Happy Friday, and welcome to Food Fix. It’s been so cool to hear from many of you already listening to the new podcast, American Dish! Check it out if you haven’t yet. First four episodes feature interviews from Marion Nestle, Vani Hari, Sam Kass and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts (it’s free!).
New Forked: There’s a new episode of Forked out this week! Theodore Ross and I talked about the glyphosate executive order (and all that drama) as well as Trump’s pick for surgeon general, Casey Means.
Avoid FOMO: The best way to make sure you don’t miss a beat in food policy world is to upgrade to a paid subscription and get Food Fix in your inbox twice per week. Almost everyone who upgrades keeps renewing year after year.
As always, I truly welcome your feedback. Send me your thoughts by replying to this email, or drop me a line: helena@foodfix.co.
Alright, let’s get to it –
Helena
***
One of the Trump administration’s biggest MAHA achievements – new SNAP restrictions across 22 states – is now being challenged in court.
The case: A group of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program beneficiaries filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday challenging USDA’s approval of food restriction waivers in several states, arguing the government exceeded its legal authority, violated federal policymaking procedures and is generally harming households that depend on SNAP while weakening the program more broadly.
The lawsuit specifically seeks a halt to waivers in Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia – five of the 22 states USDA has approved to restrict certain products from SNAP, including sugary drinks, candy and, in some cases, other processed foods like prepared desserts.
“I am finding Iowa’s food restriction waiver extremely complicated to navigate,” said Marc Craig, a plaintiff from Iowa, in the legal team’s press release. “When I shop for food, I have to read the ingredient list on everything I buy to try to figure out if I can use SNAP to buy it. I still get to the register only to be told I cannot use SNAP to buy everything I have selected.”
The lawsuit argues that the plaintiffs in some cases need sugary drinks to manage their health conditions, including diabetes. One of the plaintiffs argues they need access to energy drinks to help manage during the daytime due to insomnia.
Who’s behind it: While the lawsuit was filed on behalf of SNAP participants, the lawyers are from the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, an advocacy group focused on equity, and Shinder Cantor Lerner, an anti-trust law firm. I asked a spokesperson for the plaintiffs if there is any food industry funding or involvement in this case, and they said there is not.
MAHA in court: The SNAP case, while not funded by the food industry, comes as the industry is increasingly pushing back on MAHA policies in court. Food industry groups have been tepid in their public pushback against the Trump administration, opting instead to file lawsuits with as little fanfare as possible – and they’ve been finding success with this approach. A West Virginia law to ban synthetic food dyes is currently on hold, and a federal court recently ruled that Texas’ MAHA labeling law is likely unconstitutional.
MAHA’s losing streak in the courts matters at the federal level, too, in part because HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has urged states to pass these policies to give him more “leverage” to make nationwide changes.
The SNAP dynamic: A legal challenge of SNAP restrictions is particularly high-stakes because it goes after what is arguably MAHA’s most substantive policy change in the first year of this administration.
Sure, the dietary guidelines are a big deal in terms of government messaging and rhetoric, but there’s still a long road ahead to operationalize the new guidance for healthy eating across federal programs. Other pieces of the MAHA agenda (like GRAS reform) have not yet materialized, or have even gone very much against what was originally promised (like de-regulating pollutants and taking an industry-friendly approach to pesticides over at EPA).
Even MAHA’s critics acknowledge that the SNAP waivers have changed how billions of dollars are spent, and have put pressure on some of the CPG companies – some have even had to acknowledge on corporate earnings calls that these waivers are weighing on their sales.
Litigation 101: The lawsuit filed this week argues that USDA has essentially altered the definition of “food” as it stands in the federal law that governs SNAP. “For more than 60 years, a simple and stable definition of ‘food’ has allowed SNAP participants to buy the groceries they need without confusion or complication,” per the legal team. Allowing states to draw lines around food products, kicking some of them out of the program, “curtails the freedom of SNAP participants to choose to purchase the food they, or their families, need,” the plaintiffs argue.
This change in policy also didn’t follow federal policymaking rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, because USDA didn’t provide notice and allow for public comment, they argue. Before last year, no states had been approved for such restrictions.
“Had the USDA followed proper notice and comment procedure as required by law, SNAP recipients, retailers and advocates would have sounded the alarm on the significant harms that these food restrictions create for low-income people who rely on SNAP,” said Katharine Deabler-Meadows, senior attorney at NCLEJ. “Once again, the Trump administration is making it up as they go along and disregarding the damage.”
USDA response: USDA told me it does not comment on pending litigation and referred me to the Justice Department.
In general, I didn’t see much reaction to the lawsuit this week – though everyone from MAHA supporters to anti-hunger advocates and industry leaders will be watching closely to see what happens.
Jerold Mande, CEO of Nourish Science, who has long supported some level of SNAP restriction as part of a broader strategy to combat diet-related disease, expressed dismay over the new lawsuit.
“SNAP is a nutrition program,” Mande said. “Today, SNAP does not improve diet quality. Significant, consistent evidence finds that diet quality stays the same or gets worse on SNAP. That is certainly not what Congress intended or what taxpayers are paying $100 billion per year for. The pilots are long overdue. They may be MAHA’s biggest achievement to improve child health.”
Zooming out: I don’t know what will happen with this particular lawsuit, but it’s looking more and more like the courts will ultimately decide which MAHA policies live or die.
***
The new SNAP retailer rule falls short – but we can still fix it (The Hill). “Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins wants you to think a momentous change is coming to a food retailer near you,” writes Eva Greenthal of CSPI in an opinion piece. “At the press conference announcing the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Rollins highlighted the Department of Agriculture’s work to double the staple food stocking requirements that roughly 250,000 participating retailers must comply with to continue accepting SNAP benefits. According to Rollins, ‘This means healthier options will be in reach for all American families, regardless of circumstance, at levels never seen before in our country.’ In an op-ed, she claims that the forthcoming policy would require SNAP retailers to offer twice as much ‘nutrient-dense’ food. Unfortunately, this is misleading. As written, the administration’s new proposed stocking standards rule won’t necessarily promote healthy food access. But it’s not too late to fix that.”
Out of work and with 2 teens, this mom may lose food stamps under Trump’s changes (NPR). “Soon, Mara, a single mom in Minnesota, may have another task on her busy schedule: figuring out how to afford food for her and her family,” writes Juliana Kim. “That’s because of new work requirements for people receiving aid from [SNAP]. … Previously, SNAP recipients with children under 18 were exempt from work requirements mandating that recipients work, volunteer or participate in job training at least 80 hours a month. But now, under President [Donald] Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that exemption only applies to those with children under 14 – which is how old Mara’s youngest child turned in December. The Trump administration has argued that the mission of the nation’s largest anti-hunger program has failed. … But policy experts say the SNAP changes do not fully take into account the unique challenges faced by single parents like Mara or the sluggish job market in many parts of the country. They argue that losing food assistance will only create more barriers for recipients struggling to find work.”
MAHA finds its footing – and limits – in year two under RFK Jr. (SupplySide). “MAHA, the Make America Healthy Again movement with [Kennedy] as its spiritual leader, is growing up,” writes Marc Brush. “As Kennedy moves into his second year in command of public health policy in this country, MAHA is gaining confidence and finding its wherewithal, like a helpless infant becoming a tottering toddler. … ‘If we define MAHA as an overall movement or concept focusing on food’s impact on health, it has had a huge impact on nutrition and supplement regulations,’ says Ivan Wasserman, managing partner at Amin Wasserman Gurnani LLP. “In addition to actual changes – including at the state level with regulations on ultra-processed food, school lunch programs, artificial dyes and other chemicals added to foods – the political force that is MAHA voters has spurred politicians to show they are doing something to address their concerns.’”
David protein bar founder pushes back after lawsuit alleges company undercounted calories (NBC). “A growing controversy surrounding David protein bars – a viral favorite among wellness influencers – is drawing comparisons to the movie ‘Mean Girls.’ A class action lawsuit filed in January alleges that the popular bars have more than 400% more fat and 80% more calories than advertised. It has prompted a flurry of recent social media posts referring to the film’s queen-bee character Regina George, who finds out that the ‘healthy’ diet bars she was given are actually making her gain weight, not lose it. Others likened the situation to the ‘Seinfeld’ episode in which the ‘nonfat’ yogurt that everyone’s obsessed with is – spoiler alert – full of fat,” writes Natalie Bennett.
Senate Democrats push to ‘break up’ the meat industry (Food Dive). “Tyson Foods, Cargill and other meat companies would be required to sell only one type of protein under a proposal to address runaway grocery prices led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer,” reports Sarah Zimmerman. “The bill, which is cosponsored by 28 Democrats, would ‘break up’ dominant meatpackers by forcing them to choose between selling just beef, poultry or pork. It also compels Brazil-based JBS to divest U.S. assets and lays out plans to review whether WH Group-backed Smithfield Foods should do the same. Meatpackers would additionally need to source cattle from more independent ranchers, with the bill placing limits on how much livestock a company can slaughter from a single large feedlot.”
Trump’s MAHA farm plan muddies Republican messaging (E&E News). “There’s a dirty side to the Trump administration’s campaign to make American soil healthy again: sometimes the plan sounds like it was written by Democrats,” writes Marc Heller. “Groups that cheered the Biden administration’s efforts on climate-smart agriculture hear a familiar ring in the Agriculture Department’s new pilot program in regenerative agriculture, which will pay farmers to pick from a list of Washington-approved conservation practices. Republicans might have cringed at the concept just a few years ago, squeamish about telling farmers how to farm. Now it’s a pillar of the Republican administration’s ‘Make America Healthy Again’ agenda, which asserts that healthier soil and less pesticide use translate to more nutritious food and hopefully a decline in diet-related illnesses.”
One food all Americans can agree on (The Atlantic). “If nutrition is a sport, it has no casual fans,” writes Yasmin Tayag. “As in any fandom, choosing one team can mean demonizing the others’ stars: MAHA partisans despise the Dietitians’ low-fat milk, and the Fiber-Maxxers sneer at Team Protein’s constipating supplements. Yet there is one player that any team would gladly welcome. It’s packed with fiber and protein. Kennedy would call it a ‘real food.’ It’s plant-based, widely available, and incredibly affordable. It is the homeliest and humblest of foods: the bean. Beans have a lot going for them. … ‘Americans are finally catching up to what much of the world has known for centuries,’ Ben Bacon, a co-founder of Lentiful, told me: Beans are a main course, not just a side.”
***
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!
