By Grace Hussain for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Shanteya Hudson for Georgia News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s confirmation as Director of Health and Human Services — the government department that oversees the Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control among others — could be another damper for the plant-based food market. Through his “Make America Healthy Again” campaign, Kennedy has repeatedly argued that processed foods are poisoning the country, a stance he maintained throughout his confirmation hearings. And because processed foods aren’t well defined, any efforts by RFK to restrict ultra-processed foods could end up inadvertently discouraging U.S. consumers from eating plant-based foods. That would be bad news for the already-struggling plant-based industry, but also for climate change and the environment.

Though he did not support an all-out ban on processed foods during his confirmation hearing, Kennedy expressed his support for restricting school purchasing and limiting SNAP beneficiaries’ ability to purchase processed foods. While both SNAP and federal school purchases are managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and thus would be outside of Kennedy’s direct control, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services both work closely on food policy.

Now that he’s approved, Kennedy could push for a range of policies for reducing the country’s consumption of processed foods, including the FDA’s labeling requirements.

“Warning labels and taxes tend to change people’s behavior. So if you put a warning label on a product, people, on average, are a little bit less likely to buy that product. If you tax a product, people are a little bit less likely to buy it. It’s because it’s a little bit more expensive, so I would expect that those policies, if implemented, would reduce how much we eat those products,” Anna Grummon, who runs the Stanford Food Policy Lab, tells Sentient.

Defining Ultra-Processed Foods Proves Difficult

One of the factors that makes legislating processed foods difficult is the fact that not all processed foods are created equal. Some processed foods, such as sugary beverages like soda, have been linked to various health issues including diabetes and obesity. But that’s not the case for all processed foods, including plant-based meats.

The expansive category that is “processed foods” is why some policymakers and activists zeroed in on a new label: ultra-processed foods. But here too, there’s no single definition of what exactly constitutes an ultra-processed food. “That’s a challenge for making policy around ultra-processed foods,” says Grummon. “We have to have a definition we agree on, and that can be implemented by policymakers and by companies.”

Currently, the most prominent definition comes from the NOVA Food Classification System, which was proposed by researchers at the University of São Paulo. Under the system, ultra-processed foods are combinations of ingredients that are not whole foods themselves, or are “synthesized in laboratories.”

Another definition, appearing on the conservative organization Center for Renewing America’s website, notes a few factors in its definition of ultra-processed foods, including “packaged foods containing added preservatives,” and “manufactured ingredients…that extend the shelf-life of a product, enhance the taste of the product, and often result in habit-forming cravings…” (The founder of the organization was part of the first Trump Administration, and previously signaled his intent to defund the EPA, while also pushing transphobic rhetoric.)

The specific definition RFK Jr. prefers, and which would likely be replicated by the FDA, remains unclear. Regardless of the specifics of the definition, it’s unlikely to cleanly identify the least healthy foods, simply because all ultra-processed foods are not the same.

Some policies have addressed this problem by regulating nutrients, rather than the level of processing. For example, in Chile, products high in calories, sodium, sugar or saturated fat are required to have warning labels on the front of their packaging, and can’t be sold or served in schools. The approach has significantly cut how often those foods are purchased, though it doesn’t seem to have curbed obesity rates. In fact, the BBC reports obesity has increased among school children slightly since 2016 (though this may be attributable to an increase in sedentary lifestyles during COVID-19).

Policies focused on nutrient content “gets at ultra-processed foods indirectly,” says Grummon. The FDA is currently considering a rule that would require most foods to sport front-of-package nutrient labeling, ultra-processed or not.

Potential Health & Environmental Impacts of Ultra-Processed Labeling

Warning labels on ultra-processed foods sound like a good idea, but when it comes to plant-based meat, these labels could indirectly lead to negative environmental and public health impacts if consumers were to cut back on their plant-based eating habits as a result. Potential taxes that increase the cost of ultra-processed plant-based meats, like Impossible and Beyond products, are also likely to reduce the amount of those products consumers purchase, says Grummon.

“A key question is what do people switch to? Do they switch back to beef? Or do they switch to something else?,” she says. “That’s really important for understanding whether those policies would be good or bad for public health or good or bad for carbon footprint. I think if people switch back to beef, that’s not going to be good for carbon emissions, because, of course, beef has a much higher carbon footprint than Beyond and Impossible products.”

The average person in the United States already eats far more meat than the global average. For that reason and because of beef’s massive greenhouse gas emissions impact, climate research groups like the World Resources Institute include the recommendation that U.S. (and other global north) consumers eat less beef as part of their climate action plan for food-related emissions.

When researchers compare beef to plant-based alternatives, the alternatives consistently rank better, using less water and land and emitting far fewer greenhouse gasses. Other types of meat — like poultry and pork — are more moderate for greenhouse gas emissions, yet both are associated with poor animal welfare and polluting the air and water of communities that live near factory farms.

Even when looking at personal health, plant-based alternatives tend to perform as well as or slightly better than meat. Despite being categorized as ultra-processed, plant-based alternatives tend to be a little lower in fat and calories, and sometimes have more fiber than meat. On the other hand, meat tends to have less sugar and more protein per serving, and of course, individual products do vary.

If policies aimed at rolling back consumption of ultra-processed foods are enacted, many plant-based alternatives will likely be impacted, given that they’d be considered ultra-processed under the most prominent definition. “You can imagine some things being bad for sustainability, like people might eat fewer meat mimic[king] products, like Beyond and Impossible, because those are ultra-processed,” says Grummon.

A representative of The Plant Based Foods Association declined to comment for this article, stating, “given the potential regulatory outcomes are still unknown, we’d prefer not to comment at this time.”

The Bottom Line

It is possible that new policies targeting ultra-processed foods could persuade consumers to opt for more legumes over plant-based burgers or conventional meat. But given how often most U.S. consumers regularly eat lentils these days, it seems unlikely.

A new food labeling scheme could also make no difference at all. One study found that Swiss consumers already view meat substitutes as processed, regardless of the form they take; so it’s also a possibility that consumers willing to purchase plant-based alternatives won’t be swayed by new policies.

Ultimately, what policies RFK and the Trump Administration might pursue on processed and ultra-processed foods remain hard to predict, Grummon says. But many plant-based products are categorized as ultra-processed under any definition. Even if plant-based foods aren’t a particular target of policies aimed at sugary beverages or candy bars, regulatory language that focuses on the processing — instead of nutrient content — would likely end up including plant-based alternatives. These sorts of policies then could spell more trouble ahead, both for the plant-based market and the planet.


Grace Hussain wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

March is National Nutrition Month and rising grocery costs, and food recalls have consumers revisiting the idea of growing their own healthier and more affordable food. Research from gardening site, Gardenp.com shows the average garden produces $600 worth of produce. Indiana farmer's markets attract large numbers of Hoosiers who want fresh, farm-grown fruits, vegetables, and other staples at reasonable prices.

Philip Hartman, president of InstaFarm, which creates countertop food gardens, said foods grown in the healthiest chemical-free soil will produce optimum crops.

"So your food that you buy at the grocery store, your produce, has typically lost up to around 50% of its nutritional value by the time it gets to the store. Also, you don't know how it was grown. So the quality of your produce is linked to the quality of your soil," he said.

Lower costs, convenience, and fewer pesticides make garden-to-table food even more appealing. Hartman advises beginner gardeners to use healthy, nutrient-rich soil because it improves the nutritional value of fruits and vegetables. Gardens use a large amount of soil nutrients and when soil is depleted of these necessary nutrients, the crops are affected too.

Hartman works with students from kindergarten through high school and is passionate about helping children understand where their food comes from. He notes children don't get to see a farm or where their food is grown until they are well into their late teens.

"It's amazing, you know, children that don't usually like vegetables, when they engage in the growing process, all of a sudden, they're inspired to eat this and it's a great way to train them about what's good for them and how to recognize healthy foods," he added.

Gardenpals.com says millennials make up 29% of gardener demographics. Indiana is home to over 60,000 farms covering over 19 million acres. The state ranks in the top five for growing corn, soybeans, blueberries, tomatoes and melons, according to the Indiana Department of Agriculture.

A Minnesota Senate committee today will hear testimony about a rare but scary scenario for families: sudden cardiac events in school settings.

A bill calls for staff training requirements for responding to emergencies. The American Heart Association says each year, more than 23,000 children experience cardiac arrest outside a hospital and 40% are sports-related.

The proposal would require a school district or charter school to develop a Cardiac Emergency Response Plan, so staff know what to do in those critical moments.

Kelly Youland, a Woodbury mother, experienced it firsthand when her baby became unresponsive leaving a Chicago baseball stadium.

"Ultimately, she required CPR for 16 minutes before her pulse came back," Youland recalled.

She and her husband both work in the medical field and had the instincts to help get lifesaving efforts underway. Thankfully, her daughter recovered, inspiring Youland to speak in support of the bill. It includes $2 million to help schools develop plans and secure automated external defibrillators. The Minnesota State High School League testified existing protocols and partnerships already cover this need.

The League did express a desire to work with lawmakers on this measure, citing the need for flexibility amid resource constraints. Youland acknowledged she and her family were lucky but other emergency responses have been slow to come together. She feels such situations can be avoided.

"Our schools prepare for all sorts of emergencies, whether they're fire, weather, lockdown," Youland pointed out. "This is something that our schools need to prepare for."

A bill adopted by the Minnesota Legislature last year called on the Education Department to provide a blueprint for the plans but they remain optional. Last month, a Maple Grove High School track athlete died after going into cardiac arrest following a non-team practice near the school.

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for Kentucky News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

The day that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was confirmed secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), President Donald Trump established a commission in service of the Make America Healthy Again tagline. The purpose of the commission, according to the executive order, is to "address the growing health crisis in America," by redirecting our national focus to "drastically lowering chronic disease rates and ending childhood chronic disease." The MAHA Commission also appears poised to extend RFK's reach beyond HHS to the department tasked with "nourishing Americans," but some food system reformers are skeptical that change is ahead.

After endorsing Trump in 2024, former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed that Trump promised him "control" of several agencies, including the United States Department of Agriculture and Health and Human Services. In a video of Kennedy outside the USDA building in Washington D.C., he criticized large-scale industrialized agriculture and its negative effect on soil and water health. The description of the video reads: "When ‪@DonaldJTrumpforPresident‬ gets me inside the USDA, we're going to give farmers an off-ramp from the current system that destroys soil, makes people sick, and harms family farms."

Some advocates are calling into question his ability to follow through on the promises he made.

"He's going to do nothing to farming because he has no authority," says Ken Cook, president of the non-profit Environmental Working Group. "I don't think it's going to be the revolutionary era at USDA in the way Kennedy suggests."

The future of food and agriculture policy is largely left in the hands of the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, the heads of which are also on the MAHA commission. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins is not expected to tighten regulations on corporate interests, and thus far has been taking the advice of the Department of Government Efficiency to cut - not add - programs.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, dubbed the "great deregulator" is unlikely to increase pollution enforcement and other environmental protections. As of late, the USDA secretary has not been a position of great reform; former USDA secretary Secretary Tom Vilsack spent his career revolving from industry to government and back again. As head of the Department of Health and Human Services, it is unclear what sort of oversight Kennedy will have over the agricultural changes he was prioritizing months ago.

DOGE Takes on USDA

On February 16, the Department of Government Efficiency, spearheaded by Elon Musk, put out a call on X asking for "insights on finding and fixing waste, fraud and abuse relating to the US Department of Agriculture."

"It's essentially a wildfire that's burning through the federal government right now," says Sarah Sorscher, director of regulatory affairs at Center for Science in the Public Interest. "[They're] intent on dismantling the federal government, which will undermine the agenda of RFK Jr. and his MAHA cohort, because without a functioning federal government, you can't have smarter regulation. You can't have a smarter approach to food safety and chemical safety and healthcare product safety."

On January 31, the Trump White House announced a de-regulatory blitz, requiring that "whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed."

"It's been made very clear that those departments, USDA, EPA, interior, energy, they're going about their own deregulatory agenda, and most of that's not consistent with what I thought was Kennedy's worldview for years, which was that we needed to protect the environment from greedy, corporate interests," Cook says.

Left or Right, Big Ag Is Around

Farm Action Fund, the legislative arm of the non-profit advocacy group Farm Action, came out in support of Kennedy in late January.

"His food and agriculture policy has been very much in line with Farm Action's mission around addressing corporate abuse in the food system [and] corporate influence over government policy," says president and co-founder of Farm Action Angela Huffman.

Farm Action is largely focused on reducing corporate influence within the food system, and in a blog post they outlined how Kennedy could change the food system while at HHS. They write that Kennedy could "shape the Trump administration's agriculture and food policy." For Farm Action, the issues Kennedy has brought to the forefront have not been at the forefront of agricultural policy in decades.

"Folks have been fighting for so long on these issues, and [Kennedy] has brought them to the level that the President of the United States tweeted about taking on the industrial food complex," Huffman says.

While Kennedy has made agricultural reform a key talking point, as HHS Secretary it is unclear how much he could actually get done. Brooke Rollins, Secretary of Agriculture, is so far less vocal about flipping the system on its head than Kennedy was on the campaign trail.

Both Huffman and Cook say that "Big Ag" has dominated agricultural policy on both sides of the aisle.

"We don't defend Democrats if they don't do things well and drop the ball," Cook says. "We don't work for the DNC. I've had pretty harsh things to say about [Secretary Tom] Vilsack when he was nominated by Biden."

After his first stint as Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack immediately took a position at a dairy lobbying trade group, confirming criticisms of his "friendliness" to industry.

Misaligned 'Alignment'

For many advocates in the food and agriculture space, some of Kennedy's claims have been far from controversial, such as promoting healthy food and reducing consolidation in the industry. Some of his other takes, like vaccine skepticism (as HHS Secretary he is already breaking promises to not alter childhood vaccine schedules), are more than enough for some, like Cook, to pump the brakes.

Huffman, of Farm Action, tells Sentient that her organization is very strictly focused on agriculture issues.

"We understand that he has broader interests than that, and we really don't weigh in on issues outside of our lane," Huffman says.

In his role, Kennedy wants to target certain food additives that are given special exemptions and can be added to food without approval from the Food and Drug Administration. The administration he is working for, though, recently cut numerous FDA staff members, and the deputy commissioner for human foods (who led the ban on Red Dye No. 3) resigned on February 17.

"If your goal is to get a better functioning federal government, it's not the right approach to go in there with a hatchet and start tearing things down," Sorscher says. "What you want to be doing is going in in a surgical way, and operating with a scalpel and not a hacksaw. I think this administration still has not learned how to do that, and it's actually moving us in the wrong direction."


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email