Food In The U.S. Elections

Both camps are talking about it, but will either actually do something transformative?

(This issue is arriving late because I was somewhere with little to no internet for the past two and a half days And since it’s a long issue, I’m skipping Thing’s Pickings this week.)

I have elections on my mind this week. One reason is obvious: this issue is about the U.S. Elections and what that means for food systems, given the sudden prominence the topic.

It’s also because the military regime back home started conducting a nationwide census last week, ostensibly to prepare for an election that has been promised since they forcibly seized power 3.5 years ago. 

I wonder what would happen if they still didn’t like the results this time around. Keep holding elections until they get the results they want? And will that again inspire (and later backtrack) certain sections of the American populace? Would they feel the same if their kin were caught up in the power grab? 

A first cousin of mine, who’d spent most of his life behind bars for daring to oppose the military, drew his last breath this week, after another bout of incarceration following the coup. He was battling cancer when he was arrested and things deteriorated over the past year. 

I didn’t agree with him on everything but I deeply appreciate his efforts to be part of a participatory democracy. I now wonder when I will get a chance to freely cast a vote again. 

Getty Images.

I hadn’t been planning to write about the U.S. elections. I didn’t think there was much I could say or add to the plethora of think pieces that have been piling up for what seems like a very long time. Besides, my focus is on places outside North America. 

Two things changed my mind:

1. Food suddenly seems to be high on the agenda of both candidates in a way that I didn’t see in the past elections, and

2. Remembering that while election results are mostly based on domestic policies, they tend to reverberate around the world because of America’s role in the global food system architecture. 

I still don’t think I’m the best person to talk about it, so I reached out to four people who have been following this topic for years. My thanks and gratitude to these folks (in alphabetical order) for their insightful comments, which have been lightly edited for clarify and brevity. 

1. Helena Bottemiller Evich, founder and editor-in-chief of Food Fix and an award-winning reporter who previously led food coverage at Politico. 

2. Jennifer Clapp, Canada Research Chair in Global Food Security and Sustainability and Professor, School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo, Canada

3. Raj Patel, author, filmmaker and research professor on food systems, world ecology and international political economy at LBJ School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin

4. Errol Schweizer, Forbes contributor, writer of The Checkout Grocery Update, and former Whole Foods executive (Read more in an earlier issue of Thin Ink) 

Food on the Main Menu 

I asked Helena and Jennifer whether my hunch that food seems to be playing a much bigger role in this elections than in the previous ones is accurate and if so, how that came about.  

Helena: Food and agriculture have historically played such minimal roles in US elections that any mention is sort of an elevation, right? That said, I think there actually are a couple of issues that have really broken through.

When Vice President Kamala Harris chose Tim Waltz as her running mate, that alone immediately set off some mainstream media coverage and discussion on universal free school meals, making that an election topic like we've never seen before. I cannot remember a time when school meals policy was an election issue at all. It hasn't been sustained (though). 

Then recently, we're seeing former President Donald Trump really trying to tap into what I think is a very real grassroots interest in health issues writ large: things like diet-related diseases and concerns about pesticides and other chemicals.

(THIN: Robert F Kennedy Jr., former independent candidate, has a long history of campaigning on this issue. He threw his lot behind Trump seven weeks ago.) 

RFK’s health piece in particular has now been adopted by former President Trump under the tagline, “Make America Healthy Again”. This really surprised me. I did not see this coming. All of a sudden… Trump’s talking about getting toxins out of the food supply or the environment. It's clearly a way to try to appeal to RFK supporters… But it seems to be a bit more than just him saying it. 

His son, Don Jr, has tweeted about it. Sid Miller, Agriculture Commissioner in Texas and reported as a potential pick for Agricultural Secretary If Trump were to win in November, has been talking about this. (Warning: the link will take you to Fox News.)

Jennifer: We have seen a bit more attention on food than usual in this US election cycle, for sure. 

People are upset about grocery price inflation over the past few years. Even though inflation rates have come down across most jurisdictions in the past year, the fact that a specific food item like eggs or a basket of strawberries costs more today than it did a few years ago is unsettling for people. The adjustment to this reality has been hard for people, especially if they haven’t seen their wages rise at the same rate.

That is why both candidates frequently mention grocery prices and their plans for dealing with it in their rallies – trying to show that they understand the source of frustration of many voters. 

Change, Change, Change…. 

Does that mean we can expect there to be changes regardless of who gets in power? 

Helena: I am trying to figure this out. I think this is, in some ways, the central question: this new focus on these issues in the popular press and social media, particularly among folks on the right, whether or not that translates into changed positions within the US government and actual reforms? I do not know. 

A lot of this is going to depend on the personnel chosen for any new administration. Especially on the Trump side of things, with RFK Jr saying he is going to have a say over personnel, and if that ends up being true, I do think you would end up with people that are more likely to push for reforms.

So who those people are matters a whole lot. I have been surprised by how much this issue has continued to get traction, and again, just the number of people around Trump that have leaned in on this all of a sudden. 

Will Someone Make America Healthy Again? 

What do we make of Trump’s sudden interest in food systems? This has translated into a roundtable discussion led by Senator Ron Johnson and a hearing by the powerful House Ways and Means Committee’s health subcommittee. 

Helena: There's lots of questions which I think are very valid, like, how much do these folks really care about this? But clearly, there's a political realignment because some of the issues that have traditionally been more of a concern on the left are now being picked up by the folks on the right, and you're seeing this kind of convergence, and it's fascinating. I don't know where this all ends up, but I am tracking it really closely because it is new and interesting and potentially impactful. 

Raj: People are legitimately concerned about how the food system is broken, and that Americans are spending quite as much as we are on healthcare as a result of our food system. In that abstract sense, if you listen to the event Ron Johnson led on September 23, (they spoke of) how America does badly compared to the rest of the world and how these companies are making vast profits. 

But the one thing that really does drop out is class. There's painfully little concern about the fact that actually the health outcomes that everyone seems to be decrying are disproportionately borne by working class people, by the poor, by people of colour. 

You've got this deep concern about the food system, but actually, it appears the real concern is a very individualised, “my body is a temple, and no one shall defile my precious bodily fluids” kind of approach to healthcare, which is, I mean, of a piece with racial purity and discourses around keeping the blood of the nation pure. 

So I worry a great deal about that when it comes to “Make America Healthy Again”, and this discussion about purity in the food system.

Errol: You know, the right wing in the US has always been at the core of the health and wellness movement. The CEO of Whole Foods is a libertarian. You've got Alex Jones who sold his own line of supplements. So for me, the right wing, in a lot of ways, actually is a lot more wrapped up in health and wellness than the left. 

In fact, I would say that in the US, the mainstream left is kind of clueless about that sort of stuff. They mostly pooh-pooh health and wellness as too bourgeois or elitist, as opposed to the fact that so many people are attracted to it because our healthcare system has failed them. Our food system is mostly poison, and so you have no other choice but to take things into your own hands. 

And so the right exploits this individualism, that you can save your own health, to make it about personal responsibility… but the grievances are accurate. 

Will the Real Kamala Harris Please Stand Up? 

When the Democratic candidate mentioned wanting to rein in price gouging a few weeks ago, she was praised by civil society groups and food systems experts but pilloried by economists. In addition, there are concerns over the fate of Lina Khan, the charismatic chair of the Federal Trade Commission whose anti-trust efforts have chafed Silicon Valley titans.   

Jennifer: The Biden administration has already been very strong on this issue. It has pursued a strong antitrust agenda against Big Tech and other concentrated sectors including in some key parts of the food system – such as meat-packing, fertiliser, and seeds – where concentration has been particularly stark. And it has sued to block a huge merger in grocery retail between two of the biggest grocery store chains – Kroger and Albertsons - a case that is still before the courts.

But whether Harris – if she wins - continues with this same approach isn’t yet clear. Some Big Tech CEOs who are also large donors to her campaign have called for her to take a softer approach to antitrust. I guess we’ll see where that lands. 

Errol - Unfortunately, the Harris campaign have backed away from (the price gouging part). They spoke about it and got slammed in the media. A couple of people, like myself and Isabella Weber (associate professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, her interview with FT on price controls here), wrote mainstream articles supporting it. Raj led an open letter with Farm Action. 

Then, if you look at her latest economic policy and more recent speeches, they're barely touching on it. I’m very sceptical. Also, I'm getting sceptical about whether or not she'll keep Lena Khan at the FTC. She's getting a lot of pressure. She's very close with Uber and Big Tech. 

You know, there are two Kamalas. There’s Kamala who supports domestic workers and trade unions, and there's Kamala who's really tight with Silicon Valley. I'm not sure which Kamala we're going to get, but now we're also getting a Kamala who's getting endorsed by Dick Cheney and the worst of the neocons. So it's a big question mark right now.

Raj: The Harris campaign's talk of price gouging… I think the vagary there is an opportunity to open the door to really say, “Well, look, the reason that price gouging, in the colloquial sense, is happening is because food corporations are protecting their profits, not just the technical definition of price gouging, where in an emergency, knowing the elasticity of demand for certain things, people are going to pay for them no matter what”. 

In this more nuanced understanding of price gouging, what's happening is that companies are just passing on costs, plus a nudge up to their profits, straight on to consumers. 

Though, I do think that it's important to celebrate the antitrust stuff that's happening. I think Harris is under quite a lot of pressure to get rid of Lina Khan, and I think Lina Khan needs to be defended. 

She is doing really important work in the United States, but I very much hope that her work continues and that we have a great deal more antitrust action all along the supply chain. It's very hard to imagine, but I certainly will be fighting for it. 

Spot the Difference 

Are there material differences between the two camps when it comes to food policy? 

Errol: In the Trump campaign, they’re talking about (high prices), but their solutions are worse than the problem. He talks about how he'll bring prices down. He doesn't talk about how. But then he talks about deporting a million people and creating a tariff war with China. 

Trump has also come out to say he’s against price controls… because that'll cause hoarding and shortages. No, what’s going to cause hoarding and shortages is deporting a million people who are responsible for planting, harvesting, growing, distributing, and manufacturing everything in the food supply chain. I see Trump supporters saying, “Well, we need to force Americans to go work and in the fields again.” I mean, what is this? Maoism?

So the solutions are worse than the problem, but he much more accurately captures the grievances and the rage that people are feeling, which I think the Democrats and a lot of the liberal commentators have been downplaying. A lot of the left, I think, does not take the grievances of poor working people seriously. 

Helena: Traditionally, what you would think… is that Democrats tend to favour more regulation and Republicans tend to favour a more deregulatory approach, or smaller, hands-off government. But that feels like it's been scrambled a little bit with this “Make America Healthy Again” stuff.

Because for example, on food additives, you're seeing the left and the right make the same criticisms. They're mad about the lack of regulation. So on certain issues, I don't think we have that traditional difference but again, how that translates to real policy change, I don't know. 

With the Harris side of the coin, we can expect a lot of policies to continue, things like trying to expand the safety net and expand access to school meals. I think it's fair to say that on the Trump side, there's still going to be trimming back the social safety net, so trying to cut spending, trying to limit eligibility where they can. That's still like a pretty big difference. 

Then on climate, there are really substantial differences. Certainly in terms of tone, of buying into the scientific consensus on climate change and what's causing it, huge differences between the two camps. 

I don't know that any of the “Make America Healthy Again” stuff is going to carry over into the climate issues… but in terms of actually translating that into American agricultural policy, you're talking about major financial incentives and continuing some of the so-called climate smart work that the Biden administration has done. 

One interesting thing about (the climate-smart work) is the extent to which major agricultural groups and food companies - industries that you know can be quite conservative - are now doing these pilots on the ground. What happens to that?  

The Big, Fat, Elephant in the Room: Project 2025

When talking about climate policies, we cannot NOT mention Project 2025.
Both John Oliver and HEATED have done a brilliant job breaking down its contents in all its scary glory, especially if you care about building a fairer and greener food system. 

Errol: Project 2025 will remake the executive branch. It'll remake the role of government in American life.

They want to put government in everybody's personal business but deconstruct the administrative state, in terms of administrative agencies that protect consumer welfare and the environment and education.

They've got a 1000+ page manual on exactly what they're planning to do once they get in power. A lot of that has to do with (taking on) a more isolationist stance. 

Global Repercussions  

How will the election results effect the rest of the world (i.e. us)? 

Jennifer: The stakes of the upcoming US election are high for food systems. If Harris wins, we will likely see a continuation of policies to address concentration in food systems and potentially some additional measures to address price gouging in food retail. But it isn’t clear yet if the robustness of those efforts overall will be softened or not. 

If Trump wins, he will probably take steps to undo the Biden administration’s attempts to rein in corporate concentration in the food system. Trump is more likely to take a transactional approach to mergers and acquisitions in general – which is very unpredictable. 

Helena: The first most obvious one is the climate stuff. We all know that when Trump was president, he very consciously removed the US from that leadership position, from engaging internationally, from taking a lead in making the UN climate talks be more substantive. Actually, you would be more of an expert on the ripple effects of that. Obviously it was very big in terms of rhetoric and the US position. 

I do wonder how much each camp really wakes up thinking about things like international development or even international agricultural policy. I think trade is one where Trump's been very clear that he has desires to put a lot more tariffs in place, much more “America First”, but without a clear policy on things like agricultural development or the ways in which the US engages to try to develop markets or infrastructure. I don't know that those are as affected. 

We're not probably going to see a lot of funding increases, but perhaps we kind of just keep our heads down and keep doing the work. 

Trade and climate, for sure, (there could be) massive change, but on some of these other issues, I don't know. I can understand why everyone is following it very closely and nervously. 

Raj: I think we will have to wait and see as to whether the Harris administration is able to deliver on that broader vision. I certainly hope they are. 

The problem is that both under the Trump and Biden administrations, internationally, the US Trade Representative has been going about business as usual. This is the frustrating thing: whatever American administration comes in next, they will determinedly protect the right of U.S. corporations to operate overseas without regulation. 

The deep irony, of course, is that… in the United States we have a monopoly on baby milk manufacturing. We discovered this when one of the plants was closed down for bacterial contamination and there was a baby milk shortage in the United States. 

Yet the US Trade Representative has been lobbying hard to prevent legislation monitoring biological contaminants in baby milk formula from being passed in Colombia and fighting the regulation of baby milk formula in some countries. 

These kinds of actions, from the Biden administration, we can fully expect to be continued by the Harris administration. We certainly can expect them to continue under a Trump administration. So internationally, I think it's important to have very low expectations and to fight whatever administration comes in next for better and more responsible actions internationally.

Errol: I think they're both imperial parties when it comes to foreign policy. I don't see why we need hundreds of foreign military bases. I don't see why we need to spend a trillion dollars on war every year.

Under Biden Harris, they've increased the military budget by over 20+%. It just keeps going up every year. So they're aligned with the Republicans on this. It's a pretty horrifying, permanent, wartime economy.

As always, please feel free to share this post and send tips and thoughts on bluesky @thinink.bsky.social, mastodon @ThinInk@journa.host, my LinkedIn page, twitter @thinink, or via e-mail thin@thin-ink.net.