Currently browsing posts about: USDA

It’s deja vu all over again.

During the Trump I administration, I wrote repeatedly about the tragic relocation of the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) to Kansas.  As I said, the Government Accountability Office confirmed my analysis.

Why tragic?  I don’t have anything against Kansas, but expecting long-time residents of the Washington, DC area to uproot their families to move there seemed designed for only one purpose: to gut the ERS of its experts and to force it to stop producing sophisticated—and honest—analyses of inconvenient food issues.

In this, the move succeeded admirably.  Many experts quit.  Some were rehired to the DC area, but as far as I can tell, the ERS has never recovered.  It continues to publish routine statistical data, but the analytic reports have stopped.  This is an enormous loss to my work in particular, but also to society.

Now the USDA is doing it again, and finished the job on ERS.

Last week, the USDA issued two press releases on the relocations:

I.  USDA Advances Reorganization and Restructuring of the Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area to Improve Efficiency and Better Serve American Farmers

This effort refocuses REE’s structure on mission delivery—streamlining operations, strengthening leadership accountability, and positioning resources closer to the agricultural communities USDA serves. The updated structure will be guided by five core principles: strengthening leadership accountability, reducing organizational complexity, ensuring consistency across agencies where appropriate, leveraging emerging tools and technologies, and aligning clearly with USDA’s priorities.

II.  USDA Announces Food Safety and Inspection Service Reorganization, Establishes National Food Safety Center in Iowa

This one says pretty much the same thing.

Let me translate what the USDA is really doing.

It is moving the hub of the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to Urbandale, Iowa where it will establish a National Food Safety Center with about 200 employees relocated from Washington, DC (if they agree to move).  It also is relocating employees to Fort Collins, Colorado, and to a Science Center in Georgia (ditto).

Ostensibly, this is to bring FSIS closer to its constituents to strengthen “its ability to protect public health and ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply.”

In practice, the moves will gut the agency, destroy its expertise, and disable it for years to come.

That has to be the intent.

Add these to the 27,000 people who have already left USDA since Trump II, 37% of its staff.  Surely, some of those people helped get the agency’s work done.

Who will be hired to replace the people who choose not to relocate?  I’m guessing those who go along with the current administration’s ideological agenda.

As I said, tragedy.

A reader, Jennifer Windh, has done some serious investigation of loopholes in USDA’s school food rules that allow lots of ultra-processed snacks to be sold a la carte (“competitive foods”) outside of the USDA’s school meals program.

USDA’s nutrition tandards also apply to competitive foods: Smart Snacks in Schools.

The final rule for these standards, effective as of 2016, sets requirements or limits for whole grains, saturated and trans fat, sugar, sodium, and calories.

This sounds good, but as Jennifer Windh found out, even though snacks are required to be either 50% whole grain or have as a first ingredient fruit, vegetable, dairy product, or protein, the rules allow for plenty of loopholes.

She summarizes the findings of her investigation in The Smart Snacks Loophole: How Junk Food Companies Target America’s Students in School.

One reason for the loophole is the generous sugar standard: “Acceptable food items must have ≤35% of weight from total sugar as served.”

She points out the irony of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s visit to an elementary school where cooks make healthy meals from scratch (parents protested his visit because of his stance on vaccination, not food).

This school, she notes, offers plenty of loophole snacks.

She is particularly concerned about the loophole for ice cream.  For this, she has analyzed sales in 12 Houston area school districts: Ice Cream at School.

Schools usually sell ice cream at the same time they serve the main meal. There is no adult present who encourages students to eat their lunch before eating dessert. As expected, most children eat their ice cream first! This spoils their appetite for the more nutritious foods on their tray. School lunch periods are short, children eat slowly, and there are many distractions as students socialize with their friends. As a result, some students eat their ice cream first and then throw the rest of their lunch away.

There is so much money to be made from school meals that sellers of ultra-processed foods are happy to reformulate their products to meet USDA nutrition standards and get their products in through the loopholes.

Obviously, the standards could use some tightening.

The big question: Will USDA tighten the loopholes when it issues new school food standards to reflect the new dietary guidelines?  Recall:  These emphasize eat real food and reduce intake of highly processed foods.

Stay tuned.

When President Trump was elected, he promised to downsize government.  He is doing that, for better or worse.  The latest move affects the USDA: GSA and USDA Unlock $1.6 Billion in Savings for Americans with Ag South Disposition.

Translation: The USDA is getting rid of the enormous, aging building it occupies across the street from its headquarters near the National Mall.

I love the positive spin: “The Ag South disposition will deliver significant value to taxpayers while advancing the Trump Administration’s objectives to reinvigorate, consolidate, and better utilize the federal real estate portfolio.”

Another account of this action reveals that two properties are involved, one of them currently housing the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the agency that runs food assistance programs.

The USDA announced this plant last summer as part of the department’s major reorganization plan.  Its point: to relocate staff to new USDA hubs.

As explained in yet another account, this is about relocating staff:

Thousands of USDA employees have taken buyouts and left the department over the past year amid Republican U.S. President Donald Trump‘s effort to reshape and reduce the size and footprint of the federal government. The USDA has said it is planning to relocate much of its remaining staff in the U.S. capital to hubs in North Carolina, Missouri, Indiana, Colorado and Utah.

From Government Executive, we learn:

The department announced the disposal of the South Building, which Rollins and other officials repeatedly described as dilapidated and mostly empty, last year as part of a larger reorganization that will push 2,600 employees out of the national capital region…USDA currently has 4,600 employees in the Washington area and is looking to shrink that number to 2,000…The department has already shed more than 15,000 employees from its initiative that allowed employees to sit on paid leave for several months before resigning.

Government Executive explains why this concerns me so much:

During Trump’s first term in 2019, the department relocated its Economic Research Service and National Institute of Food and Agriculture to Kansas City, over the objections of employees and some lawmakers. Following the move, both agencies lost more than half of their staff, leading to a significant loss of productivity from which it took the agencies years to recover. Under President Joe Biden, both agencies moved their headquarters back to Washington while maintaining their Kansas City offices.

…USDA solicited feedback on its reorganization plan last year, leading to 14,000 unique responses. Of those, 82% expressed negativity toward the plan, while 5% took a positive tone. Employees, lawmakers and stakeholders submitting the comments warned of a significant brain drain and disruptions to key farmer-support programs if the changes were implemented.

Oh no, not again.

I long considered the Economic Research Service to be the best kept secret in Washington, DC.  It produced reliable, credible analyses of food issues.  I considered it a national treasure and was devastated by its destruction (I wrote about this often on this site).  In my view, the agency has never recovered from its loss of national experts.  USDA says the FNS will remain in the DC area.

It’s hard not to see this as yet another attempt to undermine food assistance programs and make it harder for people to enroll in them.

I received this e-mailed message from the Avocado Nutrition Center, sponsored by the Hass Avocado Board (a USDA-sponsored research & promotion—checkoff—program).

Indeed, the New Pyramid does highlight avocados.  What a gift to the Hass Avocado Board!

Comment: As I’ve pointed out repeatedly (see my previous posts on these guidelines), the new guidelines and pyramid have losers (ultra-processed foods, sugars, refined carbohydrates, and even whole grains) and winners (meat, dairy, beef tallow—and avocados.  The avocado board is not missing a chance to take advantage of this.  That’s its job!

Last September, the USDA said it would stop conducting the annual hunger survey, because they were “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous.”

As I said at the time,

If you live in an Orwellian universe, you can use not measuring to pretend that food insecurity does not exist and certainly that it is not increasing as a result of your policies.

It took a long time for the anti-hunger community to achieve federal documentation of this enormous social problem.  I suppose we will now have to go back to the old days of local anti-hunger reports.  See my comments (with Sally Guttmacher) on state hunger reports.

On December 30, the USDA published the last of its formerly annual reports: 2024 Household Food Security report.

The inconvenient finding continues: food insecurity continues to rise.

And this was before the current Trump-era cuts to SNAP and increases in the cost of food and health care.

No wonder they don’t want to publish reports like these any more.

Regenerative is the new buzzword for sustainable agricultural practices.  Unfortunately, the term is undefined.

I like the approach of the Real Organic Project: regenerative begins with—and extends—certified organic production methods.

The USDA has now adopted the term for its own purposes: USDA Launches New Regenerative Pilot Program to Lower Farmer Production Costs and Advance MAHA Agenda.  It

announced a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program to help American farmers adopt practices that improve soil health, enhance water quality, and boost long-term productivity, all while strengthening America’s food and fiber supply…(HHS) is also investing in research on the connection between regenerative agriculture and public health, as well as developing public health messaging explaining this connection.

This sounds great, but what does it mean?  Cutting through the rhetoric,

In FY2026, the Regenerative Pilot Program will focus on whole-farm planning that addresses every major resource concern—soil, water, and natural vitality—under a single conservation framework. USDA is dedicating $400 million through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and $300 million through the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) to fund this first year of regenerative agriculture projects.

Oh.  It’s investing in two existing programs that already paid farmers to reduce tilling, plant cover crops, and manage manure.

As Marcia Brown explains in Politico

It’s the most significant commitment toward regenerative agriculture the Trump administration has announced yet, but it comes months after it axed similar Biden-era conservation programs and as it pushes ahead with approvals for new pesticides that are considered forever chemicals.

She quotes Stephanie Feldstein of the Center for Biological Diversity:

Regenerative agriculture needs to be more than just buzzwords Big Ag uses to greenwash business as usual…While the Trump administration promises money for sustainable practices, it continues to cut conservation staff, support the pesticide industry, roll back environmental laws and play trade war games that hurt farmers and our food system.

Comment

All USDA agricultural support programs should require farmers to produce foods in ways that minimize damage to the environment.  This initiative needs to come with specific requirements, clear definitions, and accountability.  These are tiny programs in the context of USDA’s $20 billion annual expenditure on farm supports.  If the agency is serious about producing food more sustainably—which it absolutely should be—it will define what it means by regenerative and apply those principles to all its programs.

Otherwise, this is flat-out greenwashing.

The FDA is cutting down its safety inspections of foreign food imports, even though nearly all seafood, about 60% of fresh fruit and about 40% of vegetables are imported, and we increasingly rely on food imports.

As ProPublica explains, Foreign Food Safety Inspections Hit Historic Low After Trump Cuts.

These crucial foreign inspections are neither easy nor cheap. They typically last longer than domestic ones and cost nearly $40,000 a visit, and they can require months of logistical planning, special visas and diplomatic approval from the host country…Then Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2011, which set firm targets for the agency: It needed to conduct more than 19,000 foreign food inspections annually by 2016 and increase the number of food field staff to no fewer than 5,000 workers.

The FDA has never fulfilled this congressional mandate…ProPublica’s Annie Waldman and Brandon Roberts crunched the numbers and found that the U.S. is on track to have the fewest foreign food inspections since 2011 (excluding pandemic years).

This does not bode well for food safety.

It’s not as if we don’t already have plenty of food safety problems.

• The FDA’s list of current recalls and warnings
• The USDA’s list of current recalls and warnings

To review the status of food safety regulation:

• We have plenty of laws requiring all food producers to follow rigorous procedures to greatly reduce the risk of pathogenic contaminants.
• But these laws work much, much better when they are enforced through inspection.
• It’s not that food producers want to make customers sick; it’s that it’s all too easy to cut corners on safety.
• No food producer wants to test for pathogens; if they find any, they have to recall products.
• The system only works with firm oversight.

Fewer inspections gives producers license to be sloppier.

Not a good idea.

The USDA is engaged in a concerted effort to reduce enrollment in SNAP, even though people who qualify are entitled to benefits.

Assigning food stamps (SNAP) to the USDA was a mistake from the get go, but once SNAP was part of the Farm Bill it seemed to make sense.  SNAP takes up most of the USDA’s budget, the blue in this figure.

Even so, I’m stunned by the tone and relentlessness of USDA’s dealings with SNAP beneficiaries—as if they were all lazy, nonworking parasites cheating taxpayers, despite all the evidence to the contrary.  Most SNAP recipients who can work, do work.  They just don’t get paid enough to survive .

Here are some recent USDA statements and directives.

• SNAP recipients will need to reapply for benefits.
• Lawfully resident immigrants are no longer entitled to SMAP benefits, effective immediately.
• States are not permitted to issue exceptions to work requirements

And then we have USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins’ announcement on X:

On the brighter side, the Food Research & Action Center has organized nearly 1500 National, State, and Community-based Organizations to sign a letter to Congress to protect SNAP benefits.