Happy Tuesday, and welcome to Food Fix. If you’re in D.C., on Oct. 27, I’ll be interviewing Sam Kass about his new book, “The Last Supper,” at an event hosted by Bold Fork Books. Get tickets!
Forked live taping: Speaking of in-person events, on Nov. 11, we’re hosting a special DC live taping of Forked, the podcast I co-host with Theodore Ross over at the Food & Environment Reporting Network. Mark your calendars and RSVP here!
Get renewed: Fall is a popular time for annual subscription renewals. If you need to make changes to your account, including adding or changing seats, or updating payment info, you can do that via the subscription portal. If you need any help, get in touch: info@foodfix.co.
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
***
Today, in Food Fix:
– Food industry groups launch preemption push
– Anti-hunger calls on USDA to pro-rate SNAP funds
– Sen. Cory Booker headlines event on additives and UPF
***
Welcome to the MAHA preemption fight
Leading industry groups are today launching a coalition aimed at putting Washington back in control of food policy by preempting a growing patchwork of state laws.
In recent weeks, rumors have been flying about the formation of “Americans for Ingredient Transparency.” This afternoon, the coalition is going public with a new 501(c)(4) non-profit backed by many leading trade associations and major food companies, including the Consumer Brands Association, American Beverage Association, Corn Refiners Association, as well as household names like Nestlé, The Coca-Cola Company, General Mills, Hormel, and PepsiCo.
MAGA spox: The coalition – AFIT for short – is being led by two MAGA-aligned spokespeople: Julie Gunlock, a conservative advocate who directs the Independent Women’s Network, and Andy Koenig, a former policy special assistant to President Donald Trump.
“Families deserve commonsense and science-backed transparency they can rely on,” Gunlock said in a statement. “That’s why a national standard for food safety and labeling is of the utmost importance to ensure every parent can make safe, informed choices for their children – because protecting our families starts with the truth.”
“It is a simple concept to understand – Americans want to know that the ingredients in the products they’re buying for their families are safe,” said Koenig. “This should not be a difficult standard to meet. Unfortunately, states are now implementing their own patchwork of contradictory ingredient rules that have caused widespread confusion among consumers. President Trump and his Administration are well-suited to make these determinations.”
Hot links: The coalition today released their website and a 60-second ad spot, titled “Fix the Patchwork.” (I also found their X page, which so far only has two followers: me and a lurker account named “Night Owl.”)
“Advocating for a uniform national standard for an informed, confident consumer that applies consistent, science-and-risk-based rules to ensure ingredient safety that benefits all Americans,” reads the website.
Preemption 101: “Uniform national standard” is a more politically palatable way to describe federal preemption, which means federal law supersedes state and local laws – something the food industry argues is desperately needed as an increasing number of states have passed their own ingredient bans, warning label requirements and other laws. Of course, many of these laws have been driven by the “Make America Healthy Again” movement, which hates the idea of preemption with the fire of a thousand suns.
Food industry leaders, for their part, argue that they cannot operate in a country with dozens of different rules and bans – there needs to be uniformity, and Congress needs to step in. Meanwhile, the Trump administration (and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in particular) has been urging states to pass as many MAHA bills as possible like a chaos gremlin.
Two goals: The coalition says it’s seeking two key provisions in federal legislation:
1) “The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act should be amended to establish the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the sole entity setting the floor and ceiling for regulations on the marketing and sale of foods, beverages, and over-the-counter products in the United States, including safety assessments, ingredient approvals, registrations, reporting requirements, and labeling requirements.”
2) “The regulations must follow a risk-based evaluation process informed by peer- or expert-reviewed research, adhere to well-established scientific principles, meet rigorous regulatory scientific standards, and be relevant to human health and safety.”
The group says it “stands ready to work with Congress” on three other areas: Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) reform, front-of-pack labeling reform, and QR code labeling reform. (These last two are kind of odd considering the administration is finalizing front-of-pack labeling in 2026 and QR code labeling is already the industry’s preferred approach to labeling, but I digress.)
On the hill: An earlier form of Americans for Ingredient Transparency registered to lobby with the Russell Group, a firm specializing in food and agriculture, per lobbying disclosures. The most recent quarter shows $10,000 in spending, but this is expected to be a well-funded effort. I’ve been told that it’s $1 million to get on the steering committee, but groups can be in the coalition for far less than that. (The coalition declined to comment on the dues structure.)
Preemption bill cooking: Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) has for months been working on a bill aimed at reforming how FDA regulates food additives that would also preempt state laws.
We don’t yet have all the details on this effort (Marshall’s office didn’t respond to my inquiries). It’s my understanding that the legislation under consideration has three main components: The first is a legislative fix for closing the so-called GRAS loophole, something that consumer advocates and even some Democrats have supported for decades. The second is some form of bolstered post-market assessment – in other words, taking a closer look at some of the controversial food chemicals that are already on the market. The third is explicit preemption, which means laying out in federal law that states do not have the right to make their own rules about this stuff.
There was some speculation that Marshall’s bill might be released this week, but that does not seem likely to me, in part because the Kansas Republican – who serves as co-chair of the MAHA Caucus – is now under pressure from top MAHA advocates who are pressing hard behind the scenes to get preemption stripped from the bill.
It’s tricky, of course, because preemption is really key to the whole deal. Remove preemption, and industry support implodes. Keep it, and you spark an all-out war with MAHA.
Opposition abounds: The brewing opposition here is not just within MAHA but also consumer advocacy groups and progressives. (I can imagine California, for example, would not take kindly to seeing some of their recent food laws blocked.)
“If there were truth in labeling laws governing the naming of coalitions, they would be prohibited from disguising their true intention, which is to wipe out all of the state food laws that protect consumers and hold the food industry accountable,” said Brian Ronholm, director of food policy for Consumer Reports. “It’s disappointing to see these industry groups investing millions of dollars on high-priced lobbyists and ad campaigns to mislead consumers and policymakers instead of removing toxic ingredients from their products.”
In recent days, Vani Hari, known to many as “Food Babe,” has been railing against the AFIT “front group” effort. Hari told me that she sees Marshall’s bill, as currently written, to be “a power grab masked as reform.”
“It will neuter and betray every community that has sought change,” Hari said. “It’s the gutting of the MAHA momentum.”
Throwback: For those who have been around food policy for a while, this all feels a bit like the big ol’ preemption fight over GMO labeling a decade ago – and not just because Russell Group also ran that effort on Capitol Hill (something that’s not lost on MAHA). Randy Russell, president of Russell Group, once said it was “singularly the most difficult” thing he’d worked on in his career.
Back then, Vermont had passed a mandatory GMO labeling law that ultimately spurred Congress to act. There’s a lot of ways today is different, of course: more states are involved in the current patchwork, the political landscape is much more populist, and Congress is far more dysfunctional. Social media also plays a much bigger role than it did back then. This really has the potential to be a huge fight.
***
Anti-hunger advocates call on USDA to pro-rate SNAP funds
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank, is urging the Trump administration to use the contingency funds it has to release at least partial funding for November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits.
According to CBPP, “nearly two-thirds of the funds needed for a full month of benefits are available in SNAP’s contingency fund and must be used when regular funding for SNAP runs short.”
“The administration must release those funds immediately and give states guidance on the amount of SNAP benefits they should issue in November, as SNAP law requires, to ensure that families can put food on the table next month,” the group said in a statement.
Pro-rata: The concept of pro-rating based on the federal funding available is known as pro-rata in budget wonkery, but it’s also never been done for SNAP, so there’s no precedent for how to implement this. USDA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this idea.
***
Booker headlines event on additives and UPF
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) is headlining an event called “reclaiming our food” hosted by the Environmental Working Group on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
The confab was supposed to be held on the Senate side but has been moved to the restaurant Ama because of the shutdown, organizers said. (Ama, which some MAHA advocates like to call the “MAHA restaurant,” was recently featured in the New York Times as a uniquely bipartisan spot.)
On tap: The event is focused on “tackling food chemicals and ultraprocessed foods.” Booker is slated to give opening remarks, followed by a panel with: Scott Faber, EWG Senior Vice President for Government Affairs (moderating); Jesse Gabriel, the California assemblymember who’s spearheaded the state’s recent laws targeting UPFs; Ashley Gearhardt, professor of psychology at University of Michigan and a leading researcher on food addiction; Nora LaTorre, CEO of Eat Real; Joanne Molinaro, New York Times bestselling author, lawyer and creator of The Korean Vegan; and Jim Jones, former FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods.
Thought bubble: It’s interesting to see Booker leaning in on this as Democrats have seen so many of these food issues get swept up by MAHA.
***
What I’m reading
Inside the Republican network behind big soda’s bid to pit MAGA against MAHA (The Guardian). “Major US soft-drink and snack-food corporations are waging a coordinated campaign that aims to pit Donald Trump’s Maga faithful against Robert F Kennedy Jr’s Make America Healthy Again movement,” writes Josh Voorhees. “Their goal is to stymie the Maha-led effort to curb Americans’ consumption of soda and ultra-processed foods. To carry out the plan, the companies have turned to a partially formalized network of for-hire pollsters, strategists and political financiers with deep ties to the national Republican party – several of whom have taken steps that obscure their connection to the effort and to one another. The ongoing influence campaign is being spearheaded by the American Beverage Association with help from the Consumer Brands Association, two prominent trade groups in the food industry. Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Keurig Dr Pepper … as well as packaged-food conglomerates like General Mills, Kraft Heinz, Mondelēz and Nestlé, are among those that pay dues for the right to have a say in either or both of the trade groups’ strategies.”
How leaders of the MAHA movement benefit from anti-science advocacy and promise profits to industry (Associated Press). “Powerful anti-vaccine advocates and people selling potentially harmful goods such as raw milk are profiting from the push to write anti-science policies into law across the U.S.,” report Michelle R. Smith and Laura Ungar. “They object to the term “anti-science” and portray the MAHA movement as grassroots. But it’s fueled by a web of well-funded national groups led by people who’ve profited – financially and otherwise – from sowing distrust of medicine and science. Whether by advancing their careers or selling more products, these leaders are finding ways to benefit.”
Trump eyes Argentina beef but US price relief may be limited (Bloomberg). “President Donald Trump vowed to boost beef imports from Argentina as the US faces soaring meat prices, though the increase may provide little relief to American consumers. Trump said on Sunday that importing more beef from Argentina would help ease the pressure on prices. But the president suggested that any agreement wouldn’t be for a significant amount of shipments,” Gerson Freitas Jr, Skylar Woodhouse and Jonathan Gilbert report. “US beef prices have skyrocketed to record levels, challenging Trump’s promise to make groceries more affordable. Booming imports have fallen short of offsetting a severe domestic cattle shortage. An additional 40% tariff on imported goods from Brazil, the world’s largest beef exporter, is tightening supplies further.”
Trump struggles to crack tariff piggy bank (Politico). “The administration has brought in about $200 billion in tariff revenue so far this year, cash the president and members of his Cabinet have boasted is a sign their tariff hikes are succeeding – and have suggested they can now use at their discretion,” write Daniel Desrochers and Jennifer Scholtes. “That’s not how it works. So while Vance said Sunday that the administration would use tariff revenue to pay military salaries during the shutdown, the Office of Management and Budget says troops have been paid by tapping military research and development funding. The money the Trump administration is using to fund nutrition assistance to low-income moms and babies during the shutdown is not a product of Trump’s new tariffs either … Instead, the administration is providing a lifeline for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known commonly as WIC, by pulling money from an account that funds things like school breakfast and lunch programs. Some of the money in that nutrition account comes from import revenue from prior years, as authorized by a 90-year-old law, along with other funding Congress provides each year.”
***
Thank you for supporting original food reporting
Your subscription makes Food Fix possible, so thank you! If someone forwarded you this email, go subscribe online. Some friendly housekeeping reminders:
– You can manage your subscription at any time.
– If multiple people in your organization need to read this newsletter, it’s time to upgrade to a group account or add seats.
– Regular forwarding of the Tuesday subscribers-only newsletter is a violation of our terms of service. (Plus, it’s way easier to get it delivered directly to your inbox!)
And don’t miss out between editions: Follow Food Fix on X, Bluesky and LinkedIn.
See you on Friday!
