Happy Friday, and welcome to Food Fix. Today’s newsletter is focused on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and what we learned this week about what’s looming for the states and millions of EBT beneficiaries, but we also had other ground-shifting news: The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 7-2 in favor of Bayer in a case that helps the company swat down thousands of cancer lawsuits.
The ruling is a major blow to the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, factions of which have all but divorced the Trump administration at this point, and a major win for the White House, which steadfastly supported Bayer. The company’s stock went up so much Thursday trading had to be temporarily halted.
Here are some pieces to read about all this: SCOTUS sides with Bayer on Roundup, by Todd Neeley; MAHA stood with Trump. Over the Roundup case, it feels betrayed, by Arielle Hixson; and This ruling is not about Bayer, by Robyn O’Brien.
Scheduling note: Food Fix will not publish next Friday to mark the Fourth of July and America’s 250th birthday.
New American Dish: There’s a new episode of Food Fix’s podcast, American Dish, out this week! I talked to Gina Plata-Nino of the Food Research & Action Center about recent declines in SNAP participation and what comes next. Listen/watch wherever you get your podcasts.
Don’t miss out: The best way to make sure you don’t miss a beat in food policy is to upgrade to a paid subscription and get Food Fix in your inbox twice per week. Almost everyone who upgrades finds it valuable.
As always, I 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
***
States stare down billions in new costs to keep SNAP benefits flowing
Most states are facing the prospect of having to cough up millions and in some cases billions of dollars in new costs to keep Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits flowing, according to new data released by the Agriculture Department this week.
The USDA on Wednesday released fiscal year 2025 payment error rates for SNAP. Payment error rates measure inaccurate or incorrect payments (not intentional fraud), and these numbers normally don’t get much attention. This batch, however, is a particularly big deal because the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB), backed by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans, changed the law so states are for the first time on the hook for covering billions in SNAP benefits if their error rates are not below a certain threshold.
How it works: Historically, the feds have picked up 100 percent of the SNAP benefit costs, but under the OBBB states with an error rate at or above six percent must pay for a portion of their SNAP benefit cost starting in Oct. 2027. It’s a sliding scale that goes up to 15 percent of the benefit costs. That first year the requirement kicks in, states will be able to choose whether they use their error rate from fiscal 2025 (the ones released this week) or 2026 (released next June).
SNAP has become an increasingly partisan flashpoint. Republicans have argued that these recent changes are needed to bring down SNAP costs and ultimately shrink a program that they believe has gotten too big, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. Democrats have argued that focusing on payment accuracy is just a cover for a sweeping effort to weaken the social safety net that will harm millions of low-income Americans who need help buying groceries.
2025 numbers: According to the new data from USDA, the national payment error rate for fiscal 2025 is 10.62 percent. This is a slight decrease from fiscal 2024, but it’s still quite high. The error rate includes both overpayments and underpayments, but all in all this means that something like $10 billion in payments were made improperly last year. That’s a level of inaccuracy that’s difficult to defend. And again, this is separate from intentional fraud and the rising problem of criminals stealing EBT benefits directly from beneficiaries.
“These payment error rates are further proof that state accountability is severely lacking in SNAP,” said Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, in a statement Wednesday. “USDA has taken historic action to help interested states curb SNAP waste, and I hope other states, regardless of political leadership, prioritize needy families and the American taxpayer over politics.”
State scramble: Indeed, the states are now in a race to bring down these error rates. If you look at the numbers released this week, the vast majority of states are currently at risk of having to come up with large sums of money their state budgets almost certainly don’t have.
In other words, sh*t is getting real.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a progressive think tank, this week estimated that states could owe something like $9 billion in new benefit costs, using the fiscal 2025 data. Nearly half of states could need to come up with $100 million or more to cover the new costs.
Take Florida, for example. The state’s payment error rate last year was just shy of 13 percent, high enough to put the state on the hook for covering 15 percent of SNAP benefit costs. In a big state like Florida, CBPP estimates that would be $900 million in new costs for the state. Over in California, the state would have to absorb $1.9 billion in new costs.
A recent survey by the American Public Human Services Association — a group that represents many of the agencies that administer these programs at the state level — found that 11 percent of the states that responded to the survey said it was a potential risk that they will withdraw from SNAP over these changes.
The reality of all of this is starting to set in. The National Governors Association (NGA) has been among the groups urging Congress to delay this policy (something many Democrats support) to avoid the budgetary trainwreck facing states. Notably, a Senate Republican farm bill draft released this week declined to delay the policy.
“While NGA is actively working to support states in complying with the new law, we are also seeking more time to fully meet the 6 percent requirement,” said Brandon Tatum, CEO of NGA, in a statement this week. “Changes to SNAP could raise costs by $218 million per state annually; beginning in FY 2027, states will also be required to cover 75 percent of SNAP administrative costs, representing an additional average increase of $67 million per state each year. These impacts cut across states of all sizes and political affiliations.”
Impact: These numbers are all real — and looming large for states. Anti-hunger advocates are increasingly concerned by states limiting access to SNAP as they scramble to get their rates down (amid other policy changes that were made in the OBBB, including expanded work requirements). We’ve already seen more than 4 million people in the U.S. drop off of SNAP in the past year, a trend that is seen as largely (though not exclusively) fueled by the OBBB.
This all comes as high food costs are a pressing concern for Americans trying to make ends meet. A survey released last month by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found higher levels of food insecurity this year than anything we’ve seen in at least six years, including during the height of the pandemic. The survey, conducted in February, found that 10 percent of families reported missing meals for lack of food. Among families earning less than $50,000 a year, nearly 20 percent of respondents said they were forced to skip meals.
***
What I’m reading
America desperately needs more sterile screwworms (The Atlantic). “This time a year ago, experts were already predicting the return of flesh-eating screwworms to the United States: a matter of not if but when,” writes Sarah Zhang. “This month, they indeed reached Texas. The math of the crisis then and now is brutally simple: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s screwworm program cannot produce enough sterile adults to get the parasites under control. In the meantime, the screwworms will keep percolating through the country, and ranchers will keep finding the grisly, telltale wounds in their livestock. The parasites pose the biggest threat to cattle—which could push beef prices even higher—but they can also infect pets, wildlife, and even the unlucky human. For now, Texas ranchers awaiting more sterile flies must rely on old-school strategies dating to the pre-eradication era: inspecting cattle, treating wounds with anti-screwworm drugs, and curbing the movement of infested animals.”
The quiet unraveling of America’s food safety net (Politico). “Last year’s passage of the massive federal tax-and-spending One Big Beautiful Bill Act has set in motion one of the biggest transformations of the welfare state that the United States has seen in decades,” writes Marcia Brown. “For more than a generation, SNAP — which provides roughly 40 million Americans with money for groceries — has served as the country’s dominant vector for direct payments to people struggling to eat. But SNAP’s era as arguably the nation’s preeminent anti-poverty program may be ending. Already 3.5 million people nationwide have been booted from the program and, as the law’s new eligibility terms take effect this year, more are likely to follow, while others will be abruptly sent back into a workforce for which they are unprepared. Lawmakers, nonprofits and bureaucrats now see themselves spending the remainder of the decade trying to manage the impact of a federal law that will make it harder for millions of people to obtain federal nutrition assistance and health care while passing significant costs onto states.”
Fox News Poll: Voters embrace health agenda while rating RFK Jr negatively (Fox News). “When it comes to the U.S. food supply, more voters prioritize protecting public health than lowering food prices, according to the latest Fox News Poll,” writes Victoria Balara. “The survey, released Monday, also finds broad voter support for key elements of the MAHA movement, even as they give Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. negative job ratings. By a 16-point margin, voters prefer safeguarding public health (58%) more than lowering food prices (42%). That view crosses party lines, with majorities of Democrats (57%), Republicans (58%), and independents (62%) prioritizing health and well-being. Support for new food regulations is prevalent. More than 9 in 10 voters favor requiring clearer food labeling (91%), and almost as many (87%) support banning food additives that other countries have restricted because of health concerns.”
A fancy name for junk food (The Atlantic). “Once again, Americans are in a panic over what we eat,” writes Gary Taubes. “More than two-thirds of those surveyed now regard the industrially produced UPFs that dominate the U.S. food supply as addictive, according to a study published earlier this month in the American Journal of Public Health. That’s just the start of it. For the past couple of years, concerns about the potential health effects of UPFs have been highlighted in the media, and at nearly every level of the public-health establishment. To some extent, this is nothing more than a rebranding of an old idea, that the foods being sold at convenience stores or fast-food restaurants are anything but good for us. Any more specific meaning, though, has been elusive. The U.S. government, for all of its UPF-related rhetoric, hasn’t even resolved the most basic matter of semantics: ‘A definition for ultra-processed foods is really hard,’ one FDA official said in April. So many of the foods we eat are processed in so many different ways. Where do we even begin?”
The case for ultra-processed food (Healthscaping). “There is a good chance that, as you read this, representatives of big food companies are in conference rooms in Washington, DC, making the case to government officials for ultra-processed food,” writes Thomas Farley. “By themselves, their arguments won’t carry the day. That’s what agribusinesses’ $200 million in political donations are for. But the arguments do matter. The more persuasive the food companies are, the easier it is for legislators to sign on, for Fox News commentators and other paid influencers to parrot the talking points, and for voters to be swayed. What are they saying, and in the national conversation about ultra-processed food (UPF), how should we respond? The food industry’s talking points appear on two of their websites (here and here), and in this statement that their trade association gave to food journalist Helena Bottemiller Evich. Taking these talking points one at a time.”
Democrats press White House on who got special access to Eli Lilly’s new obesity drug (STAT). “Democratic lawmakers have questions about the 79-year-old patient who received special access in April to retatrutide, Eli Lilly’s experimental obesity drug, and are pressing the Trump administration on if the person is the president or another prominent figure,” writes Lizzy Lawrence. “STAT reported on Tuesday that Eli Lilly and FDA offered the drug to the patient, who has refractory obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, and pulmonary hypertension, via the FDA’s ‘compassionate use’ program. STAT also reported that the application, which was filed by a senior clinician at the National Institutes of Health, drew interest from top health officials. STAT does not know who the patient is. But given the unusual nature of the application and the patient’s demographics, STAT asked the White House whether the patient was Donald Trump. Trump turned 80 this month, is overweight, and told the New York Times in January that he ‘probably should’ take obesity drugs. He received an experimental treatment through the same pathway to treat his Covid-19 infection during his first administration.”
***
Why you should upgrade to a paid Food Fix subscription
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.
