One proposed version of the next Farm Bill, introduced by the Republican chair of the House Agriculture Committee, would cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $30 billion over the next decade.
A competing Senate version introduced by the Democratic agriculture committee chair would keep benefits intact.
Carmen Mooradian, senior public policy manager for Hunger Free Colorado, said access to the program is not a partisan issue and it affects rural and urban families.
"SNAP is one of the most effective federal programs that exists to combat food insecurity and poverty," Mooradian asserted. "It's something that is used by Americans throughout this country to weather life's storms."
The House version removes a provision added to the 2018 Farm Bill which allowed benefits to be calculated in a way to consider the most current nutrition science and actual retail food prices. According to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, removing the provision would cut benefits in Colorado by $380 million.
Cutting food benefits may save money in a fiscal year but Mooradian argued it will cost taxpayers far more down the road in health care and other costs associated with poor nutrition. She added the program also contributes billions to state and local economies.
"Every SNAP dollar is returned into the economy," Mooradian pointed out. "It turns into profits for local businesses, for agricultural producers. When we stop investing in SNAP, those communities miss out."
Lawmakers extended the existing Farm Bill last year after failing to agree on a new version. The extension expires at the end of September, weeks before the General Election. Mooradian added there is still time for constituents to tell their representatives in Congress what they think.
"This is the opportunity for the community to really weigh in about the two proposals that are on the table," Mooradian urged. "And the impact that they will have on households if they pass."
Disclosure: Hunger Free Colorado contributes to our fund for reporting on Children's Issues, Health Issues, Hunger/Food/Nutrition, and Senior Issues. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Zamone Perez for Maryland News Connection reporting for the Sentient/Just and Climate-Friendly Food System-Public News Service Collaboration
Last month, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) effectively banned the use of Red Dye No. 3 in foods, citing concerns the additive may be carcinogenic - based on testing in rats. The push to ban the food dye was long coming, and was supported by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who ahead of the 2024 presidential election stated that one of the first things he'd do is "tell the cereal companies: Take all the dyes out of their food." But of all the potential cancer risks humans face, why has the FDA banned red food dye, while other foods with a similar or even greater carcinogenic risk, like processed meats, continue to be sold without a warning label?
"A lot of it has to do with how a health issue or a specific topic is framed in the public's mind," Doug Evans, a professor at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, tells Sentient. Red dye, an additive that doesn't add nutritional value, fits with what the American public is "primed" to understand as unhealthy these days.
The question of why food dyes instead of, say, steak or bacon, gives us insight into the way we humans tend to think about risk. While concerns about food dyes and ultraprocessed foods are currently in the cultural and political spotlight, other noted possible carcinogens are not. Processed meats - classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as carcinogenic - and red meats (categorized as probably carcinogenic), remain relatively ignored by the chorus of voices, like RFK Jr., pushing for legal restrictions.
How Red Dye Came to Be Banned
Though the FDA banned the use of Red No. 3 in cosmetics and certain drugs in 1990, after studies linked it to cancer in animals who consumed it, the dye continued to be authorized for use in foods. That is, until late last year, when a petition filed by health advocates prompted the agency to take action. FDA officials relied on a provision called the Delaney clause, which prohibits the agency from approving additives that cause cancer in people or animals.
The study prompting the decision found the additive caused some male rats to develop cancer. However, critics say that the small amount of dye found in foods is not likely to be harmful to humans, and that banning it will make some foods less affordable, as natural dyes are more expensive. In fact, according to FDA regulators, Red No. 3 does not cause cancer in humans the same way it does in rats, and relevant exposure levels to the dye for humans "are typically much lower than those that cause the effects shown in male rats."
So then, why bother focusing on red dye at all? As Timothy Rebbeck, professor of cancer prevention at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, tells Sentient, food dyes are a relatively easy thing to focus on and ban, because they are "man-made compounds that people are not culturally attached to."
The same thing cannot be said about processed and red meats, which are heavily embedded in our culture, despite a decade of cancer warnings from researchers - or at least some of them. The WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer announced in 2015 that processed meats - bacon, ham, salami etc. - would now be categorized alongside cigarettes as carcinogenic, based on a number of studies finding an elevated risk of colorectal cancer.
Much like with food dyes, there was and is a fierce debate challenging the health risk claims against red meat - only this debate has been even more loud and protracted.
Why Ban Anything? Smoking As Case Study for Strong Public Health Regulation
One of the most successful examples of a public health campaign in relatively recent history centered on the dangers of smoking. In the 1970s, as research was mounting around the dangers of smoking cigarettes, public health organizations ramped up public messaging, including the National Cancer Institute's "Helping Smokers Quit Kit."
By the 1980s and 1990s, campaigns led by the American Cancer Society and American Lung Association spread this message further. In the late '90s, the landmark "truth" campaign targeted young people with quantifiable success. The American Lung Association reports that youth smoking rates dropped from 36.4 percent in 1997, to 3.8 percent in 2021; cases of lung and bronchial cancers also dropped over that time.
Taxes on tobacco products also played a pivotal role. The CDC reports that a "10 percent increase in the average price of a pack of cigarettes is estimated to reduce cigarette sales per person by an average of 7 percent."
"It did take a while, but we eventually got there," says Evans. "[Smoking's] no longer a normative behavior. It's been reframed as being not really the thing to do."
What Impact Have Health Warnings Had on Meat Consumption?
Eating bacon is not considered as high-risk as smoking cigarettes. Yet there is research to suggest eating high levels of processed meat and red meat elevates your cancer risk, among other health concerns. Still, public health messaging on the risks of consuming too much processed meat has remained limited.
There are no major "quit salami" campaigns, and no signs of a bacon ban or baloney tax on the horizon. Even the NIH's Healthy People 2030 directive, which "focuses on helping people get the recommended amounts of healthy foods - like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains - to reduce their risk for chronic diseases and improve their health," does not include any objectives to reduce or cease the consumption of processed or red meats.
Rebbeck says the challenge with public health messaging about food and nutrition is that "the information is very difficult to communicate because we're talking about some fairly complex, sophisticated science that has a lot of caveats." The question then becomes, "how do you make a very simple public health message that people can follow?" The answer, he says: keep it simple and focus more on what people should eat, rather than what they shouldn't. "The simple messages that people in government agencies have started making are very much around, 'just focus on [eating] plant forward.'"
While the U.S. government has not launched any policy changes or large-scale campaigns specifically targeting red and processed meat consumption, the National Cancer Institute does point out on its website that red and processed meat consumption is associated with increased cancer risk. And some non-governmental nonprofits, such as the American Institute for Cancer Research, more directly suggest limiting red meat and fully avoiding processed meat, including in social media posts.
Rebbeck believes this health messaging around the risks of red meat consumption has had some impact. "Whereas some things have come and gone," he says, red meat "seems to be sticking around" in the public health messaging as having some degree of risk.
That's had an impact. While overall meat consumption in the U.S. has been on the rise, beef consumption has been in decline in recent years, and is predicted to continue to fall. This is due to a number of factors, including rising prices, as well as growing public knowledge regarding red meat's link to cancer, heart disease and diabetes.
Bacon consumption, on the other hand, has gone up since 2011, along with other processed meat consumption.
Reasons for a Lack of Messaging and Policy Change on Meat
Evans says a number of factors contribute to why meat hasn't received the same attention as red dye or smoking in terms of public health messaging and policy change - starting with a lack of abundantly clear evidence, the kind that we had for smoking.
"If we're going to tell people to change their behavior, we need to be pretty sure we're telling them the right thing," he says. With smoking, there was "mountains and mountains of incontrovertible evidence" linking it to cancer. For red and processed meats, however, "we have some evidence," he says, "but it's not the kind of evidence that we had for smoking."
Andrea Love, a biomedical scientist and science communicator, drilled down even further, explaining that "much of the data related to dietary components like bacon are based on observational studies," where groups of people are studied without the researchers directly intervening in their behavior. These types of studies, while valuable, "cannot directly analyze cause and effect," according to Love. What's more, she told Sentient via email, "there are often confounding variables: like what is the overall dietary composition? Is this person eating enough fiber (which we know is directly related to risk of multiple cancer types)? Are they exercising? Do they have other underlying risk factors?"
In other words, even if an observational study finds a certain result, there are usually a number of other possible explanations, and more research is almost always needed.
Still, Evans believes the WHO is "out front" on the issue of certain meats potentially causing cancer, and while "that doesn't mean they're wrong," he adds, "it just means that the consensus hasn't fully formed yet."
But there are other forces at work here. According to Rebbeck, "as with other areas of regulatory policy, there are a lot of countervailing forces from industry and others. It is also difficult when the item under discussion is a food that is part of our usual diet."
The cultural embeddedness of meat is an important factor, says Evans. "Could we live without meat? Yes, we could," he says, but adds "it's such an essential part of human society, human culture; it's hard to envision it just disappearing."
On top of this deeply embedded cultural connection, the meat industry is actively campaigning to keep its products on consumers' tables, three meals a day. Amid a growing awareness of meat production's many impacts, whether on animals, clean air and water or a safe food supply, the meat industry has put out its own counteroffensive - disinformation campaigns to tar plant-based alternatives, sponsoring academic researchers to downplay the climate impact of milk and training online influencers to spread the good word about beef.
Even though the fundamentals of what makes for a healthy diet remain uncontroversial, these simpler messages can get lost in the barrage of misinformation. "A diet that's healthy for keeping cancer risk low involves a variety of unprocessed foods," says Rebbeck, and that remains the same as ever: "fruits and vegetables, less meat."
Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient. If you have a climate solution story you'd like to share, you can do that through Project Drawdown's Global Solutions Diary.
get more stories like this via email
Antihunger advocates and relief organizations are gathering at New Mexico's State Capitol today as part of "Hunger Action Day."
Advocates will urge lawmakers to adopt a budget including $30 million over the next three years for New Mexico's five food banks.
Katy Anderson, vice president of strategy, partnerships and advocacy for Roadrunner Food Bank, said the money would help its 500 statewide partners close the meal gap.
"Many of our partners are in the basement of a church or in some kind of very small buildings and they might not have appropriate refrigeration or freezers or racks," Anderson explained. "So, some of that funding will help to support building up that infrastructure."
Every day, one in five New Mexico children face hunger or food insecurity. Anderson fears the number could rise if federal budget cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program come about. GOP lawmakers have proposed severe cuts to SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid and more.
For every one meal New Mexico's food banks are able to provide, SNAP provides nine, according to Anderson, who emphasized cuts to eligibility or benefits would be felt broadly.
"Roughly 22% to 23% of our entire population in New Mexico relies on SNAP benefits," Anderson reported. "The communities that are going to be the most hard hit are the rural communities."
New Mexico is one of eight states with a universal school meals policy, which provides free school meals to students regardless of income. As the Trump administration searches for budget cuts, Anderson worries government reimbursements for the program could also be slashed or eliminated.
"What is that going to mean from a federal perspective?" Anderson asked. "Because federal funds do come in to support that. If they shift that funding model, that could mean our state is left holding the bag to do this incredible program with a lot less federal funds."
In addition to Roadrunner, New Mexico's Food Depot, the Community Pantry in Gallup, Farmington's Echo and the Food Bank of Eastern New Mexico in Clovis provide supplemental food to the state's 33 counties. More information is online at rrfb.org/coalition.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
