Food

Subterms

    Latest story

    138 Shares92 Views

    RFK Jr.’s War on Pesticides Riles Farmers and a Republican Senator

    by

    A health report commissioned by President Trump has been causing angst within the agriculture industry who fear the chemicals will be identified as a driver of childhood disease.Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s long-running crusade against agricultural chemicals ran into pushback on Tuesday from the agriculture industry and a Republican senator, who pointedly instructed Mr. Kennedy not to interfere with the livelihood of American farmers by suggesting certain pesticides are unsafe.The admonition from the senator, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, came as President Trump was preparing to release a report on Thursday from a commission, led by Mr. Kennedy and named for his movement, to examine the causes of childhood chronic disease.Mr. Trump established the panel to look at a range of potential factors, including chemicals, which Mr. Kennedy has said “pollute our bodies the same way that they pollute the soil.” Mr. Kennedy and his followers in the “Make America Healthy Again” movement have previously singled out the agricultural chemical glyphosate, originally made by Monsanto, which is now owned by Bayer, the German chemical and pharmaceutical giant.The key ingredient in Roundup, the chemical has long been a target of environmental groups. In 2020, Bayer paid more than $10 billion to settle tens of thousands of claims alleging Roundup causes cancer. In 2018, when he was an environmental lawyer, Mr. Kennedy helped win a $289 million judgment against Monsanto, in a case brought by a man who said the company’s weedkillers, including Roundup, caused his cancer.As Mr. Kennedy was testifying Tuesday before members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Ms. Hyde-Smith asserted that “1,500 studies and 50-plus years of review” of glyphosate by the Environmental Protection Agency and “other global health authorities have affirmed its safety when used as directed.” She also suggested in no uncertain terms that the commission had better get its facts straight.“Mr. Secretary, we have to get this right; you have to be 100 percent certain,” Ms. Hyde-Smith said, adding, “Before you start suggesting an initial assessment that the methods in which the farmers provide our food is unsafe, I trust your report will be described as an initial assessment of things to be considered but yet to be determined.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 163 Shares118 Views

      in Elections

      U.S.-Backed Group Created to Distribute Aid in Gaza Says It’s Ready to Go

      by

      The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation seeks to create an alternative aid system, but other groups have raised doubts about the feasibility of its plan.A foundation created with backing from the Trump administration to establish a new system for aid to flow into the Gaza Strip said on Wednesday that it had reached agreements with Israel to begin operations in the enclave before the end of the month. It also suggested that Israel had agreed to allow aid into Gaza as the foundation is setting up its operations.The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is meant to create an alternative aid system for the war-torn enclave and to end Israel’s two-month blockade on food and fuel deliveries. Israeli officials say the measure was imposed to pressure Hamas, by reducing the militant group’s ability to access and profit from food and fuel meant for civilians.The blockade has raised alarms from international organizations about the risk of famine and also from some Israeli military officials who said privately that Gazans will face widespread starvation unless aid deliveries are restored within weeks.But some other aid groups have already raised doubts about the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s approach and the plan’s feasibility.The foundation’s general plan, according to two Israeli officials and a U.N. diplomat, had been to establish a handful of distribution zones that would each serve food to several hundred thousand Palestinians. This had led to concerns that vulnerable civilians would be forced to walk longer distances to get to the few distribution hubs, making it harder to get food to those who need it most.In a statement on Wednesday, the foundation for the first time gave an indication of when it would start and said that it had secured several key agreements with Israeli officials. These agreements include allowing aid to flow into Gaza while the foundation sets up the distribution sites, letting the foundation establish sites in more places in the enclave, and creating alternative arrangements for those who cannot reach its locations.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump tariffs to hit small farms in Maga heartlands hardest, analysis predicts

      by

      The winners and losers of Trump’s first tariff war strongly suggest that bankruptcies and farm consolidation could surge during his second term, with major corporations best placed to benefit from his polices at the expense of independent farmers.New analysis by the non-profit research advocacy group Food and Water Watch (FWW), shared exclusively with the Guardian, shows that Trump’s first-term tariffs were particularly devastating for farmers in the Maga rural heartlands.Farm bankruptcies surged by 24% from 2018 to 2019 – the highest number in almost a decade – as retaliatory tariffs cost US farmers a staggering $27bn.Numbers of farms fell at the highest rate in two decades with the smallest operations (one to nine acres) hardest hit, declining by 14% between 2017 and 2022. Meanwhile, the number of farms earning $2.5m to $5m more than doubled.Losses from the first-term trade war were mostly concentrated in the midwest due to the region’s focus on export commodities such as corn, soy and livestock that are heavily reliant on China. States with more diverse agricultural sectors such as California and Florida experienced lower rates of insolvency and export declines than in previous years, suggesting the trade war played a role, according to Trump’s Last Tariff Tantrum: A Warning.The breakdown in closures suggests that Trump’s $28bn tariff bailout package in 2018-19 disproportionately benefited mega-farms while smaller-scale farms and minority farmers were left behind.The top tenth of recipients received 54% of all taxpayer bailout funds. The top 1% received on average $183,331 while the bottom 80% got less than $5,000 each, according to previous analysis.The number of Black farmers fell by 8% between 2017 and 2022, while white farmer numbers declined by less than 1%.View image in fullscreen“President Trump’s first-term trade war hurt independent farmers and benefited corporations, offering a warning of what is to come without a plan to help farmers adjust,” said Ben Murray, senior researcher at FWW.“Trump’s latest slap-dash announcements will likely further undermine US farmers while benefiting multinationals who can easily shift production abroad to avoid high tariffs. Farmers’ livelihoods should not be used as a foreign policy bargaining chip. Chaotic tariff tantrums are no way to run US farm policy.”The first 100 days of Trump 2.0 have led to turmoil and uncertainty for consumers, producers and the markets, amid an extraordinary mix of threats, confusing U-turns and retaliatory tariffs from trading partners.Trump’s second trade war could prove even more damaging for US farmers and rural communities, as it comes on top of dismantling of agencies, funds and Biden-era policies to help farmers adapt to climate shocks, tackle racist inequalities and strengthen regional food markets. By the end of April, more than $6bn of promised federal funds had been frozen or terminated, according to the National Sustainable Agriculture Association’s tracker.Rural counties rallied behind Trump in 2024, giving him a majority in all but 11 of the 444 farming-dependent counties, according to analysis by Investigate Midwest.Last week, the agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, played down the likely harm to Trump’s farmer base, but said the administration was preparing a contingency bailout plan if farmers are hurt by escalating trade wars. “We are working on that. We are preparing for it. We don’t believe it will be necessary,” Rollins told Fox News. “We are out across the world, right now, opening up new markets.”US farm policy has long incentivized large-scale monocropping of export commodities such as wheat, corn, soy, sorghum, rice, cotton – and industrial animal farming – rather than production for domestic consumption. This globalized agricultural system favors large and corporate-owned operations, while undermining small, diversified farms and regional food systems. It is a system inextricably tied to global commodity markets, and therefore extremely vulnerable to trade wars.The 2018-19 bailout payments were set up in a way that, inadvertently perhaps, “subsidized, encouraged and promoted” the loss of smaller and mid-size farms to the benefit of mega-farms – in large part because the tariffs were implemented without a coherent plan to reform US farm policy and help farmers transition to domestic markets.The number of large farms – those earning more than $500,000 – grew by 18% between 2017 and 2022. “The taxpayers are essentially being asked to subsidize farm consolidation,” the Environmental Working Group said at the time.Trump’s first-term tariffs hit soybean farmers, who are highly dependent on China, hardest, with exports slumping 74% in 2018 from the previous year. The number of soybean farms fell almost 11% between 2017 and 2022 – a significant turn of fortune given the 9% rise over the previous decade. In fact, the only winners after Trump’s trade war were big farms, those harvesting at least 1,000 acres of soybeans, the FWW analysis found.The 2018/19 tariff bailout package was also used to facilitate contracts and commodity purchases. A significant share went to the billion-dollar corporations which already have a stranglehold on the US food system, and rural communities.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionArkansas-headquartered Tyson Foods received almost $29m in federal contracts and purchases between August 2018 and July 2019, while Brazil-based JBS secured nearly $78m. JBS used its market power to undercut competition, winning over a quarter of the total $300m in taxpayer dollars allocated towards federal pork purchases, according to FWW.The two multinationals currently control 40% to 50% of the US beef market, 45% of poultry and, along with two other corporations, 70% of the pork market.Things could be even worse under Trump 2.0, with the president no longer seeming concerned by the markets or the polls.John Boyd Jr, a fourth-generation Black farmer, has been unable to secure a farm operating loan since Trump’s tariffs sent commodity prices tumbling. USDA field offices that help farmers apply for credit and government subsidies, which Black, Native and other minority farmers were already disproportionately denied, are being closed in the name of efficiency.View image in fullscreen“This administration is putting the heads of Black farmers on the chopping block and ridiculing us in public with no oversight and no pushback from Congress,” said Boyd, president and founder of the National Black Farmers Association, who farms soy, wheat, corn and beef in Virginia. “Trump’s tariffs are a recipe for complete disaster, and this time his voters in red states will also get punched in the face.”Trump 2.0 tariffs against China are higher and broader, and also target scores of other agricultural trading partners. China is better prepared, having diversified its import markets to Brazil and other Latin American countries since Trump’s first trade war, while US domestic farm policy has barely changed.“The administration seems completely blind to the harm that was done previously, and in many ways what’s happening now is already worse … The concern is that trades are stalled and nothing’s really flowing,” said Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.In late April, China cancelled a 12,000-tonne order of US pork – the largest cancellation since the start of the Covid pandemic, suggesting Trump’s tariff war is already sabotaging trade.“The lesson from last time is we didn’t get the money to the right farmers. But the longer-term lesson is that the US lost credibility in trade. US Secretary Rollins is going overseas to try to open up export markets but they seem to be in deep denial right now about the harm that’s already been done to these relationships,” Lilliston said.A USDA spokesperson said: “President Trump is putting farmers first and will ensure our farmers are treated fairly by our trading partners. The administration has not determined whether a farmer support program will be needed at this time. Should a program need to be implemented in the future, the department’s goal will always be to benefit farms of all sizes.”JBS, Tyson and the American Farm Bureau Federation, a lobby group, have been contacted for comment. More

    • 163 Shares187 Views

      in Elections

      Some Teen Wellness Influencers Are Embracing Views in Line With the ‘MAHA’ Movement

      by

      The Instagram clip starts with a warning. “If you believe ‘ignorance is bliss,’” it says, “don’t watch this video.” As an influencer slices fruit on a cutting board, a series of provocative claims descend down the screen — about what she says is actually in peanut butter, vanilla flavoring and the rain, among other things.It’s the kind of post that has become common in the online wellness world, where prominent voices often express skepticism of the establishment and an openness to conspiracy theories.But what makes this influencer unusual is her age. She’s only 17, and a high school junior.Ava Noe, a teenager based in the Boston area, has amassed more than 25,000 Instagram followers while criticizing ultra-processed foods and promoting colostrum supplements, mouth tape and beef tallow. Her posts have suggested that iodized salt is “toxic” and described fluoride as “poison.” And her popularity on the platform — where she goes by @cleanlivingwithava — has earned her a paid partnership with a fluoride-free toothpaste company and affiliate work with other brands, including one that sells “non-toxic” skin care products.Ms. Noe, a self-described “crunchy teen,” is just one of a number of young influencers who appeal to other health-conscious kids their age. At times, their anti-establishment viewpoints fall in line with those of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which has expressed skepticism of the scientific community and large food corporations.The teens’ videos, while at times factually questionable, highlight a desire among some to avoid the chronic illnesses and other conditions that have plagued their elders.Annika Zude, 16, was inspired to start her own health account on TikTok because of how bad ultra-processed foods made her feel, she said. Her father is also an online health influencer.Thalassa Raasch for The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration’s budget cuts endanger Meals on Wheels: ‘Life and death implications’

      by

      The Trump administration’s slashes to the Department of Health and Human Services is threatening Meals on Wheels, the popular program dedicated to combatting senior hunger and isolation. Despite decades of bipartisan support, Meals on Wheels now faces attacks from Republicans whose budget blueprint paves the way for deep cuts to nutrition and other social safety-net programs as a way to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy.It’s a move anti-hunger advocates and policy experts warn could have disastrous ramifications for the millions of older Americans who rely on the program to eat each day.“It’s not hyperbolic to say that we’re going to be leaving people hungry and that this literally has life and death implications,” said Nicole Jorwic, the chief of advocacy and campaigns at Caring Across Generations, a non-profit that advocates for ageing Americans, disabled people and their caregivers. “This is not just about a nice-to-have program. These programs are necessities in the lives of seniors all over this country.”While it is still unknown exactly what will be slashed, the blueprint sets the stage for the potential elimination of the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), a key source of funding for local Meals on Wheels programs in 37 states, and serious cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) and Medicaid, which would increase food insecurity and hardship and steeply increase demand for Meals on Wheels services. The entire staff who oversaw SSBG have already been fired, according to reports.If Congress takes away SSBG funding and weakens other programs, seniors who rely on in-home deliveries or meals in community and senior centers to survive would receive less help as Meals on Wheels community providers would be forced to reduce services, add people to waitlists or turn seniors facing hunger away altogether. Some program operators who are already making tough choices about who to serve due to strained budgets and rising need have said it feels as though they are “playing God”.“We’re talking about lives here so it’s worrisome to me,” said Ellie Hollander, the president and CEO of Meals on Wheels America. “Some of our programs are already operating on razor-thin budgets and are pulling from their reserves. [If funding goes away], it could result in some programs having to close their doors.”In the US one in four Americans is over the age of 60 and nearly 13 million seniors are threatened by or experience hunger. Meals on Wheels America, a network of 5,000 community-based programs that feeds more than 2 million older Americans each year, has been a successful public-private partnership for more than 50 years. The Urban Institute estimates that the number of seniors in the US will more than double over the next 40 years.The Older Americans Act (OAA) nutrition program, which supports the health and wellbeing of seniors through nutrition services, is the network’s primary source of federal funding, covering 37% of what it takes to serve more than 250m meals each year. The exact mix of local, state, federal and private funding of Meals on Wheels’ thousands of on-the-ground community programs varies from provider to provider.Under the orders of the Elon Musk-led unofficial “department of government efficiency” (Doge) and the health and human services (HHS) secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, 20,000 people at HHS have lost their jobs in recent weeks, including at least 40% of the staff at the Administration for Community Living, which coordinates federal policy on ageing and disability. Since many of those staffers helped fulfill critical functions to serving older Americans through the OAA, some Meals on Wheels programs are worried about funding disbursements, reporting data and the loss of institutional knowledge and expertise.HHS has said it will reorganize the ACL into other HHS agencies, although how that would happen is unclear. The co-chairs of the Disability and Aging Collaborative, composed of 62 member organizations that focus in part on ageing and disability, said in a recent statement: “This disruptive change threatens to increase rates of institutionalization, homelessness and long-lasting economic hardships.”Since experiencing multiple strokes that left her cognitively impaired and at risk for falls, Dierdre Mayes has relied on Meals on Wheels Yolo County to deliver meals that are the 64-year-old’s primary source of nutrition. “I’m really thriving off of the meals I get,” said Mayes, a Woodland, California, resident who also receives $20 a month in food stamps, which she uses to purchase cases of water. “The best part about it is I don’t have to go anywhere to get them.” For Mayes and other homebound older Americans, the program is a lifeline.The uncertainty around Meals on Wheels’ future is causing stress for seniors who are worried about how federal cuts, layoffs and tariffs will impact their daily deliveries. The non-profit FeedMore WNY, which serves homebound older adults in New York’s Erie and Niagara counties, said they’ve been hearing from fearful older clients as word of other recent cuts circulated in the news.Catherine Shick, the public relations manager for FeedMore WNY, said they served 4,775 unique Meals on Wheels clients last year and that demand for their feeding programs increased by 16% from 2023 to 2024, a trend they expect to continue. “Any cut to any funding has a direct impact on the individuals who rely on us for food assistance and any cuts are coming at a time when we know that food insecurity is on the rise,” she said. “We need the continued support of all levels of government, as well as the community, to be able to fulfill our mission.”In addition to delivering healthy, nutritious food, Meals on Wheels drivers, who are primarily volunteers, provide a host of other valuable services: they can look for signs of cognitive or other health changes. They can also address safety hazards in the home or provide pet support services, as well as offer crucial social connections since drivers are often the only person a senior may see in a given day or week.Deliveries have been shown to help keep seniors healthy and in their own homes and communities and out of costly institutional settings. Republicans in the House and Senate have said their goal is to reduce federal spending, but experts say cutting programs that help fund organizations such as Meals on Wheels would instead increase federal spending for healthcare and long-term care expenses for older Americans.“If people can’t stay in their own homes, they’re going to be ‘high flyers’ in hospitals and admitted prematurely into nursing homes,” said Hollander, “all of which cost taxpayers billions of dollars annually versus providing Meals on Wheels for one year to a senior for the same cost of being in the hospital for one day or 10 days in a nursing home.”Experts agree that even before the cuts, Meals on Wheels has been underfunded. Advocates and researchers say OAA hasn’t kept up with the rapid growth of the senior population, rising food costs or inflation. One in three local programs already have waiting lists with many programs already feeling stretched to their limits. For more than 60% of Meals on Wheels providers across the country, federal funding represents half or more of their total revenue, underscoring the serious damage that could be done if cuts or policy changes are made in any capacity.“It feels like a continuous slew of attacks on the programs that seniors rely on to be safe, independent and healthy in their own homes,” said Jorwic of Caring Across Generations. “Everything from cuts to Meals on Wheels to cuts to Medicaid, all these things that are being proposed and actively worked on being implemented, are a real threat to the security of aging Americans.” More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      FDA suspends milk quality-control testing program after Trump layoffs

      by

      The Food and Drug Administration is suspending a quality-control program for testing fluid milk and other dairy products due to reduced capacity in its food safety and nutrition division, according to an internal email seen by Reuters.The suspension is another disruption to the nation’s food-safety programs after the termination and departure of 20,000 employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, as part of Donald Trump’s effort to shrink the federal workforce.The FDA this month also suspended existing and developing programs that ensured accurate testing for bird flu in milk and cheese and pathogens like the parasite Cyclospora in other food products.Effective Monday, the agency suspended its proficiency testing program for grade “A” raw milk and finished products, according to the email sent in the morning from the FDA’s division of dairy safety and addressed to “Network Laboratories”.Grade “A” milk, or fluid milk, meets the highest sanitary standards.The testing program was suspended because FDA’s Moffett Center Proficiency Testing Laboratory, part of its division overseeing food safety, “is no longer able to provide laboratory support for proficiency testing and data analysis”, the email said.An HHS spokesperson said the laboratory had already been set to be decommissioned before the staff cuts and that though proficiency testing would be paused during the transition to a new laboratory, dairy product testing would continue.The Trump administration has proposed cutting $40bn from the agency.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe FDA’s proficiency testing programs ensure consistency and accuracy across the nation’s network of food safety laboratories. Laboratories also rely on those quality-control tests to meet standards for accreditation.“The FDA is actively evaluating alternative approaches for the upcoming fiscal year and will keep all participating laboratories informed as new information becomes available,” the email said. More

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      From peppercorns to plastic forks: US businesses that rely on Chinese products reel from Trump tariffs

      by

      Chang Chang, a Sichuan restaurant in Washington DC, was already noticing that some of its business had dropped off after tens of thousands of federal workers living in the area lost their jobs. But the recent tariff rate hikes mark an even greater blow for the restaurant.Sichuan peppercorns, which create the signature numbing spice of the regional Chinese cuisine, along with other ingredients, face an at least 145% tariff after last week’s tit-for-tat trade battle between China and the United States. The steep rate is an existential threat for restaurants across the country that rely on specialty ingredients imported from China to craft the authentic flavors of their dishes, said operators who were blindsided.“We’re really worried,” said Jen Lin-Liu, the director of events for Chang Chang. The restaurant is part of the Peter Chang restaurant group that operates a dozen Sichuan restaurants across Washington, Virginia and Maryland.The restaurant group sources meats and vegetables from local farmers, including an Amish community in the Finger Lakes region that supplies its shiitake mushrooms and organic pork. Still, it is dependent on imported items such as fermented chili peppers and soy sauce, which give the dishes their unique taste.“Some of the products that we need just do not exist in the United States,” Lin-Liu said.The cost of other items is rising as well. “There are increases in any supply you can think of, from takeout boxes to printer paper to menu printing paper,” she said, adding that if the tariff rates stick, the price of a $20 dish may rise to $35 or $40.View image in fullscreenGeorge Chen, the chef who created Eight Tables, a fine-dining restaurant in San Francisco, said that while some of the items on his menu may be replaceable with options from Taiwan, it undermines the integrity he’s put into sourcing the unique ingredients for his dishes.“Replacements disrupt complex long-term relationships,” explained Chen. “It took me years to find the special spice vendors or the organic tea farmer in China from my many years living and working there.”Eight Tables is part of a larger marketplace called China Live, which includes a dining hall, a cold-drinks bar and a shop that sells wares including chopsticks, glass tea mugs and pots.“The area most concerning is our retail platform,” said Chen. For those items, “it’s not possible to re-order at the tariff rates”.For direct importers, like the Mala Market, an online shop, the tariffs on Chinese products threaten its entire business model. Sichuan peppercorns are popular on the site, but it also sells a number of items produced in their original region using traditional methods. The owner, Taylor Holliday, calls these “heritage products”, which include soy sauce handcrafted in Zhongba, fermented soybeans aged for three years in Sichuan and sesame paste stone-ground in Shandong.“These are products which have been made in that exact area for hundreds if not thousands of years,” said Holliday. “They have such a history, there’s no way these products can be made anywhere else.”While part of Holliday’s business supplies wholesale items to restaurants around the country, the majority of its orders are from home cooks.“A lot of our customers are people who have a cultural or emotional attachment to China,” Holliday said. “It’s more than just the food, it’s a cultural attachment to these products.”EMei, a Sichuan restaurant in Philadelphia, sources not only its peppercorns from China but also items such as chopsticks and plastic cutlery for takeout orders. Similar to many Chinese restaurants, delivery is a major part of the restaurant’s business.“So far, this is the main impact for us,” said Dan Tsao, the owner of EMei, who said the tariff hikes add about $1 to $1.50 to each delivery order.The tariffs may also create a supply issue for these items.“Importers are pausing more of their orders from China. They think 125% is crazy,” Tsao said.While the restaurant sources many of its ingredients from local farmers, it still relies on some imports from other countries. It orders broccoli from Mexico, shrimp from Ecuador and rice from Thailand. Rice is especially critical; the restaurant runs through a supply of about 200 pounds each night, Tsao said. Since Donald Trump’s “liberation day” announcement earlier this month, the price per pound has already risen more than 25%.View image in fullscreenThe frenetic nature of the tariff policy shifts has left owners and suppliers cautious about which steps to take and how to plan for the future.Tsao has plans to open two more restaurants later this year and has noticed some construction estimates for renovations rising. Most of the building materials come from China, too.“I’m hesitating now,” he said. The possibility of a recession while the prices of supplies and renovations keep going up may change his calculation. “There will be all these ripple effects on the system and there’s so much economic uncertainty,” he added.Holliday said she has one container of product already on the way from China that is scheduled to clear US customs in about five weeks, but will not raise prices until she is forced to.“I’m praying that something happens by then,” she said. But if it doesn’t, she’s resigned to paying the tariffs.“There’s no other way we can run our business,” she said. More

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘It’s going to be messy’: Americans on how Trump’s tariffs are shaping their spending

      by

      A few weeks ago, Dane began stocking up on “paper products”, “cases of paper towels, toilet paper”, “piddle-pads” for their shih-tzu, and his wife upgraded from an iPhone 8 to 14.The 73-year-old in South Carolina said the purchases – which were made to get ahead of Donald Trump’s trade policies – reminded him of the early weeks of the Covid pandemic, when he scrambled to buy masks, gloves and toilet paper.“It’s scary,” Dane said. “Prices are going to go up because of tariffs … It’s going to be messy.”While campaigning last year, Trump constantly touted his love of tariffs. But it was not until his so-called “liberation day” on 2 April – where the president announced sweeping duties on incoming goods, punishing competitors, allies and small and developing countries alike – that he spooked global financial markets and provoked fears of spiralling inflation and stagnant growth.Amid a US government bond sell-off, the president paused his most eye-watering tariffs for 90 days, apart from China, whose goods are set to be hit with a 145% levy.Hundreds of Americans got in touch with the Guardian to share how the uncertainty is affecting their consumption habits.Dane, who is retired, worked as an entrepreneur with his wife most of his career before later becoming an English teacher. He said he was a Republican in the 1980s but is fearful about how the US is “not going the right way” under Trump, and is unhappy with his “dystopian” policies towards global allies, the economy, education, scientific research and more.View image in fullscreenCurrently, Dane is on a trip to Paris and plans to bring home consumer goods potentially hit by 10% tariffs on European Union imports.“We’ll probably be getting tea, bringing back some cheese, some butter,” he said. “I would love to bring back eggs but that would be a disaster. I’d have scrambled eggs in my suitcase.”Amid tariff uncertainty, Heather, a 61-year-old college professor in Texas, said she and her husband can mostly weather food cost fluctuations, but brought forward the purchase of a new car “inanticipation of price hikes”.She said they owned a 14-year-old Mini Cooper, which ran on gas, that they planned to replace with a hybrid vehicle at some point. They decided to replace their car now to avoid potential inflation – and reduce expenditure on gas.“The economic instability of the Trump administration certainly gives one pause,” she said. “It’s just so much instability, chaos and [the] unknown.”It’s a similar story for Stefanie, a 56-year-old educator and former tech worker in Nevada, who bought a Toyota Tacoma to replace her old Jeep as well as converting some investments into cash.Stefanie began strategizing about being more resilient to tariffs as soon as Trump was elected.“The one thing I learned in the first administration is to believe him: he says bizarre things, and then he does bizarre things,” she said.She’s cutting back on subscriptions and future travel plans, while stockpiling kitchen staples such as rice, cooking oils, vinegar and flour and replacing worn-out clothes including shoes and jeans, “before inflation hits”.“The supply chain is so globalized that tariffs really hit everything,” Stefanie said.But for Ishaan*, a 51-year-old engineer in Texas, the economic picture means he is abstaining from major purchases.“Everyone I know has started tightening their belts,” he said. “I am cutting out unnecessary expenses, cancelled my gym membership, focusing on savings.”The focus for Ishaan, who fears higher prices and an economic slowdown, is to build up his savings in cash. He feels “scared to invest in any stocks or bonds right now” amid market volatility.Likewise for Jonathan*, a 70-year-old in New Jersey, the financial fallout from Trump’s trade wars means he has been forced to rule out planned purchases and strip consumption back to the essentials.Jonathan said his individual retirement account (IRA) was initially “decimated” – although it ticked up slightly after Trump paused his tariffs on Wednesday. He said it was currently down about 15%.That means cancelling plans to redo the carpet in his house and replace two old televisions, Jonathan said. “In short, we’ll buy only necessities and pay bills until this stupidity ends.”Russ a 35-year-old physicist in New Mexico, said the Trump administration’s policies were “causing me to think about what kinds of spending behavior I could have done without this whole time”.He has an eight-year-old phone and nine-year-old MacBook computer that still work fine, which he will not be replacing. The prospect of runaway price rises for consumer electronics, often from China, have led him to reconsider: “Do I really need this, or do I just want this?“I see these things as being as much toys as necessities,” he said. “Maybe I’ll just go back to a dumbphone or something like that – I fantasize sometimes about not getting all these notifications all the time, like the phones we had back in 2005. But maybe that’s a Luddite fantasy.”Russ said that he was already boycotting Amazon and Target – companies that many feel have aligned themselves with Trump’s agenda such as rolling back their own DEI schemes. He’s trying to shop more at local, independent shops rather than “everything stores”, which he notes is more expensive and time consuming but ultimately worth it.“As an American citizen and registered voter, nobody really cares what you think until November of every other year, you feel kind of voiceless,” he said. “You think, well, if dollars are the only tools we have any more, then damn it, I’m going to cast those votes and allocate my spending accordingly.”View image in fullscreenLikewise, small business owner Christine* said the disruption could cause a wider re-evaluation of US consumer habits.Amid the uncertainty, Christine, 41, stocked up on supplies for her Miami acupuncture business for two years, and bought her son’s fifth birthday present – a bike – early for July. But she said she had already noticed less demand for her work.More broadly, the prospect of inflationary tariffs is accelerating Christine’s reconsideration of how much “stuff” she needs. She’s recently attended “these lovely parties” where friends bring unwanted clothes and they “switch it all around” rather than buying fast fashion.“I really resent being drafted into this mad trade war,” Christine said, “but if there is a silver lining, maybe it’s that at least some people like me will question their unsustainable capitalistic practices.”*Some names have been changed. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Nutritionist Marion Nestle Meets Her Moment, At 88

      by

      On a dreary February afternoon in Westchester County, N.Y., the cooks, farmers, servers and other staff of the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture convened over a roast beef dinner to hear Marion Nestle hold forth on the state of food politics.Dr. Nestle, one of the country’s foremost experts on nutrition policy, was still trying to get her head around the political realignments of the prior months. After his win in November, Donald J. Trump selected Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to run his federal health department. The partnership produced a new take on an old slogan, “Make America Healthy Again.” It also led the McDonald’s-loving Mr. Trump to publicly criticize the “industrial food complex.”The phrasing stood out to Dr. Nestle, a molecular biologist turned nutritionist who has spent decades pushing for stricter regulation of food additives and removing conflicts of interest from government health policy.“He sounds just like me when he talks!” Dr. Nestle, who describes herself as “firmly left-wing,” told the crowd, eliciting laughter. “How is that possible?”Dr. Nestle (pronounced NESS-ul) is not a name on the level of the chef Alice Waters or the food writer Michael Pollan. But among food activists and academics, she is considered one of the most influential framers of the modern food movement. She was among the first, in 2002, to lay the blame for America’s obesity epidemic at the feet of the food industry when she released “Food Politics,” a book of case studies illustrating how the industry manipulates government policy and the scientific establishment to its own ends.Dr. Nestle was 65 when the book came out, and she could have stopped then. Instead, she has been on a run ever since, publishing a dozen more books, globe-trotting to deliver speeches and serving as a go-to source for journalists. But only now, at 88, does she seem to be reaching her peak. For years, Dr. Nestle’s ideas placed her in food policy’s progressive camp. But today, fears about food additives and environmental toxins are rampant, and some of her longest held and most passionate beliefs — about topics like regenerative agriculture, school lunches and additives — are marching toward the bipartisan center.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More