Driving Responsible Nutrition Policy

OVERVIEW

Life expectancy in the United States falls behind that of other developed nations, with a pre‑COVID-19 average of 78.8 years compared to 82.6 years in similar countries. A contributing factor is that America is facing a chronic disease epidemic and a host of diet-related health issues stemming from poor nutrition and underconsumption of fresh fruits and vegetables in favor of less nutritious and often foreign-manufactured foods. American taxpayers are bearing the health consequences, which, in turn, are putting a strain on our healthcare system. Now is the time for federal and state governments to partner together and reorient our thinking on nutrition policy. Policies should be bold and should focus on promoting healthier choices and outcomes. They should also promote self-sufficiency and reduce dependence on public assistance.

This effort should also engage the farming community to support our farmers and ensure greater domestic supply and consumption of homegrown nutritious foods. With over half of our fruit and 35% of our vegetables coming from outside of the United States, there is ample opportunity for American farmers to both increase their market share and play a big role in the current administration’s effort to end diet-related chronic disease.

This document outlines the AFPI Farmers First agenda for responsible nutrition policy, with initial proposed solutions. Our principles include:

• Federal programs should allow states to incentivize healthier eating.
• Federal government must ensure our domestic food supply is transparent, safe, and upholds nutritional integrity.
• Federal nutrition programs must be reserved for the truly needy and must aim to restore the dignity of work.
• Government and the private sector must collaborate to reduce food loss and waste.
• Driving responsible nutrition policy also means supporting the domestic specialty crop sector, including fruit and vegetable farmers.

Federal Programs Should Allow States to Incentivize Healthier Eating

Issue

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, is an entitlement program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that provides benefits to low-income households to supplement their grocery budgets. Specifically, SNAP is the nation's largest nutrition assistance program. It accounted for 68% of USDA nutrition assistance spending in FY 2023, serving 42.1 million participants, and costing $112.8 billion, or $211.93 per participant per month. The program is administered by state SNAP agencies, but the benefit is 100% funded by the federal government. SNAP, per USDA, exists to supplement grocery budgets so that low-income Americans can afford “the nutritious food essential to health and well-being.”

To encourage healthy eating habits nationwide, USDA updates every five years the “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” and administers the MyPlate program (which replaced the Food Pyramid). SNAP’s stated goals are to follow suit and provide nutritious, healthy foods supplementally. However, the list of items eligible for purchase under SNAP includes non-nutrient-dense junk food and beverages. Taxpayer funded SNAP benefits are consistently spent on candy, sodas, and other foods that, when over-consumed, are known to contribute to chronic health issues. In turn, federal and state dollars are then spent to address those health conditions later through public healthcare system expenditures.

To address this issue, and with the support of the Trump Administration, several states have moved to submit waivers to USDA to ban SNAP from being used to purchase sugary drinks, “junk food,” or both in their respective states. These states are Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, and West Virginia. Louisiana is also planning to submit a waiver, per an executive order from the governor. Utah has signed into law similar state legislation, and while many state bills were introduced in 2025 on this topic, state legislation is technically not required for states to make these requests of USDA. As of May 2025, Nebraska, Indiana, and Iowabecame the first three states to have their SNAP waivers approved by USDA for soda and unhealthy food restrictions in SNAP starting in 2026.

SNAP JUNK FOOD BAN BY STATE

These collective actions to restrict what can be purchased with taxpayer funded SNAP dollars are not surprising, as science suggests that certain foods (like added sugars), when not consumed in moderation, may contribute to many of the health issues currently straining the U.S. public healthcare system and contributing to the diet-related chronic disease crisis. According to a review of the scientific studies, people who often drink sugary drinks are more likely to experience health issues, including weight gain, obesity, Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, cognitive decline, and a host of other health issues.

Solutions

Congressional and Administrative Considerations

Congressional action in the next farm bill—which is currently up for reauthorization—needs to address the imminent need to restrict unhealthy, non-nutrient dense foods from SNAP.

Absent congressional action, USDA must continue its current path of working with states to reserve SNAP eligibility for foods that meet the program goal of providing for “nutritious food essential to health and well-being.” Individual states can submit waiver applications to USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service to restrict unhealthy foods and beverages from eligibility under the program at the state level. Governors can submit waivers to USDA on their own, absent state legislation, but some state lawmakers, such as in Idaho and Utah, have decided to pass waiver legislation on their own. More states should pursue similar executive actions, or work to pass state-level legislation. Further, USDA must continue to partner with those states in approving waivers. States might also consider matching SNAP dollars with state funds for the purchases of fresh fruits, vegetables, meats, and other agricultural products directly from local farmers at farmers markets and other retailers.

Outside of SNAP, USDA should continue to engage with both state policymakers and private sector actors seeking to alter what is served in school feeding programs. USDA technical assistance to both the states and the private sector is critical in order to avoid procurement and reimbursement challenges, especially for schools in low-income communities. USDA should encourage the private sector to move forward with voluntary changes that align with the current administration’s health goals.

One example of this is the International Dairy Foods Association’s recently announced Healthy Dairy in Schools Commitment, which will eliminate Red 3, Red 40, Green 3, Blue 1, Blue 2, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6 in milk, cheese, and yogurt products sold to K-12 schools for the National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs beginning in the 2026-2027 school year. USDA and AFPI applauded this pledge as a model for responsible corporate action without government mandates.

Given that states are often considered laboratories of change and innovation, USDA should continue to provide state officials and the private sector with all technical assistance necessary to achieve their mutually desired policy outcomes with respect to USDA’s numerous federal nutrition programs.

Federal Government Must Ensure our Domestic Food Supply is Transparent, Safe, and Upholds Nutritional Integrity

Issue

In 1958, Congress passed the Food Additive Amendment (FAA) to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) to empower the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to protect the public from potentially harmful food additives. Under this law, food manufacturers must apply for permission to insert a newly developed additive into their products. However, the same amendment created an alternative pathway that allows manufacturers to insert new substances into their products without FDA oversight if the substance is “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) by “experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety.” Congress created this exemption to allow ingredients that were widely used and known to be safe in 1958, such as nutmeg and paprika, to continue to be used without undergoing FDA review.

To implement the GRAS provision, FDA rules state that companies that label a substance as GRAS may voluntarily notify the FDA of the substance’s use in their products, but they have no legal responsibility to do so. Instead, they can “self-affirm” the substance’s safety without notifying the FDA of the inclusion of the new substance.

Additionally, while companies that voluntarily notify the FDA of GRAS substances must include the scientific evidence for the company’s GRAS determination, the FDA does not require that GRAS notices provide information regarding the independence of those experts—which is needed to determine whether there is a conflict of interest. What this means is that even when a manufacturer decides to notify the FDA about the safety of a new substance that they are including in their products, the scientific assessment behind the manufacturer’s safety determination may include conflicts of interest. A 2013 analysis found that 22% of GRAS-substance safety evaluations were made by an employee of the manufacturer and another 13% were conducted by a consulting firm selected and paid by the manufacturer.

Unfortunately, food manufacturers have exploited these loopholes by introducing new synthetic substances into the food supply without notifying the FDA and/or by using substances that were based on reviews that may have conflicts of interest. Between 1997 and 2011, an estimated 1,000 new substances were inserted into American foods without FDA review.

A 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA cannot ensure with complete certainty that undisclosed, self-affirmed GRAS-labeled substances are safe. Fifteen years later, the GAO’s recommendation that FDA close the self-affirmation loophole has not been implemented. Further, FDA has opted not to seek information in GRAS notices regarding expert panelists’ independence, which was also a recommendation by the GAO.

Solutions

The FDA’s GRAS Notification Program is in urgent need of reform. Reforms should restore accountability and transparency in GRAS, while simultaneously not raising costs on consumers.

Close the Self-Affirmation Loophole

The FDA and Congress should close the self-affirmation loophole and require food manufacturers to notify the FDA and disclose all GRAS-pathway food substances in their products. On March 10, 2025, the Department of Health and Human Services directed FDA to explore its authorities to take such actions. However, Congressional action may be necessary to require full GRAS substance disclosure. Congress has charged FDA with ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply, and if Congress required additional levels of GRAS disclosure, the FDA would have the oversight tools necessary to identify, evaluate, and remove unsafe substances and protect public health. In doing so, the FDA should work with the food industry to ensure that consumers are not footing the bill for any additional affiliated costs.

Audit Existing GRAS Determinations

The FDA should audit the existing 1,200 GRAS determinations that manufacturers have disclosed. By rigorously evaluating the scientific evidence on the health effects of these substances and removing any substances that are not clearly safe for human consumption, the FDA can begin to restore trust in the GRAS program. Recognizing resource and staffing constraints, the FDA could conduct an audit each year of a subset of the total previously submitted GRAS notices, thereby systematically and independently reviewing those determinations over time. The FDA should also be responsive to and prioritize audits for substances identified as potentially unsafe by consumer health advocates and citizen petitions. Congress might also provide the FDA with the resources the agency needs to follow through with this recommendation.

Eliminate Conflicts of Interest

FDA should work to eliminate conflicts of interest in GRAS safety as much as possible. Scientists employed by a food manufacturer or who receive direct financial compensation from a food manufacturer should be barred from assessing the safety of that company’s new substances. Allowing conflicted experts to assess ingredient safety has no place in a system tasked with protecting public health, and it certainly does not meet the “general recognition” standard.

The FDA should establish strict safeguards that ensure third parties, such as consultants and food manufacturer trade associations, make GRAS determinations without conflicts of interest. Individuals that are selected by consultants to evaluate GRAS substances should not know which company developed the substances they are reviewing. These individuals should also be barred from having any business or consulting relationships with the company that developed the substance. This model, for example, is used by the Flavor and Extract Manufacturer's Association, a trade association that runs GRAS-safety evaluations on behalf of their member companies. Additionally, the criteria that individuals use to evaluate the safety of GRAS substances should be made publicly available.

Federal Nutrition Programs Must Be Reserved for the Truly Needy and Must Aim to Restore the Dignity of Work

Issue

Entitlement programs play a significant role in the daily lives of tens of millions of Americans. As such, it is critical that entitlement programs (including SNAP) are designed to provide supplemental food assistance for those most in need, while incentivizing self-sufficiency.

SNAP is a supplementary program that provides $112.8 billion annually in food purchase benefits to low-income households. Under SNAP, Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents, or ABAWDs, are required to work in order to receive SNAP benefits. ABAWDs are defined as non-disabled individuals who are between the ages of 18 and 54 and who do not have dependent children. Specifically, to meet their work requirements, ABAWDs must work, volunteer, or participate in Employment and Training (E&T) activities at least 80 hours per month. If they do not meet these work requirements, ABAWDS may only receive SNAP benefits for three months in a 3-year period. This is called the ABAWD time limit.

However, USDA has the authority to grant state SNAP agencies’ requests to waive the time limit for recipients who do not meet statutory work requirements. Section 6(o)(4) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 explicitly gives the Secretary of Agriculture sole discretion to grant an ABAWD waiver request if the Secretary determines that a geographic area (as defined by the state) has an unemployment rate of over 10% or does not have sufficient jobs to provide employment for ABAWDS.

Since COVID-19, this broad-based criteria has been utilized by many states to take advantage of these waivers. On the contrary, USDA must begin working more with states to ensure that ABAWD waivers are preserved only for uses consistent with statute and that safeguard and protect SNAP integrity.

Solutions

Congressional and Administrative Considerations for Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents Work Requirements

USDA is already taking steps toward reining in ABAWD waiver overuse, having issued a policy memo on April 17, 2025, to state SNAP agencies, ordering them to limit excessive use of state ABAWD work requirement waivers.

However, there are other policy avenues to consider for ensuring that robust ABAWD work requirements are in place. Similar to actions taken during the first Trump Administration, USDA might consider once again promulgating a rule that would strengthen requirements for ABAWD waivers. Specifically, the rulemaking should consider making waiver eligibility more accurately reflective of changes in employment rates. Waivers should also be reserved for areas with the highest unemployment in such a rulemaking.

Congress might also consider expanding SNAP work requirements to ensure that individuals are considered employable until the age of retirement by changing the legal definition. The current definition of an ABAWD is an individual between the ages of 18 to 54 who is able to work and who does not have dependents. The age limit could be raised from 54 to include additional individuals who are able to participate in the workforce. As of the date of this brief’s publication, Congress was deliberating such changes.

Administrative Considerations Regarding “Broad-based Categorical Eligibility” Loopholes

Another way the Trump Administration might be able to reserve SNAP benefits for those truly in need is for the USDA to consider a rulemaking that would address “Broad-based Categorical Eligibility” (BBCE) loopholes. BBCE is a policy where households may become categorically, or automatically, eligible for SNAP benefits if they qualify for other entitlement programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). As a block grant, it is imperative that states preserve TANF funds for the truly needy. The rulemaking could require instead that a household receive TANF-funded cash or non-cash benefits valued at a minimum amount for a set duration in order to confer eligibility for SNAP. The rulemaking could also ensure non-cash benefits that trigger automatic eligibility are restricted to subsidized employment, work supports, or childcare. This would ensure that SNAP benefits are reserved for Americans most in need.

Government and the Private Sector Must Collaborate to Reduce Food Loss and Waste

Issue

According to the USDA, between 30% and 40% of our national food supply goes uneaten. This equates to roughly 133 billion pounds of food annually, valued at $161 billion, according to the most recent comprehensive data available. This is higher than the percentage of food that is lost and wasted globally, which is estimated at roughly 28%.

Food loss and waste occurs for a variety of different reasons and at every stage of the supply and consumer chain. At the farm level, food loss can be the consequence of disease, damage by pests, and other natural causes. Such loss can also occur through culling of non-marketable (yet edible) products. At the processing and supply chain level, food loss can be caused by problems during drying, milling, transporting, and processing, or due to equipment malfunction. Consumers also contribute to food waste when they buy or cook more than they need or discard uneaten foods.

Retail-level waste accounts for 10% (or 43 billion pounds) of the available food supply, while consumer-level waste accounts for 21% (or 90 billion pounds). Estimates of on-farm percentages of food loss are hard to pin down; however, we do know that some produce may be left unharvested on the farm or not sold via a distributor for a variety of economic reasons, such as price volatility, high costs of labor, lack of refrigeration options, consumer preferences, and quality-based contracts. For the farmer, when production expenses exceed the market price, it is financially unreasonable to sell crops.

AFPI maintains that problems surrounding food loss and waste problems, if addressed, represent opportunities that can: 1) possibly increase farm income, and 2) provide the vulnerable with more nutritious foods while reducing food loss and waste. However, like any complex issue, the problem of food loss and waste does not have a single remedy. A variety of solutions, such as sharing information about liability assurance and clearing up date labeling confusion, must be pursued. AFPI believes the following policy considerations may serve as fruitful starting points.

Solutions

Normalize Consumption of “Imperfect” or “Ugly” Produce

It is common for retailers and suppliers to refuse to do business with producers if a high percentage of their produce fails to meet certain size, shape, and color cosmetic standards. Further, producers themselves will discard a significant portions of a harvest due to ingrained consumer preferences to avoid “less than perfect” or “ugly” foods—even though they are safe to eat and equally as nutritious. Small Community Supported Agriculture programs have emerged in recent years to create markets for such foods. Similarly, many companies have recently materialized to create new markets for ugly foods. This growing market demonstrates the potential to change consumer preferences and represents new economic opportunities for fruit and vegetable growers. Policymakers should consider ways to encourage local hospitals, schools, prisons, and other institutions to become new markets for these otherwise nutritious foods and should applaud efforts to destigmatize “ugly” produce for consumers. One example of this is the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Program, which helps local school districts incorporate locally-grown foods (even imperfect ones) into their school meals program.

Encourage New Markets for Unmarketable Produce

States and counties should greenlight the building of facilities needed to process and transform surplus produce and other agricultural byproducts into other marketable plant-based products, and should help owners access existing economic development programs to assist with equipment purchase. Local and regional officials can also leverage USDA’s Local Agriculture Market Program to help develop strategies, business plans, studies, and to access working capital in order to bolster regional food system infrastructure. These officials should likewise work with USDA to create state partnerships for new food inspections frameworks that would allow for expanded processing capacity.

Clarify Confusion Surrounding Date Labeling and Generate Awareness of Liability Assurance Coverage

Congress or the Administration (consistent with existing authorities) should clarify common terms such as “Sell By,” “Use By,” and “Best By” in date labeling in order to reduce the corporate and consumer confusion that contributes to food waste.

Further, the FDA and USDA should generate greater private sector awareness of the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act’s liability protections. The Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act provides a floor of protection for food donors against both state and federal liability claims. Those covered include individuals, businesses, schools, nonprofits organizations, and gleaners. A donor must donate in good faith to a nonprofit organization that distributes the donated food to those in need and/or directly to individuals in need. All federal, state, and local laws regarding quality and labeling must be met. Additionally, states can pass additional liability protection laws. For instance, in Oklahoma as of September 2024, state law began providing liability protection for people who process wild game meat for donation. Greater awareness of existing liability protections could encourage more donations of unspoiled foods, thereby feeding more individuals and families in need and reducing food waste.

Empower USDA Cooperative Extension Offices

Local USDA staff should report to USDA headquarters on a routine basis, sharing the specific challenges that farmers are facing when it comes to mitigating food loss so that USDA can track trends nationally and identify solutions in real time.

Expand Traceability Capabilities to Better Understand Supply Chain Impacts

The FDA, under the Food Safety Modernization Act, leads regulatory oversight for produce traceability to ensure food safety. To help ensure readiness to comply with FDA regulations, members of the produce industry have begun the Produce Traceability Initiative (PTI), a voluntary effort to track data like harvesting and packing dates for specific produce. The ability to track produce supply chain events better is crucial to understanding where the gaps in our supply chains exist. The Trump Administration should work with efforts like the PTI to gather and analyze data to see where we can address those gaps and reduce food loss. Further, that data should be used to research the impact of imported produce on food waste in the supply chain versus domestically grown produce.

Driving Responsible Nutrition Policy Means Supporting the Domestic Specialty Crop Sector, Including Fruit and Vegetable Farmers

Issue

In the U.S., only one in ten people consume the recommended amounts of five servings of fruits and vegetables, while more than three-quarters of Americans are overweight. Increasing domestic availability and consumption of fruits and vegetables not only supports American farmers, but it also aligns with the goals outlined in the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which seeks to remedy chronic disease. Fruits and vegetables are rich in dietary fiber, and fiber intake may lead to lower incidencesof cardiovascular disease and obesity. Further, studies have shown that eating five servings of fruits and vegetables per day is associated with reduced mortality.

With the U.S. importing more than half of our fruit and 35% of our vegetables, policy efforts to Make America Healthy Again remind us that it is also time to increase fruit and vegetable production at home (where possible, and understanding seasonal challenges). Growing more on U.S. soil would boost employment from production to distribution, while providing consumers with greater access to domestically grown abundant, affordable and nutritious foods. It is time to put American growers first and create more attractive conditions to grow and sell our own products at home.

Solutions

Food Box Policy: Bringing USDA Nutrition Programs Closer Together with U.S. Farmers

The USDA Food and Nutrition Service and Marketing and Regulatory Programs (procurement) might bolster both nutrition and the specialty crop sector through new programming based on lessons learned from the first Trump Administration’s Farmers to Families Food Box Program. From May 2020 to May 2021, the USDA and Ivanka Trump administered the Farmers to Families Food Box Program, which was a temporary, emergency relief effort to respond to severe market disruption caused by COVID-19. Through this program, USDA distributed more than 173 million food boxes of fresh produce, milk, dairy, cooked meats and seafood worth over $5 billion to American farmers—lifting up farmers and distributing their products to those in need.

In the spirit of this former programing, the President’s current FY 2026 “Skinny Budget” ends the USDA Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which focuses on shelf-stable foods, in favor of Make America Healthy Again food boxes with commodities to be sourced from domestic farmers and given directly to American households. The USDA should pursue the President’s FY 2026 “Skinny Budget” recommendations and look for ways to incorporate healthy, nutritious American grown produce and other foods into food boxes intended for USDA programming.

Other Federal Programs Should Promote Increased Consumption of U.S. Fruits and Vegetables

USDA and state nutrition programs should increase access to fruits and vegetables through SNAP reforms and SNAP matching. Further, USDA should audit the effectiveness of the USDA Department of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. Other USDA programs that may be leveraged to increase fresh food consumption include Section 32 Commodity Procurement Program purchases, the Emergency Food Assistance Program, the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Program, and the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program.

Finally, USDA, HHS, and FDA should look at lessons learned from states’ implementation of “Food is Medicine” programs and campaigns, such as the Kentucky Department of Agriculture’s campaign with the Kentucky Hospital Association, to implement innovative ideas to increase consumption of fresh local produce and improve health outcomes.

Secure New Trade Deals

The current administration should negotiate more fair and reciprocal trade deals for U.S. agriculture, including specialty crop producers. Non-tariff trade barriers especially must be addressed for the specialty crop sector. Governments around the world should review trade restrictions and ensure that those rules adhere to sound science and are not being used to pick winners and losers across the global landscape. Further, improvements can be made to existing USDA programs that support trade opportunities for this sector. This includes the USDA Market Access and Technical Assistance to Specialty Crop programs.

Address Agriculture Workforce Shortages and Associated Costs

As stated earlier in this brief, the U.S. imports over half of our fruits and 35% of our vegetables. The healthy foods we consume should be grown at home. Barriers to domestic production include the availability of legal farm labor and the associated costs with legal guest worker programs. Labor currently accounts for over 30% of total operating expenses for U.S. fruit and vegetable growers. The Trump Administration should identify workable solutions to these two barriers and should ensure that such solutions protect American workers and reduce instances of programmatic fraud.

Encourage Plant-Based Production of Food Colors

The Trump Administration recently announced a series of new measures intended to pivot away from artificial food colors in the food supply. As such, there may be an opportunity for fresh produce growers to fulfill new market needs. FDA and USDA should work with fruit and vegetable producers to identify and eliminate barriers to entry and should encourage their greater participation in food coloring production. Strong hues can come from beets, raspberries, spinach, carrots, and a variety of other crops—signaling an emerging new market for the produce sector.

Encourage Greater Adoption of Controlled Environment Agriculture

Both the Administration and Congressional lawmakers should advance policies that promote greater adoption of Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) and related technologies, such as hydroponics, aeroponics, aquaponics, and soil-based systems. These agricultural production methods can be additive to traditional farming methods, rather than displacing them, by allowing growers to eliminate seasonality issues and grow domestically in highly controlled, indoor environments.

Conclusion

Through implementing the aforementioned Farmers First Agenda and Healthy America policies within the five listed target areas for driving responsible nutrition policy, policymakers can simultaneously drive greater nutrition across U.S. populations and help uplift American farmers. Further, these polices will make our federal food and nutrition programs more effective and accountable to U.S. taxpayers.