Happy Friday, and welcome to Food Fix. I’m Katie Bishop, your guest host for today while Helena is out celebrating her oldest turning five! I’ve built a diverse career in food systems over the past decade, from serving as an agricultural economist with the Peace Corps to working on a 500-acre vegetable farm in my native southwestern Pennsylvania, and most recently, transitioning into agricultural research. Along the way, I started freelance writing. For the past two years, I’ve been a regular reader of Food Fix, which has been a fantastic way to stay connected to the food policy scene in D.C.
Like many of my fellow citizens, when Project 2025 launched I took a peek to get a better sense of what another Trump presidency might entail. I was surprised to find a whole section dedicated to infant formula policy. Today’s newsletter continues the Food Fix tradition of covering this overlooked, but vital, topic.
Feel free to send me feedback or say hi! My email is klucbishop@gmail.com.
Katie
***
How to reform infant formula policy, according to Project 2025
Earlier this year, the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based conservative think tank, released a document titled Project 2025. This 920-page behemoth outlines a conservative vision for governing federal agencies. Its disruptive policy suggestions, like eliminating the Department of Education and splitting up the CDC, garnered publicity and criticism alike. Yet, sandwiched between discussions on retaliatory tariffs and the World Trade Organization, was a section that got almost no attention: the conservative case for reforming infant formula policy in the wake of the 2022 shortage.
A train wreck: For those of you who don’t remember: The infant formula crisis, which ultimately dragged on for more than a year, began in 2022 when Abbott Nutrition’s infant formula plant in Sturgis, Mich. — responsible for supplying formula for close to one fifth of the U.S. market — was shut down over concerns about Cronobacter sakazakii, a life-threatening bacterium, as well as “egregiously” insanitary conditions. Four infants were hospitalized, and two died after battling Cronobacter infections that were suspected to be linked to production at Sturgis (Abbott has maintained that their products did not cause these infections).
The ordeal triggered a massive recall of Abbott infant formula, wiping out a huge chunk of the national supply chain overnight. Before the recall, Abbott had about 40 percent of the infant formula market. The number two player, Mead Johnson, which had roughly 20 percent of the market, couldn’t ramp up production to fill the gap from the mammoth Sturgis plant. Within months, the full impact of the industry’s consolidation became clear as store shelves emptied, and parents, understandably, began to panic. At the height of the shortage, one in three households struggled to obtain formula for their child. While statistics highlight the scope of the crisis, they can’t convey the frustration and fear the shortage caused for American parents and caregivers, 80 percent of whom depend on infant formula — either exclusively or in combination with breastmilk — to feed their children during their first year of life.
Despite all of this, the U.S. still has a highly consolidated market and faces the risk of a repeat shortage. The FDA has made changes in reporting systems and staff training; as well as the opening of the new Office of Critical Foods. The agency has stepped up inspections, issued warning letters to top infant formula makers and now has a supply chain data analysis program. Zooming out, however, no federal changes have been made to diversify domestic infant formula production.
The Project 2025 vision: Until this crisis hit, there wasn’t much debate about infant formula policy in Washington. While the media coverage was intense during the shortage, attention faded once the formula returned to the shelves. That’s partly why it was so interesting to see a conservative policy prescription on the topic. The section on formula — titled “Supply Chain Lessons from the Baby Formula Debacle — The Case for Free Trade,” was written by Kent Lassman, CEO of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and long-time free trade advocate.
Lassman views the shortage as a clear example of domestic protectionism, ultimately harming the very people it is meant to protect. In Project 2025, he criticizes our tariffs on foreign-produced infant formula. These tariffs currently range from roughly 15 percent to just over 17 percent — a steep rate compared to the U.S.’ average tariff rate of 2 percent on industrial goods. But Lassman doesn’t simply blame tariffs for our infant formula market woes, he writes: “As if tariffs were not enough … ever-evolving labeling requirements and nutritional standards that (conveniently for domestic manufacturers) are always just slightly different from international standards.”
High tariffs and extensive regulation make it exceedingly difficult for foreign infant formula suppliers to enter the U.S. market, and this lack of foreign competition is seen as a huge factor in Abbott and Mead Johnson’s continued market dominance. Lassman notes that while we saw both these tariffs and some regulations temporarily lifted by the Biden Administration during the height of the crisis, Congress has since let the tariffs go right back up, and the FDA has defaulted back to many of its pre-shortage policies (though the agency is working with companies to keep more imported formula products on the market).
Project 2025 argues that the U.S. should permanently revise and align their infant formula regulatory standards with other industrialized nations in an effort to boost the infant formula supply in the U.S. This would simultaneously open international markets to domestic producers, in theory making supply chains and markets more resilient to shocks. (Food safety advocates, it should be noted, would push back against anything that appeared to be a weakening of safety standards, and there’s an argument to be made against relying too much on imports for something so essential.)
Change WIC: Additionally, in a different section of Project 2025, authored by Daren Bakst, also of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, there is an argument for reforming the way USDA’s WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children) program procures baby formula — currently done through a bidding process that gives infant formula giants exclusive contracts in each state.
“Because 50 percent of baby formula is purchased through the federal WIC program, it is vital that regulation for these competitive bidding contracts does not unintentionally create monopolies,” Bakst writes, though he does not offer a specific alternative.
To be sure, Project 2025 has sparked intense criticism from Democrats, particularly proposals like abolishing the Dietary Guidelines, imposing stricter work requirements on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and cutting back on universal free school meals in higher poverty areas. However, some of Project 2025’s infant formula policy suggestions could have bipartisan appeal: regardless of political affiliation, most Americans agree on the need to prevent another shortage.
Is Trump onboard? It’s important to note that Project 2025 is not a direct agenda of President-elect Donald Trump. (Trump himself has repeatedly distanced himself from the project). However, the president-elect has a historically significant relationship with The Heritage Foundation. The conservative think tank produced a similar report during the 2016 election cycle, and President Trump implemented almost two-thirds of those policy recommendations. Additionally, about 70 former members of the Heritage Foundation worked on Trump’s 2016 transition team. It’s not far-fetched to view this chapter on infant formula policy as a potential playbook for a Trump administration, though it’s far from clear if it would be a priority.
When I spoke to Ryan Young, senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, about the likelihood of Trump adopting Lassman’s policy proposals, he was blunt: “Odds are against it.” Young noted that Peter Navarro, former director of White House National Trade Council and the first White House official to be imprisoned for refusing to comply with a subpoena, was recently nominated to serve as trade adviser in President Trump’s White House. Navarro, who was also a contributor to Project 2025, is famously pro-tariff, and his influence makes it highly unlikely that Trump will decrease any tariffs, even for infant formula. When asked if a Republican Congress would advocate for free-trade infant formula policy, Young told me that he’s pessimistic, “These companies (Abbott and Mead Johnson) have millions of dollars … Good luck lobbying harder than they do.”
It’s bleak to say, but despite everything parents and caregivers endured in 2022, we still don’t have a promising path towards a stronger supply chain. While many of the ingredients required are imported, the lion’s share of our formula is still produced domestically, and overall, the sector remains just as consolidated as it was pre-crisis.
While Trump extensively covers issues of trade and tariffs, infant formula is never part of the discussion. Republicans were quick to criticize the Biden administration for its handling of the crisis, but we don’t know how a GOP administration might approach things differently. Key leaders in Trump’s cabinet like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Trump’s pick to lead HHS) and Marty Makary (Trump’s pick to lead FDA) have yet to speak about how they might prepare us for another crisis — the Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment. It sure seems like a good question for their confirmation hearings.
***
What I’m reading
Arkansas governor calls to ban buying ‘junk food’ using SNAP benefits (THV11). “Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders has called for reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) via a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary-Designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary-Designate Brooke Rollins,” Samantha Romano, Michael Buckner and Ashley Godwin report. “In the letter, Sanders outlines her concerns that the program is ‘encouraging families to eat highly processed, unhealthy junk food.’ She stated that soda, snacks, candy, and dessert make up nearly 23 percent, or $25 billion of all SNAP purchases. She also claimed that ‘our federal food assistance policies are fueling obesity, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and a wide range of chronic health conditions across America.’ Gov. Sanders asked that the administration consider prohibiting the sale of junk food in SNAP.”
Elon Musk pushes for federally funded Ozempic and less government spending (Newsweek). “Elon Musk is pushing for the federal government to make GLP-1 weight-loss drugs like Ozempic cheap and widely available,” writes Jesus Mesa. “But as co-chief of President-elect Donald Trump‘s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk is also championing an aggressive effort to cut $2 trillion in federal spending—a mission seemingly at odds with the cost of subsidizing a drug that can run up to $1,000 a month. Just weeks earlier, the Biden administration proposed a $35 billion plan to allow Medicare and Medicaid to cover GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy, a move that would grant millions of low-income and older Americans access to the high-priced medications. But that plan’s fate now rests in the hands of Trump and his incoming administration, which has sent mixed signals on the idea. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s controversial pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), has called for Medicaid and Medicare to fund gym memberships and healthier food instead.”
Albertsons sues Kroger for failing to win approval of their proposed supermarket merger (AP News). “Kroger and Albertsons’ plan for the largest U.S. supermarket merger in history crumbled Wednesday, with Albertsons pulling out of the $24.6 billion deal and the two companies accusing each other of not doing enough to push their proposed alliance through,” Dee-Ann Durbin reports. “Albertsons said it had filed a lawsuit against Kroger, seeking a $600 million termination fee as well as billions of dollars in legal fees and lost shareholder value. Kroger said the claims were “baseless” and that Albertsons was not entitled to the fee. The bitter breakup came the day after two judges halted the proposed merger in separate court cases.”
Future of salmon-rearing project in Pioneer murky as AquaBounty shuts down its last production facility (The Blade). “A tiny Williams County village near the Ohio-Indiana-Michigan border soon hopes to learn what will happen to land inside its industrial park where a company had aspirations of building America’s largest indoor salmon-rearing facility,” writes Tom Henry. “Massachusetts-based AquaBounty Technologies, Inc., said in a Wednesday statement that its board of directors is closing its last operating facility: the company’s hatchery in Bay Fortune, located on Canada’s Prince Edward Island. AquaBounty also said it has undergone a senior management shakeup and that it is cutting much of its remaining work force. AquaBounty produced genetically engineered salmon by fertilizing conventional Atlantic salmon eggs with sperm from AquAdvantage salmon males that were modified in 1989. The modification has been passed down from one generation to the next over 33 years in the sperm, or milt, of confined male salmon.”
Prepare to pay more for your next burrito: Chipotle raising prices to offset inflation (WCPO). “The next time you go to Chipotle, you’ll pay more,” reports Taylor Nimmo. “The company said it is raising menu prices by 2% to offset inflation. Chipotle said its packaging and food costs have increased recently, citing avocados as an example. Chipotle was under fire earlier this year after customer complaints about skimping on portion sizes. Now, the company is increasing prices by 2% to combat inflation. John Barker, president and CEO of the Ohio Restaurant Association, said food costs have increased substantially. Barker said a fine dining restaurant may be able to raise prices a few dollars without much pushback, but that’s not always the case for a fast-casual restaurant.”
Can the prix fixe menu make restaurants affordable again? (Consumed). Dining out, once a staple of American culture, has become painful for the average American budget, writes Jane Black. But dining is a cultural experience, and cultures can and must bend to fit the times. Black’s piece on the future of eating out is an exciting look at how fewer menu options could decrease prices while still insulating the restaurant industry’s ever-thinning margins.
The lesson miasma taught us (Re:Frame). Derek Beres writes about a topic that seems to be growing at a breakneck pace: public health and conspiracy theories. His brief history of miasma, the ancient theory that disease spread through “bad air,” is a fascinating read that lingers on humans’ long-history with distrusting public health professionals.
***
Upgrade to get this newsletter twice per week!
Become a paid subscriber to unlock access to two newsletters each week, packed with insight, analysis and exclusive reporting on what’s happening in food, in Washington and beyond. You’ll also get full access to the Food Fix archive — a great way to get smart on all things food policy.
Expense it: Most paid subscribers expense their subscriptions through work. It’s worth asking!
Discounts: We also offer discounts for government, academia and students. See our subscription options. Individuals who participate in SNAP or other federal nutrition programs qualify for a free Food Fix subscription — just email info@foodfix.co.
Get the Friday newsletter: If someone forwarded you this email, sign yourself up for the free Friday edition of Food Fix. You can also follow Food Fix on X, Bluesky and LinkedIn.
See you next week!
