- Tofu/tempeh, together, would be a distinct variety from all other types of proteins and any other pea product as the main ingredient.”
At first glance, this looks like a step in the right direction. It will require stores that accept SNAP benefits to offer a greater variety of healhy food options.
This is a no-brainer for Walmart or any other large grocery store. They already do this.
Therefore, this rule has to be understood as being aimed at bodegas as well as at Dollar stores located in areas where no other retail foods are readily available.
That is why this proposal is considered a ‘mixed bag’ for both retailers and shoppers.
Such stores, widely frequented by SNAP recipients whose payments are likely to constitute significant percentages of sales, will have a hard time meeting these requ. They already had trouble meeting the existing requirements.
This proposal does not seem to be accompanied by incentives to SNAP recipients to buy fruits and vegetables.
As detailed in an issue brief by Healthy Eating Research, The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives, incentives would help. Otherwise, the rising cost of fruits and vegetables can seem prohibitive.
The proposal is open for comment—by November 24. Here’s how.
The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
“There is no greater celebration of America’s legacy than through American agriculture! Farmers helped found our nation and for centuries have diligently passed down the craft of feeding, fueling, and clothing their fellow patriots. The Great American Farmers Market is a celebration of the almost 250 years since our inception and a chance to honor the heart of our nation: agriculture,” said Secretary Rollins.
The press release gives the details:
The ribbon cutting and grand opening of the Great American Farmers Market will be on August 3rd, 2025. For market hours, daily programming updates, and vendor sign-ups, visit our website. Vendors including farmers, ranchers, bakers, dairy producers, beverage producers, fishermen, food concessions, and meat processors are encouraged to apply. To learn more about other farmers markets across the country, visit www.usdalocalfoodportal.com.
USDA also uses social media these days.
USDA (@Dept. of Agriculture) posted: Want to participate as a vendor at the Great American Farmers Market on the National Mall? We’re looking for farmers, ranchers, and producers from all 50 states who want to sell what they grow, raise or produce on their farm! Apply by Sunday, July 13 @ 11:59PM ET
Participation is free. Here’s the link to the application form.
The Trump Administration has issued its proposed budget.
It begins with the rhetoric characteristic of this administration.
The recommended funding levels result from a rigorous, line-by-line review of FY 2025 spending, which was found to be laden with spending contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans and tilted toward funding niche non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher education committed to radical gender and climate ideologies antithetical to the American way of life.
If anything, these proposals are totally contrary to the needs of ordinary working Americans, so much so that it’s hard to know where to begin, but let’s start with some selections from the USDA summary on page 31.
On this last one: Oh no. Not that again. The boxes are a logistic nightmare , absurdly expensive, and do not help any except the largest farmers.
Note that there is nothing here about SNAP, which comes out of USDA’s budget. SNAP is an entitlement; only Congress can cut its budget, and would have to do so through the Farm Bill.
Fortunately, these are proposals, which means there is at least a chance that Congress won’t agree to them.
The USDA announced last week that it is withdrawing its proposed framework for reducing Salmonella in raw poultry. Oh great.
Why?
FSIS received 7,089 comments on the proposed framework…from a variety of stakeholders that included poultry and meat industry trade associations, small poultry producer and processor trade associations, large and small poultry processing establishments, consumer advocacy organizations…The issues that generated the most comments…[were] the proposed Salmonella levels and serotypes for the final product standards…the scientific and technical information used to support the proposed framework, the potential economic impacts of the proposed framework, and the potential impact of the proposed framework on small poultry growers and processors. Several comments also suggested alternative approaches other than the proposed framework for addressing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products.
While FSIS continues to support the goal of reducing Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products, the Agency believes that the comments have raised several important issues that warrant further consideration.
Consumer Reports, which has for years been pushing the USDA to do something about Salmonella contamination in poultry, is not happy with this move, not least because its investigators found large numbers of poultry plants to be heavily contaminated with Salmonella. contamination.
The proposed rule was intended to help reduce the number of salmonella infections in the U.S. Of the estimated 1.35 million illnesses that occur each year from food tainted with the bacteria, nearly 200,000 of them are due to chicken, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “And instead of declining, salmonella infections are increasing and expected to continue to grow…This move, along with the steep budget and staffing cuts at the USDA and FDA, appears to be part of an overall effort to weaken food safety oversight,” says director of food policy at Consumer Reports.
Comment
This is an extremely disappointing decision. The poultry industry argues that Salmonella contamination is normal. They don’t need to do anything to prevent chickens getting contaminated. It is your responsibility to store and cook your chicken properly.
Safety advocates (like me) argue that Salmonella is not normal, contamination is preventable, and the industry ought to be doing that. The USDA’s 2021 proposal to declare Salmonella an adulterant was a major step in making food safer.
This decision is a major setback.
Resources
What the USDA says about Salmonella
What the USDA says today about reducing Salmonella in poultry. The web page displays USDA’s 2021 announcement that it would be “mobilizing a stronger and more comprehensive effort to reduce Salmonella illnesses associated with poultry products.”
I’m giving this lecture at UCSC, Sponsored by the Humanities Institute. Title: “Food Politics 2026: Sustainable Food in the Trump Era.” 6:00 p.m. Cowell Ranch Hay Barn, Ranch View Rd. Register here.
