2017 Was Terrible for Food Policy. But 2018 Could Shake Things Up

Will the farm bill and midterm elections put food back in the spotlight on Capitol Hill?
Food Policy.jpg

The midterm elections may offer an opportunity to get food policy back on the table.

Photo by Katrina Wittkamp / Getty Images. 

For each of the last six years, Washington, D.C.-based Food Policy Action (FPA) has meticulously scored every member of Congress on their food policy-related votes.

But for 2017, there weren’t many votes to count.

This is the first year FPA, which was founded in 2012, saw a new president enter office, and the group found it had little new legislation to work with. “We are in a low period now in terms of actually passing bills off the floor of the House and Senate,” said Ken Cook, president of the advocacy and research organization Environmental Working Group (EWG) and FPA’s founding chairman, on a press call recently to announce the group’s findings.

Chef and activist Tom Colicchio, FPA’s other co-founder and board member, was more blunt, adding that the Trump administration has “brought our country to a standstill.”

“Right now, we’re just umpiring a really bad game.”

And that’s partially true, at least if we’re talking about actual policy that affects how and what we eat. Sure, there have been sweeping, pan-governmental changes like the Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R.5) that have already threatened to stoke tensions between farmers and environmentalists. And there have also been a few (dimly lit) bright spots this year: S. 1064, the bill that prevents “lunch shaming,” for instance, and increased investment in organic agriculture research.

But even though several bills have been introduced that would make headway on issues such as  farm labor and date labeling, they have yet to come to a vote. FPA did score Congress members on how they voted for some cabinet nominees, such as Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has a track record of suing the agency he now leads. But even United States Department of Agriculture Administrator (USDA) Sonny Perdue came in to that agency with a relatively blank slate, and FPA ultimately decided that a Congress member having voted in favor of his confirmation was neither a positive nor a negative. “We were kind of neutral on whether he would be a terrible pick or not,” Colicchio says.

The results, by the group’s own admission, were skewed: If you miss one question on a four-part test, you can’t score higher than a 75 percent. The same would be true for Congress members who had very little to vote on. The score card is designed to quantify nuance, and there wasn’t a lot of that in Congress this year. “We’re the umpire, we’re calling balls and strikes,” Colicchio said. “Right now, we’re just umpiring a really bad game.”

All the changes on Capitol Hill might just put food back in the spotlight.

But if 2017 was an unmemorable year for food policy, 2018 could be quite the opposite. The farm bill, which is up for reauthorization just once every five years, looms large. Midterm elections will shake up things. Capitol Hill changes might just put food back in the spotlight.

Discussions about the next farm bill are already picking up steam. For months, there’s been talk of separating nutrition assistance programs such as SNAP (formerly “food stamps”) from the parts of the bill that support farmers, though it’s not likely to happen. Colicchio says he thinks the bill has aspects that members of Congress might actually agree on: Eliminating the “cliff effect” where people lose their food benefits as soon as they find work, for instance, and increasing access to crop insurance for fruit and vegetable farmers. He says he’d also like to see more support for farmers looking to transition to organic.

The midterm elections may also offer an opportunity to get food policy back on the table. Colicchio sees shifting the conversation around food’s role in policy and society as a crucial next step. During the last election, he says, people asked whether he was disappointed that food wasn’t a bigger part of the debate. His response? “I hear food talked about every day, I just listen differently. If it’s health care, I hear food. If it’s the environment, I hear food. If it’s the economy, I hear food.”

Voters are concerned about nutrition and agriculture’s environmental impact.

Colicchio says this strategy—connecting food to some of the bigger issues on the ballot—may resonate with voters. “Our candidates need to understand how to talk about these issues as well,” he says.

Food Policy Action conducts polls to gauge voter interest in relevant issues, and so far the results have shown that people really care about quality, access, and equity. “We find that young mothers—Republican and Democrat, doesn’t matter—minorities, young people, millennials—they care about this issue.” Across the board, voters are concerned about nutrition and agriculture’s environmental impact. “The polling we’ve done cuts across all demographics. It cuts across all age groups,” Colicchio adds.

But when people get to the ballot box, they may still need support to think about all the ways food connects to health care, the economy, and national security. The real challenge is updating voters on the legislation that influences price, nutrition, and sustainability. “When we got people to understand the idea that there are policies that touch your plate, and that these policies and your taxes are going to support a food system that is making people sick, they came around and went, ‘Oh. that’s not right.’”

There’s some evidence that food policy may have already swung an election, or at least nudged it. In 2014, Rep. Steve Southerland (R-FL) was running for re-election. An article titled “How to blow an easy GOP win” that appeared in Politico at the time painted a picture of a sloppy campaign: He alienated female voters by holding an all-male fundraiser and fought with his party over strategy. In the meantime, Democrat Gwen Graham pounded the pavement, winning over voters from both parties.

It’s been a year of deafening silence.

Food Policy Action set its sights on Southerland in October of 2014. In a press release announcing him as its number one campaign target, then-managing director Claire Benjamin said, “We’re letting voters in his district know that Steve Southerland is way past his sell-by date.”

Southerland had made a lot of enemies during negotiations for the 2013 farm bill, where he pushed work requirements for food stamps recipients and was “singularly responsible,” according to Benjamin, for the bill’s failure to pass.

FPA spent about $35,000 against Southerland’s campaign—the largest portion of its total spent that year—conducting a targeted voter turnout program and placing digital ads. “We talked about SNAP, about who uses SNAP and why, veterans—especially veterans coming back into society looking for jobs, some of them are struggling with mental health issues,” Colicchio says. “And people were shocked by this, shocked by the fact that he [Southerland] was going to drug-test people.”

Southerland lost his bid for re-election.

Of course, knowing what ultimately swung the vote is impossible. But for Colicchio, the race was proof of concept. “More and more, it’s going to play a role. As long as you know how to talk about the issues as a food lens,” he adds.

One year ago, advocates hoped 2017 would see the formation of a national food policy council. Instead, it has been a year of deafening silence. But the farm bill is on the horizon, regardless of whether or not the halls of USDA are still empty by 2018. “We can win on these issues,” Colicchio says. “It’s just a matter of understanding.”

This article was originally published by The New Food Economy. It has been edited for YES! Magazine.