Tag: food

Trump Admin’s New Nutrition Guidelines Aim To End Corporate Profiteering On Americans’ Poor Health

he Trump administration announced new dietary guidelines aimed at ending “corporate-driven” preferences for ultra-processed foods, added sugar, and refined carbohydrates on Wednesday.

The Make America Healthy Again-oriented changes to the food pyramid, nutrition education, and government programs’ methods for procurement and approval of food represent the “most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in history,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said at a White House press briefing.

“For decades, Americans have grown sicker while health care costs have soared. The reason is clear: The hard truth is that our government has been lying to us to protect corporate profit-taking, telling us that these food-like substances were beneficial to public health,” Kennedy said. “Federal policy promoted and subsidized highly processed foods and refined carbohydrates, and turned a blind eye to the disastrous consequences. Today, the lies stop.”

“My message is clear: Eat real food,” he added.

Federal dietary guidelines shape many federal programs, as well as the groceries eligible under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), school lunches, the food procured by government agencies, including the Pentagon, Veterans Affairs hospitals, and more. They also guide how Americans are educated about food and nutrition.

“Common purchases” for the 42 million Americans on SNAP are products that include added sugars and chips, Kennedy said, noting that 78 percent of those on SNAP are also enrolled in Medicaid.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said her department is working to finalize a “rule that will mandate” that all 250,000 retailers that accept SNAP benefits in the United States “double the type of staple foods” they provide to SNAP recipients.

Keep reading

5 States Cut SNAP Benefits for Unhealthy Food as Part of ‘MAHA’ Agenda

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), otherwise known as food stamps, has begun enforcing new healthy standards for recipients in five states as part of the Trump administration’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia have cut SNAP benefits off for soda, candy, and other junk foods as the first wave of at least 18 states that are transitioning to stricter standards for what can be purchased using food stamps, the Daily Nonpareil reported.

The move has been championed by Health Sec. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Sec. Brooke Rollins.

“Thank you to the 18 governors who are leading the charge on SNAP reform to restore the health of Americans—especially our kids. Their courageous leadership is exactly what we need to Make America Healthy Again,” Kennedy said in December. “We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create.”

“President Trump has made it clear: we are restoring SNAP to its true purpose – nutrition,” added Rollins. “Under the MAHA initiative, we are taking bold, historic steps to reverse the chronic diseases epidemic that has taken root in this country for far too long.”

As the Daily Mail detailed, “Indiana is targeting soft drinks and candy, Utah and West Virginia will block SNAP purchases of soda and soft drinks, and Nebraska will ban soda and energy drinks.”

The state of Iowa has gone the furthest with the new standards, restricting SNAP for taxable foods including soda, candy, and some prepared items.

“This isn’t the usual top-down, one-size-fits-all public health agenda,” Indiana Gov. Mike Braun said in December. “We’re focused on root causes … and taking on the problems in government programs that are contributing to making our communities less healthy.”

Keep reading

Junk Food Bans For SNAP Users In Some States Starting 2026: What To Know

Americans using Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase groceries may need to adjust their shopping habits in 2026 as some states will prohibit the use of SNAP funds to purchase certain “junk foods.”

Also starting next year, states will have to shoulder a larger portion of the cost of running the program. In addition, states could lose funds if their payment error rate is too high.

Here is what to know about the overhaul of America’s largest nutrition program.

Restrictions on Purchases in Some States

Eighteen states will restrict the purchase of certain foods lacking in nutritional value next year. The changes are being made under the banner of the Make America Healthy Again initiative launched by the Department of Health and Human Services. To institute the changes, the states had to submit and have approved a waiver of federal rules from the Department of Agriculture, which oversees the nutrition program.

The starting dates for the restrictions and the foods prohibited vary by state.

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia will implement purchase restrictions on Jan. 1, 2026. Idaho, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Colorado, Texas, Virginia, and Florida have starting dates from February to April. Arkansas, Tennessee, Hawaii, South Carolina, North Dakota, and Missouri will begin their bans between July and October.

Most of these states have removed candy, soda, and energy drinks from the list of SNAP-eligible items.

In Tennessee and Iowa, SNAP beneficiaries cannot use the funds to purchase processed foods. Tennessee defines a processed food as one that has been changed in any way from its natural state.

Prepared desserts, such as cakes and cookies, are restricted in Florida and Missouri.

In Iowa, foods that are prepared for consumption or come with eating utensils may not be purchased with SNAP funds. Cold, unpackaged foods without utensils, such as bread, fruit, or canned goods, are still permitted.

Keep reading

A Bipartisan Push to Revive a 1930s Law Could Make Grocery Prices Even Higher

Groceries, like almost everything these days, are seeing prices rise. Millions of Americans have tempered some of these hikes by purchasing bulk goods at wholesale prices at warehouse club retail stores such as Costco, Sam’s Club, and BJ’s Wholesale Club. But these savings could soon cease. A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers is looking to crack down on wholesale prices by reviving a nearly 90-year-old antitrust statute.

In the weeks leading up to Congress’ winter recess, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa) solicited the signatures of fellow Senate Republicans on a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Andrew Ferguson asking them to investigate supply practices that hurt small businesses, particularly grocers. Reason has acquired a copy of the letter, which calls on Bondi and Ferguson “to utilize all federal laws…to bring enforcement actions against any discriminatory conduct that you may discover in violation of…the Robinson-Patman Act.”

The Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) is a 1936 antitrust law that bans discrimination “in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality…where the effect of such discrimination may…tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.” After a period of strong enforcement in the mid-20th century, recent decades have witnessed a marked decline in federal RPA cases: Before the FTC, under the leadership of Chairwoman Lina Kahn, sued Southern Glazer’s Wine and Spirits for selling alcohol to larger retailers at lower per-unit prices in December 2024, it had been more than 20 years since the federal government filed an RPA suit. Then–FTC Commissioner Melissa Holyoak dissented from Khan’s complaint, which she characterized as “elevating the interests of competitors over competition” in a way that was “at odds with the plain text” of the RPA.

Grassley argues that the statute recognizes certain forms of price discrimination as harming competition, but he doesn’t acknowledge that the RPA allows price differentials that reflect “differences in the cost of manufacture, sale, or delivery resulting from the differing methods or quantities in which such commodities are to such purchasers sold or delivered.”

Grassley claims that a lack of competition is forcing independent grocers “to accept increasingly discriminatory terms and conditions for their products, including less favorable…price terms”—even as he rightly describes the grocery business as “experienc[ing] high turnover and low margins.” Such phenomena are textbook indicators of a competitive industry, not a monopolized one.

Grassley also claims that “independent businesses are often the only source of groceries, consumer goods, or pharmaceuticals in many small towns and urban centers.” If this were true, such small businesses needn’t worry about larger firms receiving bulk price discounts; they wouldn’t be competing with them at all.

Of course, the opposite is true. Local businesses face intense competition from Amazon, Walmart, Target, FreshDirect, CVS, Walgreens, and the myriad other firms that ship groceries, goods, and drugs directly to consumers. These large firms enjoy bulk discounts and attract customers by passing on part of their savings to them in the form of lower prices.

Keep reading

Why are we paying Canadian dairy farmers who are producing more?

Every once in a while, someone inside a tightly protected system decides to say the quiet part out loud. That is what Joel Fox, a dairy farmer from the Trenton, Ontario area, did recently in the Ontario Farmer newspaper. In a candid open letter, Fox questioned why established dairy farmers like himself continue to receive increasingly large government payouts — even though the sector is not shrinking, but expanding. His piece, titled “We continue to privatize gains, socialize losses,” did not come from an economist or a critic of supply management. It came from someone who benefits from it. And yet his message was unmistakable: the numbers no longer add up.

Fox’s letter marks something we have not seen in years — a rare moment of internal dissent from a system that usually speaks with one voice. It is the first meaningful crack since the viral milk-dumping video by Ontario dairy farmer Jerry Huigen, who filmed himself being forced to dump thousands of litres of perfectly good milk because of quota rules. Huigen’s video exposed contradictions inside supply management, but the system quickly closed ranks. Until now. Fox has reopened a conversation that has been dormant for far too long.

In his letter, Fox admitted he would cash his latest $14,000 Dairy Direct Payment Program (DDPP) cheque, despite believing the program wastes taxpayer money. The DDPP was created to offset supposed losses from trade agreements like CETA, CPTPP, and CUSMA. These deals were expected to reduce Canada’s dairy market. But those “losses” are theoretical — based on models and assumptions about future erosion in market share. Meanwhile, domestic dairy demand has strengthened.

Which raises the obvious question: why are we compensating dairy farmers for producing less when they are, in fact, producing more?

This month, dairy farmers received another 1% quota increase, on top of several increases totalling 4% to 5% in recent years. Quota — the right to produce milk — only increases when more supply is needed. If trade deals had truly devastated the sector, quota would be falling, not rising. Instead, Canada’s population has grown by nearly six million since 2015, processors have expanded, and consumption remains stable. The market is expanding.

Keep reading

Brits are warned they could be prosecuted if they take bananas washed up on beach after cargo containers fell off ship

Brits have been warned they face prosecution if they take bananas that washed up on a beach after falling off a cargo ship. 

Thousands of bananas appeared on Selsey Beach, West Sussex on Saturday night after 16 huge containers toppled off the Baltic Klipper near the Isle of Wight coast.

Stunned beachgoers soon flocked to the scene to investigate, as police quickly installed a cordon and urged people to steer clear of the fruit, which must be reported to HM Coastguard.

Those who fail to declare a wreck without a reasonable excuse face a £2,500 fine under the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. 

A spokesperson for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) said: ‘HM Coastguard is continuing to work with relevant authorities after 16 containers went overboard from the cargo ship Baltic Klipper in the Solent on December 6.

‘This includes working with the vessel’s owners, who are responsible for recovering the containers.

‘The public are advised to avoid the area and are reminded that all wreck material found in the UK has to be reported to HM Coastguard’s Receiver of Wreck.’

Eight of the containers were filled with bananas, while two were packed with plantain and one with avocados – five were empty.

Keep reading

Americans Worry Most Among Developed Nations About Food Security

Concerning nations surveyed in Statista’s Consumer Insights, Americans were among those most worried about food and water security.

Indeed, as Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports, while for most European nations, worry about the topic peaked during the coronavirus pandemic and the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, concern has remained elevated in the United States into 2025.

Food and water supplies were not considered a particular issue among developed countries for a long time. But the data illustrates how that is starting to change.

As many as 1 in 5 respondents in France said that food and water security was one of the biggest challenges their country faced in 2025.

The proportion was similarly high in the United Kingdom and Italy (23 percent), while it had fallen a little lower again in Spain (16 percent) and Germany (13 percent).

As wars (trade and kinetic) continue to disrupt international trade and affairs in recent years, the constant chatter about climate change shifting droughts and destructive fires more top of people’s minds, and inflation (groceries becoming more expensive), more people are seeing how these and other issues can affect the security of their food and water supply even in richer countries.

In the United States, shifts in government benefit programs by the Trump administration might also add to peoples’ feeling around food security.

Keep reading

Trump Admin To Stop Food Stamp Payments To Democrat States Covering Up Welfare Fraud

he Trump administration announced that it will soon stop food stamp funding to 21 Democrat-led states and Washington, D.C., because they refuse to provide data about recipients, choosing instead to run cover for illegals and massive welfare fraud.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting that 28 states and Guam, run by Republicans, have provided data like names and immigration statuses for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients, but that the remaining Democrat-run states are refusing to comply.

“So as of next week, we have begun and will begin to stop moving federal funds into those states, until they comply and they tell us and allow us to partner with them to root out this fraud and to protect the American taxpayer,” Rollins said at the White House.

Over 20 million SNAP recipients live in the Democrat-run states, nearly half of all 42 million recipients — a enormous number that should make anyone suspicious of the program.

The data was requested earlier this year, but the Democrat states filed a lawsuit claiming the data request violated privacy laws, essentially arguing that the government and taxpayers are not allowed to ensure accountability by tracking people who use the program.

The lawsuit is really a ploy to keep illegal immigrants in the country and on public welfare. As the lawsuit points out, the data could be used to inform better immigration enforcement. While the Trump administration maintains that the data will be used to clean up waste, fraud, and abuse, it should absolutely use the data to help deportation enforcement as well.

SNAP, much like other welfare programs, is notorious for fraud and abuse and often allows people who do not really need food assistance to game the system, not to mention the fact that the program allows recipients to purchase massive amounts of junk food that are clearly not “nutrition” as the program implies.

What’s worse is that 59 percent of illegal immigrant households use at least one welfare program, and 52 percent of legal immigrant households do the same. Native-born households account for 39 percent.

Food assistance like SNAP is one of the biggest categories of welfare for immigrants.

Keep reading

USDA Will Withhold SNAP Funds From 21 States That Refused To Provide Data

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins says she will be moving to stop federal funding to 21 non-compliant states that have refused to provide data from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

In February, the Trump administration had asked all states to provide their SNAP data to the federal government as part of the administration’s efforts to root out waste and fraud in the welfare program.

29 mostly Republican-led states provided the data and revealed 500,000 cases of duplicate benefits as well as 186,000 deceased individuals’ Social Security numbers in use.

But 21 mostly Democrat-led states, including California, Minnesota and New York,  have dug in their heels and refused to provide the information, citing concerns over privacy.

Secretary Rollins told reporters that if a state refuses to share data on criminal use of SNAP benefits, “it won’t get a dollar of federal SNAP administrative funding.”

Rollins said that cooperation is needed from all states in order to root out fraud in the SNAP program and that action is impending for those states that refuse to provide names and immigration status of aid recipients.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Rollins said, “We asked for all the states for the first time to turn over their data to the federal government to let the USDA partner with them to root out this fraud, to make sure that those who really need food stamps are getting them, but also to ensure that the American taxpayer is protected.”

Rollins accused former president Joe Biden of trying to “buy an election” by ramping up food stamp funding by 40% last year.

Roughly 42 million recipients currently use SNAP benefits to help buy their groceries, at an annual cost to taxpayers of nearly $100 billion a year.

Keep reading

They have been pushing for carbon labelling on food for years – why?

Carbon food labels are rapidly moving from experimental initiatives to a mainstream trend, with significant developments indicating they are poised to become widespread. The global market for carbon-labelled packaged meals is projected to reach USD 1,252 million by 2035, reflecting a growing consumer demand for climate-conscious food choices.

In a move that could reshape the food industry’s supply chains, Unilever announced in June a comprehensive plan to introduce carbon footprint labels on all 70,000 of its products, a major step toward transparency and sustainability, though a specific timeline for full rollout has not been clarified.

While the UK government currently has no plans for mandatory eco-labelling, industry-led schemes are gaining momentum, with companies like Oatly, Quorn and Just Eat already implementing carbon labels on products and menus.

Related: These Food Companies Put Their Carbon Footprint On Their Packaging, Ecochain, 25 June 2025

Voluntary initiatives are expanding across various sectors, including universities (e.g., Bournemouth University Food) and event venues (e.g., ExCeL London), where carbon footprint information is being integrated into menus and food service.

And carbon labelling fever is hitting Europe as well.  As part of its Single Market for Green Products Initiative, which was launched in 2013, the European Commission is advancing a mandatory Product Environmental Footprint (“PEF”) labelling scheme to standardise carbon and environmental data across food and other goods, creating a unified system across the European Union. 

PEF is supported by Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (“PEFCRs”), which standardise calculations for specific product groups such as beer, clothing, IT equipment, leather and pet food.

The pilot phase of the PEF ran from 2013 to 2018.  From 2019, the project has been in the “transition phase” focusing on monitoring the implementation of existing PEFCRs, developing new ones and advancing methodological developments. The “transition phase” is expected to be concluded this year.  “After the transition phase, the [Environmental Footprint] methods are expected to enter a phase of more stability and gradually wider application,” the European Commission says.

Keep reading