Food

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Grocery Shoppers Will Feel the Tariffs First in Produce

      by

      Grocery shoppers are likely to feel the impact of the Trump administration’s sweeping new tariffs before April is over. And the first place they’ll feel it is in parts of the store where the inventory has to move fast.In the produce aisle, food analysts said Thursday, expect small price increases on everyday purchases like bananas from Guatemala and grapes from Peru, countries whose exports to the United States will incur 10 percent tariffs when the new fees go into effect on Saturday. A separate round of reciprocal tariffs on 57 countries will follow on Wednesday.The seafood counter may hold even worse surprises. Grocery stores sell a lot of shrimp from Vietnam, which President Trump hit with a 46 percent reciprocal tariff, and India, with a 26 percent reciprocal tariff.Soon, analysts say, price hikes will arrive for staples like sugar and coffee, which is already priced at a historic high. Specialty coffee beans might eventually cost consumers 10 percent to 35 percent more than before the tariffs, bean buyers predicted.Since the pandemic, grocery stores have been expanding their lines of lower-priced private-label products. Customers loved them as a way to navigate inflation, but tariffs will drive up costs.Coffee prices, which are already at historic highs, are likely to increase.Brandon Bell/Getty ImagesWe 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

    • 250 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr says they are poisoning us, influencers call them unnatural – but what is the truth about seed oils?

      by

      It’s curious that something so bland could cause so much controversy. Most of us have a bottle of seed oil, normally called vegetable oil in the UK, in our kitchens – a nearly tasteless but very useful fat that has been a commonplace cooking ingredient for decades.And yet this previously unremarkable golden liquid has sparked online furore and vicious debate. Nutrition influencers on social media have described it as “toxic”, “inflammatory”, “unnatural” and the root cause of the obesity epidemic.The US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, who has caused controversy with his views on subjects from vaccines to fluoride in drinking water, has said the population is being “unknowingly poisoned” by seed oils and urged people to revert to “traditional” fats such as butter, lard and beef dripping for better health.Last month the Wall Street Journal reported that fast food chains were promoting their shift away from seed oils after Kennedy’s criticisms. He even made a televised visit to a branch of Steak ’n Shake to praise its decision to cook fries in beef tallow instead.So should we really be ditching our bottles of vegetable and sunflower oils and covering everything in lard?Seed oils have been in widespread use since about the 1950s and, as well as being used for home cooking, are also in many ultra-processed foods. They include rapeseed (known as canola in the US and generally labelled as vegetable oil in the UK), sunflower, soya bean, corn, grapeseed, rice bran, sesame and safflower. While you can buy cold-pressed seed oils, the most common production method involves using a solvent (normally hexane) to extract the oil from the plant. It is correct that hexane is a toxic substance, but it is almost entirely removed from the final product by the refining process – the EU allows a maximum residual limit of 1mg per kilo.The refining process includes bleaching and deodorising, both of which critics have jumped on to claim that seed oil is “unnatural” and therefore “bad”.Tom Sanders, emeritus professor of nutrition and dietetics at King’s College London, who has spent his career researching dietary fat and health, explains: “The processing actually takes out potentially toxic material.”Sarah Berry, professor of nutritional sciences at King’s, agrees: “The end product, in my opinion, is very safe to eat.”The next allegation against seed oils is that they are “inflammatory”. This assumption is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the science, says Berry.View image in fullscreenSeed oil critics claim that the type of omega-6 fatty acid present in them (called linoleic acid) can be inflammatory, whereas omega-3 – the other essential polyunsaturated fatty acid, found in foodstuffs such as oily fish, flaxseed and chia seeds – can reduce inflammation.“Because the enzymes used to convert omega-3 into anti-inflammatory chemicals are the same ones used to convert omega- 6, their argument is that having too much seed oil will mean the enzymes are stolen away from the omega-3,” says Berry.“This isn’t true. It’s true from a theoretical biochemical pathway. It’s true in mice upon unrealistic stimuli. But it is absolutely not true in humans.” In fact, randomised, controlled trials show that linoleic acid has either a neutral or, in most studies, an anti-inflammatory effect in humans.“The idea that linoleic acid is some sort of toxic thing is absolute nonsense,” says Sanders. “It’s an essential nutrient. Of the essential fatty acids it’s the most important one. If you’re deficient, it impairs immune function and platelet function doesn’t work.”It also has a potent cholesterol-lowering effect, says Berry, who is chief scientist at nutrition company Zoe. “It has been shown to reduce blood cholesterol significantly. Because of this and based on the current evidence I would say that not only are seed oils not bad for us, they are a healthy part of our diet.”Sanders attributes much of the decline in cardiovascular disease we’ve seen in the past 50 years to our increased consumption of seed oils. A few weeks ago, a study that followed 200,000 adults over 33 years found that those who replaced a tablespoon of butter a day with the same amount of plant-based oil such as soya bean or rapeseed had a 17% reduction in risk of death from all causes. The study, which was published in JAMA Internal Medicine also found a 17% reduction in risk of death from cancer.“Our study found that higher butter intake was associated with increased deaths from all causes and cancer, while higher intake of plant-based oils was associated with lower deaths from all causes, cancer and cardiovascular disease,” said lead study author Yu Zhang, a graduate student at Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health.Priya Tew, from Dietitian UK, says some of the confusion might have come from a 1960s study: “It showed men with heart disease had a higher intake of seed oils. But this was through margarines that also contain trans fats, which we know increase the risk of heart disease.”A similar logic applies to the argument that, as our intake of seed oils has risen – which it has more than 200-fold over the past 50 to 70 years – so too have our rates of chronic disease.“Association does not mean causality,” says Berry. “Think what else has changed; our food landscape is almost unrecognisable compared with 70 years ago. It’s estimated 60% of the seed oils we consume come from ultra-processed food which has many other chemicals that are unhealthy for us and processes that affect the healthfulness of the food.”In other words, it’s not the seed oil that’s the problem.Berry’s recent statements about seed oils have landed her in hot water. After appearing on a podcast explaining that seed oils are healthy, she received relentless hate mail, including being told she’s “the most hated scientist in America”.“It nearly got to the point where I was going to stop speaking out on the topic so I didn’t have to be subjected to such horrible comments and meanness. But then I thought, that’s exactly what they want. They want to shut down the real evidence, so it just galvanised me to speak out about it even more.”As always, with nutrition, it’s better to consider overall diet than to hyper-fixate on one ingredient. But these kind of messages don’t tend to get as much traction. “Human nature is such that we are more susceptible to risk and scare headlines,” Berry says. “They’re going to get more clicks than a balanced, boring nutrition scientist like myself saying seed oils are fine as part of a balanced diet.”Sanders says you don’t have to ditch your seed oils and you shouldn’t swap them for butter or lard. “The seed oil scare is all just gossip. It’s not based on any good science at all.” More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About Food Poisoning When Traveling

      by

      Whether you’re traveling off-the-beaten path or staying at a high-end resort, paying attention to how food is prepared and handled can help keep you safe.Two cases involving possible food poisoning among tourists have raised concerns about what travelers can do to prevent and treat food-borne illnesses — not just during off-the-beaten-path adventures, but in and around resorts.While the cause of the recent death of Miller Gardner, the 14-year-old son of the former New York Yankees outfielder Brett Gardner, has not been confirmed, Miller, along with other members of the Gardner family, is reported to have experienced gastrointestinal distress after eating a meal while on vacation in Costa Rica. And a lawsuit filed this year in Toronto in connection with the food poisoning-related deaths in 2023 of 8-year-old Stephen Gougeon and his mother, April, alleges, among other things, that the Dominican Republic resort where they stayed did not take sufficient care in food handling.In general, gastrointestinal illnesses among tourists — travelers’ diarrhea and food poisoning — is especially likely to occur in countries where the water supply is unsafe. But there are also many cases of food poisoning, and hundreds of deaths, in the United States every year, and these infections can occur anywhere there are lapses in how food is handled. Raw or undercooked meat, fish and shellfish can be contaminated, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s list of high-risk foods includes raw eggs and unpasteurized milk.Travel presents additional concerns. “People may be in places where the tap water is not necessarily safe, and they don’t have control over how food is prepared or handled,” said Dr. Adam Ratner, director of the division of pediatric infectious diseases at Hassenfeld Children’s Hospital at NYU Langone in New York. “When you’re home, you have some control, and you have U.S. and local health department standards. It can be harder to assess safety somewhere else.”Ice made with unclean water may cause gastrointestinal problems because freezing, unlike boiling, does not kill most pathogens.Getty Images Parents should be especially vigilant. Babies and young children are vulnerable to dehydration, which is generally the most dangerous aspect of gastrointestinal illnesses; other groups at high risk include pregnant women, older people and anyone who is immunocompromised. But even younger adults and adolescents may not realize how serious the symptoms of food poisoning can be, and when it is important to get medical help.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

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US wine importers and bars nervously wait for tariff decision: ‘It’s a sad situation’

      by

      As the threat of exorbitant US tariffs on European alcohol imports looms, a warehouse in the French port city of Le Havre awaits a delivery of more than 1,000 cases of wine from a dozen boutique wineries across the country.Under normal circumstances, Randall Bush, the founder of Loci Wine in Chicago, would have already arranged with his European partners to gather these wines in Le Havre, the last stop before they are loaded into containers and shipped across the Atlantic. But these wines won’t be arriving stateside anytime soon.After the Trump administration threatened on 13 March to impose 200% tariffs on alcoholic products from Europe, many US importers like Bush have halted all outgoing shipments from Europe.The 1,100 cases of his wine, from family-owned producers in his company’s modest European portfolio, have already been paid for. But due to the tariff threat, they will remain stranded at their respective domaines at least until 2 April when the Trump administration is expected to reveal a “reciprocal tariff number” for each of its global trading partners.The newfound uncertainty around tariffs has many restaurant owners, beverage directors, liquor distributors and wine importers on edge in recent weeks. The only certainty among the trade professionals interviewed is that a 200% tariff would be catastrophic for the wine and spirits industry globally. And while most believe the actual number will end up much lower, everyone agrees that even modest tariffs would send shock waves throughout the entire food and beverage ecosystem, weakening distribution channels and further driving up already astronomical prices.“What scares me is how these hypothetical tariffs would affect [the many] European-themed restaurants like French bistros, Italian trattorias and German beer halls,” said Richard Hanauer, wine director and partner with Lettuce Entertain You. The Chicago-based group owns, manages and licenses more than 130 restaurants and 60 brands in a dozen different states and Washington DC. Hanauer predicts that concept-driven eateries that rely on European products would have to source wine and spirits from other regions because “the consumer is not going to accept the markup”.Even though Trump has been known to walk back dubious claims about tariffs before, the wine and spirits industry is taking this recent threat very seriously. Most American importers, such as Loci’s Bush, are adhering to the US Wine Trade Alliance’s (USWTA) guidance issued in mid-March warning its members to cease wine shipments from Europe. Without guarantees that any potential tariffs would come with a notice period or exemptions for wines shipped prior to their announcement, the organization had no choice but to advise its constituents to halt all EU wine shipments.“Once the wine is on the water, we have no power,” said Bush. “We’re billed by our shippers as soon as the wine arrives.”Tariffs are import taxes incurred by the importer and paid as a percentage of the value of the freight at the point of entry upon delivery. Since shipments from Europe can often take up to six to eight weeks to arrive, firms like Loci face the predicament of not knowing how much they will owe to take delivery of their products when they reach US ports.“We’ve had many US importers tell us that even a 50% unplanned tariff could bankrupt their businesses, so we felt we had no choice,” said Benjamin Aneff, president of the USWTA, of the organization’s injunction. “It’s a sad situation. These are mostly small, family-owned businesses.”Europe’s wineries can also ill afford to be dragged into a trade war with the United States. According to the International Trade Center, the US comprises almost 20% of the EU’s total wine exports, accounting for a total of $14.1bn (€13.1bn) of exported beverage, spirit and vinegar products from the EU in 2024.Many independent importers still recall Trump levying $7.5bn of tariffs on exports from the EU during his first presidency, which included 25% duties on Scotch whiskey, Italian cheeses, certain French wines and other goods. These retaliatory measures, which took effect in October 2019, resulted from a years-long trade dispute between the US and the EU over airline subsidies.“We were hit with duties in late 2019. But we negotiated with a lot of our suppliers, so we were able to stave off any significant price increases,” said André Tamers, the founder of De Maison Selections, a fine-wine importer with a large portfolio of French and Spanish wines and spirits. But because the Covid-19 pandemic hit shortly thereafter, Tamers admitted, it was difficult to gauge the impact of the first round of Trump tariffs. The Biden administration eventually rescinded the measures in June 2021.To pre-empt any potentially disastrous news on the tariff front, many restaurants and bars are ramping up inventory purchases to the extent that their budgets allow. “We made some large commitments for rosé season,” said Grant Reynolds, co-founder of Parcelle, which has an online wine shop as well as two bars and a bricks-and-mortar retail outlet in Manhattan. “To whatever we can reasonably afford, we’ve decided to secure those commitments sooner than later so that we can better weather the storm.”The same is true for many cocktail-focused bars around the country, which are looking to shore up supplies of popular spirits that could end up a victim of tariffs, including allocated scotches and rare cognacs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“If it becomes very apparent that these tariffs are going to go live, we could be looking at dropping close to $100,000 on inventory just to insulate ourselves because it will save us so much money over the next six months,” said Deke Dunne, beverage director of Washington DC’s award-winning cocktail bar Allegory. “It will have to be a game-time decision, though, because the last thing I want to do is to buy up a lot of inventory I don’t need.” Hanauer said that he’s seen some vendors offering wine buyers heavy discounts and incentives to stockpile cases of European products to prepare for the possibility of onerous tariffs.One bar owner feeling a little less panic compared with his industry counterparts is Fred Beebe, co-owner of Post Haste, a sustainability-minded cocktail bar in Philadelphia. Since it opened in 2023, Post Haste eschews imported spirits of any kind; the bar is stocked exclusively with US products from east of the Mississippi River. “We always thought it would be advantageous to have our producers close to us for environmental reasons and to support the local economy,” said Beebe, “but we didn’t necessarily think that it would also benefit from fluctuations in distribution or global economic policy.”Instead of serving popular European liquor brands such as Grey Goose vodka or Hendrick’s gin, the bar highlights local craft distillers such as Maggie’s Farm in Pittsburgh, which produces a domestic rum made from Louisiana sugar cane. After the recent tariff threats, Beebe says, the decision to rely on local products has turned out to be fortuitous. “I feel really bad for anyone who is running an agave-based program, a tequila or mezcal bar,” said Beebe. “They must be worried constantly about whether the price of all of their products are going to go up by 25% to 50%.”On the importing side, there is agreement that this is an inopportune moment for the wine industry to face new headwinds. Wine consumption has steadily declined in the United States in recent years as gen Z and millennial consumers are turning to cannabis, hard seltzers and spirits such as tequila, or simply embracing sobriety in greater numbers.“Unfortunately, the reality is that wine consumption was already down before this compared to what it was five years ago,” said Reynolds. “This obviously doesn’t help that. So, with more tariffs, you would start to see a greater shift of behaviors away from drinking wine.”But despite slumping sales and the impending tariff threats, niche importers like Tamers say they have little choice but to stay the course. “You leave yourself vulnerable, but if you don’t buy wine, then you don’t have any wine to sell. So, it’s a double-edged sword,” he said. “Our customers are still asking for these products, so there’s not much else we can do.”Aneff hopes that commonsense negotiations will lead to both parties divorcing alcohol tariffs from other trade disputes over aluminum, steel and digital services.“I do have some hope for a potential sectoral agreement on wine, and perhaps spirits, which would benefit domestic producers and huge numbers of small businesses on both sides of the Atlantic,” he said. “I can’t think of anything that would bring more joy to people’s glasses than ensuring free trade on wine.” More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Care About Food Waste? In Massachusetts, You Can Be a Compost Consultant.

      by

      America has a food waste problem: Rotten tomatoes and pizza boxes end up in trash dumps and produce a potent planet-heating gas called methane.Massachusetts has a fix: A state regulation requires businesses to keep food out of dumpsters. To help them comply, the state offers a carrot, in the form of a chatty, practical, 63-year-old hand-holding food-waste-reduction consultant named Heather Billings.Which is how, on a frigid Wednesday morning, Ms. Billings found herself poking around the narrow kitchen of the Port Tavern, a sports bar in Newburyport, Mass.An owner of the Port Tavern, Abbie Hannan, left, invited Ms. Billings to look at how the restaurant managed its waste.She quickly spotted a very solvable problem at the prep cook’s station: a 23-gallon trash can into which went tomato tops and other food scraps.Then came the dumpster inspection. Could anything in there go to compost?Ms. Billings, a consultant contracted by the state government, took notes, snapped pictures and peered behind the bar to assess where the lemon wedges and plastic olive skewers ended up.She had some easy fixes for Port Tavern’s co-owner Abbie Hannan. She proposed inexpensive, four-gallon plastic buckets to nest inside the bigger trash bins to collect food scraps. She connected Ms. Hannan to compost haulers and a charity that could pick up leftover edible food.Tell Us About Solutions Where You Live

      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

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      West Virginia Bans 7 Artificial Food Dyes, Citing Health Concerns

      by

      At least 20 other states are considering bills restricting the use of certain food dyes and additives.In the most sweeping move of its kind, West Virginia has banned foods containing most artificial food dyes and two preservatives, citing their potential health risks.The legislation, signed into law Monday by Gov. Patrick Morrisey, will go into effect in 2028. At least 20 states are considering similar restrictions on food chemicals, but West Virginia is the first to ban virtually all artificial dyes from foods sold statewide. The new law will also prohibit products containing the dyes from being served in school meals starting this August.“Everybody realizes that we’ve got to do something about food in general,” said Adam Burkhammer, a Republican state representative who introduced the bill in February. It quickly passed both legislative houses with broad bipartisan support. Mr. Burkhammer said he hopes the law will improve the health of children in his state and spur other states to take similar actions.California has passed similar measures, though they were narrower in scope. One, passed in 2023, banned four food additives statewide. And in 2024, state lawmakers banned artificial food dyes from school meals.Jennifer Pomeranz, an associate professor of public health policy and management at New York University, said the California measures likely led state lawmakers to realize they could move faster than the Food and Drug Administration to act on food additives that carried health concerns.She added that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was confirmed as health secretary last month and has spoken frequently of his concerns about food dyes, has also brought more attention to the issue. Earlier this month, at a meeting with executives from large food companies including PepsiCo and General Mills, Mr. Kennedy said that it was an “urgent priority” to eliminate artificial dyes from foods and drinks sold nationwide. At another meeting, he encouraged people to call Gov. Morrissey in support of the West Virginia law.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

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Administration Delays Requirement for Companies to Track Tainted Food

      by

      A law passed in 2011 required food companies to track food in the event of contamination and a recall. The administration delayed the move, set to take effect next year, for 30 months.The Food and Drug Administration said on Thursday that it would delay by 30 months a requirement that food companies and grocers rapidly trace contaminated food through the supply chain and pull it off the shelves.Intended to “limit food-borne illness and death,” the rule required companies and individuals to maintain better records to identify where foods are grown, packed, processed or manufactured. It was set to go into effect in January 2026 as part of a landmark food safety law passed in 2011, and was advanced during President Trump’s first term.Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health secretary, has expressed interest in chemical safety in food, moving to ban food dyes and on Thursday debuting a public database where people can track toxins in foods. But other actions in the first months of the Trump administration have undercut efforts to tackle bacteria and other contaminants in food that have sickened people. The administration’s cutbacks included shutting down the work of a key food-safety committee and freezing the spending on credit cards of scientists doing routine tests to detect pathogens in food.There were several high-profile outbreaks in recent years, including the cases last year linked to deadly listeria in Boar’s Head meat and E. coli in onions on McDonald’s Quarter Pounders.The postponement raised alarms among some advocacy organizations on Thursday.“This decision is extremely disappointing and puts consumers at risk of getting sick from unsafe food because a small segment of the industry pushed for delay, despite having 15 years to prepare,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy at Consumer Reports, an advocacy group.Many retailers have already taken the steps to comply with the rule. Still, trade groups for the food industry lobbied to delay implementation of the rule in December, according to The Los Angeles Times.In a letter to President Trump in December, food makers and other corporate trade groups cited a number of regulations that they said were “strangling our economy.” They asked for the food traceability rule to be pared back and delayed.“This is a huge step backward for food safety,” said Sarah Sorscher, director of regulatory affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, an advocacy group. “What’s so surprising about it is this was a bipartisan rule.”Ms. Sorscher said there was broad support for the measure, since it would protect consumers and businesses, which could limit the harm, the reputational damage and the cost of a food recall with a high-tech supply chain. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Local food for schools helps farmers and kids. So why is Trump cutting funding?

      by

      “If you happened to smell hickory smoke in the city this week, we were probably to blame,” the North Little Rock school district’s child nutrition program shared in a 30 January Facebook post featuring a picture of the day’s lunch.The locally sourced menu included school-smoked chopped beef, pulled pork, fresh apples and coleslaw. This isn’t standard cafeteria fare, but funds from the US government helped kids in this Arkansas town get fresh, nourishing foods produced by farmers and ranchers in their own community.Menus like this might be a thing of the past come next school year. On 7 March, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) notified states of the withdrawal of $1bn in taxpayer dollars that states used to contract with local producers, effectively ending these and other innovative programs. School districts like that of North Little Rock were counting on these funds to plan menus for the next school year. Now, with just five months to go, the funding has been abruptly rescinded.As someone who has spent my entire career working in school food and now serves as the senior director of programs and policy for the National Farm to School Network, I know the best way to ensure that American children receive a nourishing school lunch every day is to expand federal support for community-based food producers.I know first-hand the impact of investing in local food for schools. Living in Arkansas with my two little girls – who attend public school and participate in the school meal program – I see how vital these programs are for the health and wellbeing of our kids, economy and communities. Thanks to the growth of the farm-to-school movement, the North Little Rock lunch-tray experience is becoming more and more common across the country.While I faced empty shelves at my local Kroger early in the pandemic, supply-chain shortages affected school cafeterias in unimaginable ways. Meeting nutrition regulations became nearly impossible as basic staples like fresh produce and milk suddenly became unavailable, leaving school nutrition professionals scrambling to provide balanced meals. Food insecurity surged as communities relied more heavily on school meals, yet the systems in place to meet that need were breaking down. In response to these unprecedented challenges, schools across the country began to turn to local sources for food like never before – partnering directly with farmers to keep meals coming and meet community needs.The food supply chain has still not fully recovered from the disruptive effects of the pandemic, and growing challenges such as bird flu and labor uncertainties exacerbate the problem. Schools and the communities they serve want to serve good, locally grown and prepared food, but taking the programs from activities like an occasional taste-test of apples from a nearby orchard to a full transformation of menus away from ultra-processed foods and big food manufacturers is going to require more support. It’s going to require investments like the Local Food for Schools Program.In 2021, an incredibly effective solution arose to both feed schoolchildren well and support (mostly rural) American farmers: the Commodity Credit Corporation’s Local Food for Schools Program. That initial $200m investment went directly through states and into local farms across the country specifically for school meals. The next round of $660m was intended to expand to include early childcare programs.The program was successful, an investment of our tax dollars right back into our communities. US farmers typically earn 15.9 cents for every dollar spent on food. But when schools purchase directly from farmers, 100% of every dollar goes to farmers. And now a program that provided critical support has been canceled in the name of government efficiency.John Wahrmund, a friend of mine and third-generation beef farmer in rural Arkansas, benefited from the Local Food for Schools Program. Selling to schools became a new and vital market for his farm. To meet demand, Wahrmund invested tens of thousands of dollars in processing and refrigeration equipment to ensure his high-quality, grass-fed beef fit the strict regulations for selling to schools.View image in fullscreenNow those sales will end. Without the kickstart these funds provide, cash-strapped schools are forced to go back to the cheapest products because local farmers are easily undercut by multinational food companies. When I called Wahrmund to ask how he was holding up, he told me: “[The Local Food for Schools Program] is everything for my sales. Without this, it will literally shut me down. I have focused solely on schools.”He has been driving across Arkansas, not just the North Little Rock school district but from Fayetteville to Hope, to get his beef into school cafeterias. “It will be over – not just with me, but with all the farmers trying to serve the school lunch program. Not just beef [producers], rice, vegetables, all of it.”The National School Lunch Program has always been tied to the fate of farmers in our country. Of the National School Lunch Act of 1946, which created the program, then president Harry Truman said: “In the long view, no nation is any healthier than its children or more prosperous than its farmers; and in the National School Lunch Act, the Congress has contributed immeasurably both to the welfare of our farmers and the health of our children.”At a 23 January nomination hearing to Congress, Brooke Rollins, who is now the secretary of the Department of Agriculture, stated that she aimed to support rural communities, bolster domestic markets and ensure that nutrition programs are efficient. Just last week, she and the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F Kennedy Jr, moved forward with “Make America healthy again” (Maha) commitments to “create and implement policies that promote healthy choices, healthy families and healthy outcomes”.The Local Food for Schools program was exactly that kind of policy. It was more than just fresh thinking. It was a proven, common-sense investment that gave farmers and school nutrition programs a vital boost.March is when farmers plan their next growing season, and when school food professionals set their menus. Now, without this funding, farmers like Wahrmund may go out of business, and school food programs – already operating on razor-thin margins of an average of $1.40 per tray – will struggle to provide nourishing meals to students who rely on them every day. Arkansas, the most food-insecure state in the nation, stood to receive over $8m of the funds. With working families already struggling with rising food costs, eliminating this support is not just shortsighted – it’s harmful.This funding wasn’t government inefficiency or a liberal scheme; it was an investment in our children’s health, our farmers’ livelihoods and the resilience of our communities. Rolling back this support isn’t just a mistake; it betrays every principle of public health and supporting farmers, America’s first entrepreneurs and essential workers. As Rollins said to Fox News this week: “If we are making mistakes, we will own those mistakes and we will reconfigure.” Rollins herself has identified “creat[ing] new opportunities to connect America’s farmers to nutrition assistance programs” in her vision for the agriculture department.The USDA continues to assess its programs and funding. It must correct course and reinstate this vital funding, but it must do so immediately. Speaking on behalf of 20,000-plus National Farm to School Network members from across the US, I ask Rollins to restore this robust local foods market program and transform school food so that meals like that North Little Rock lunch can become the norm. More