Forked is an insider’s look at the politics and policy turning the American food system upside down. Hosts Theodore Ross (FERN) and Helena Bottemiller Evich (Food Fix) round up current events on food and farming, making important Beltway news accessible to everyone. The first episode covers RFK Jr.’s meeting with the MAHA Commission, the pressure he’s putting on major food companies about additives – and the good, bad, and bonkers of his first month at the Department of Health & Human Services.
TRANSCRIPT:
Teresa Cotsirilos: You’re listening to REAP/SOW—dispatches from the frontlines of food, farming, and the environment. I’m your host, Teresa Cotsirilos.
It’s genuinely hard to keep up with the Trump administration’s assault on federal agencies, norms, and institutions. There’s that litany of DOGE cuts, the relentless executive orders and threats of tariffs. Not to mention all of those ensuing lawsuits. A lot of these policy changes could impact the food we eat—eat how much we pay for it.
FERN is launching a new podcast series that keeps track of these changes in food policy so you don’t have to. Welcome to Forked—a conversation with Theodores Ross, FERN’s Editor-in-Chief, and Helena Bottemiller Evich, the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Food Fix. I’ll let Theodore Ross take it from here.
Theodore Ross: Welcome to Forked, an insider’s look at the politics and policy that is turning the American food system on its head. I’m Theodore Ross, the Editor-in-Chief of the Food and Environment Reporting Network, or FERN. And I’m joined by Helena Bottemiller Evich, the founder and editor in chief of Food Fix, a really, really good food policy newsletter that you should all know about.
Welcome, Helena. How are you?
Helena Bottemiller Evich: I am doing well. How are you?
Theodore: Good. I’m glad you’re here. So let’s jump right into it. So this is, uh, our first segment of the podcast, and we are gonna do what’s called a double take. Now I don’t know about you, Helena, but if you’re like me, I wake up every morning, I have a cup of coffee, and I freak myself out by reading the news.
And there usually, but not always, is one thing that freaks me out the most. And I wonder what you think that thing is, uh, right at this moment in the food system.
Helena: You know, it is hard to pick one thing, because I think every day there is so much going on. I am constantly telling people who don’t live in Washington that I empathize with them, try to keep up, because I can’t keep up. And it’s my job to follow the news every day. It’s my full-time job. So I think the one thing that people are the most worked up about right now, right in this moment, is the Trump administration’s decision to basically cancel about a billion dollars of investment for local foods.
So this was food going to, you know, food banks and schools, and this was an investment that, um, the Biden administration had made, and a lot of small farms, a lot of food hubs, a lot of those community, you know, these community-based initiatives are seeing tons of money cut, and they are freaking out about it.
And this is just one of the ways that these kind of obscure policies that have an acronym end up affecting people across the country, in every county, in every state, in red places and blue places. And so I’m hearing a lot of anger about that.
Theodore: I think those acronyms are an important point to mention. There’s actually two programs here, right? It’s the local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program and the local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program. And if I find one thing that maybe I’m in agreement with the Trump administration about, it’s that acronyms like that need to be made shorter and more easily converted into something.
Helena: But I can’t remember them and was not about to try. Yes.
Theodore: What I think is so interesting about these is, I mean, these are widespread programs. I was looking this up. It’s something like 45 states and the District of Columbia are getting money through this. And maybe just if, for people who don’t know what it is, it’s the idea is that the federal government is funding local farmers to supply food to school lunches and to food banks.
So what would be the reason for getting rid of this? Other than, say — and I don’t know, maybe I’m just guessing here — it’s a Biden policy.
Helena: Well, there’s so many layers to this, but basically the argument for it is that it helps, you know, support a more local and regional food system, right? It also helps get more fresh food into these programs, particularly schools. It can be hard to source locally, it can cost more. You know, it can just cost more.
And so if the federal government is, like, this is a value, this is a benefit, you know, this is one way we’re gonna support local farmers, support local economies, get more fresh food in school. So it’s kind of seen as this, like, win-win, win-win-win. You know?
And so the Trump administration is making the argument, though, that this is not essential.
This is just not essential funding. Um, I think the fact that it is a Biden-era thing, uh, certainly is a reason that it’s being targeted. But it’s interesting, because the secretary of agriculture has a ton of authority on how to use what’s called the Commodity Credit Corporation.
We call it kind of the slush fund of the Ag Department. And it’s this Depression-era that gets replenished, and there’s billions of dollars. This is actually how Trump paid out a lot of the farmers.
Theodore: Well, I wanted to talk about that.
Helena: There’s a lot of discretion in how they spend that money. That doesn’t mean that people aren’t furious about it, though.
Theodore: But I mean that, that funding that you’re talking about, that money from the Triple C, which see, that’s how they should approach these from an acronym perspective. So the, uh, that money was used by the Trump administration in the first, in his first presidency, to offset the losses from tariffs for commodity growers like soybeans and corn and wheat.
Now, is part of the reason that the Trump administration potentially is doing this because they are about to, you know, implement a new tariff regime and this is money that they’re gonna want to pay off those farmers again? Or is it something else?
Helena: You know, that would be a really logical argument here. I don’t hear that argument being made. I think, and also you have to remember that we’re talking about like a billion dollars for local food here, whereas during the Trump trade war, it was like tens of billions going out for making, trying to make up the impact of the tariffs to all those commodity farmers.
So this is small potatoes compared to that. Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, got asked about this on Fox News. Um, Politico, I believe scooped this earlier this week that these programs were being terminated. And she was asked about this, and she said basically like, these, you know, we’re trying to return to normal.
This was more of a Covid-era thing. Some of the local food promotion or funding did was Covid-era. This was a little more recent, but, um, she was saying that, you know, we need to have more efficiency. We don’t need to spend money on, on all these things. So everything is under review essentially.
And this is something that I think if enough people push back on, they might reverse, but right now, um, a lot of farmers, small businesses, nonprofits, schools, food banks, etc. are freaking out.
Theodore: So there’s two other things I want to follow up on this. So one is you talk about those farmers, and there’s this assumption, which I think is at least demographically correct, that a lot of farmers tend to vote Republican. However deeply Trump-supporting they are, they’re definitely more on the Trump side of the world than the other.
So why would the Trump administration be punishing them? That’s the kind of thing that people are trying to parse, and I wonder what you think about that. Is that a factor in this calculation?
Helena: Well, what I see so far is this administration is just moving really fast on things,
and they will, they’ll do something, and then it’s almost like they’ll see the reaction and then,
I think if enough farm groups push back, especially in red states, in farm states, I think there’s a better chance that this would get, that they would change their mind about this. I don’t think it’s targeting, you know, farm — I don’t think there’s ever a political upside to giving farmers less money for an administration like this, but it will depend on the pushback, right? And they keep doing this right? Like the administration fired a bunch of bird flu employees at USDA, and then there was a huge uproar, and then they brought them back or they’re trying to bring them back.
So this is kind of a pattern we’re seeing where something happens and then the reaction kind of ends up reining it in. And I think this is one of those situations where it may end up being the case, but we don’t know yet. We’re starting to see lawmakers push back
and say they need to reinstate this funding.
And, you know, we’ll, we’ll see. We’re only a couple days into this, into this story at this point. And after a crazy week, particularly crazy, they’ve all been busy.
Theodore: The second part of it that sort of sticks out to me is that when you look at the foods that were being purchased in this program, they were supposed to be unprocessed or minimally processed. So if you look at the priorities of the health and human services under RFK Jr.
Again, it’s a losing game to look at contradictions within the logic of what the Trump administration is doing, because there are so many things happening, and they’re pushing up against each other in different ways. But does that make sense? How does that make sense? If you are trying to push back against ultraprocessed foods and the reliance of the American diet on it, especially children, why would they be doing this?
Helena: Well, I think the contradictions are, are important here and, this
is a contradiction. There’s no way around it. This decision is not in line with MAHA, or the Make America Healthy Again movement, which is, like, basically the RFK-Trump Alliance come alive, which is what we’re now seeing. You know, these are the exact types of foods that the MAHA influencers and advocates and RFK Jr. want Americans to be consuming more of.
And so they may disagree with how we get there. Like maybe there’s a more, maybe there ends up being a more libertarian bent where they’re not necessarily wanting the government to be involved as they are with this program. But anyone looking at this, you’re, like, but the government’s involved in ag heavily.
So, you know, we are paying and, and subsidizing all of these other types of foods. And so when you get to this, you’re like, oh, this just, this just isn’t MAHA on the face of it. So I think we’ll see what happens. The argument — I started to see some MAHA folks actually on social media, like basically saying, what the heck?
This is not in line with what we expected the administration to do.
Theodore: Would these be the famous or maybe infamous MAHA moms that, that people are talking about?
Helena: I am trying to think of who specifically I saw. It was more of the, like, there’s some MAHA accounts, so I’m not even actually sure who’s behind them. Are they MAHA dads? Are they MAHA moms? Are they MAHA spectators? I don’t know. But
I did start to see some, like, questioning of the logic here.
Theodore: Cranky, MAHA uncles advocating for carrots in the school lunches.
Helena: Crazy MAHA uncles.
Theodore: Yeah, I kind of embody that, though I’m not really on the MAHA side.
Helena: MAHA is a loose, it’s a loose coalition. It’s actually very, it’s a very interesting coalition ’cause everyone plugs in in a very different way on a different issue. So you never know. You may be a part of it and you don’t even realize it.
Theodore: That is a good point. I, that often happens to me. So I’m gonna move on to our second segment, and that’s what we’re calling Forks and Knives. Basically Forks and Knives, for those of you who don’t know, and you wouldn’t know, ’cause this is our first episode, is just sort of the status quo. What is the biggest theme or the biggest development that we’ve seen in the, in the politics and policy of the food system, and what’s really on, well, not to put too fine a point on it, on Helena’s mind right now.
So, Helena, what do you think?
Helena: So right now I think the, where we’re actually seeing this MAHA agenda or Make America Healthy Again, for anyone not familiar with the MAHA term, you’re gonna be hearing it a lot, so get, you know, read up on it. But basically, this alliance between RFK Jr. and Trump going into the November election, we are now seeing the fruits of that with RFK Jr. being the health and human services secretary. He’s been on the job for about a month-ish as we’re taping this, and we’re starting to see some real movement. I wrote for my newsletter, which went out, uh, I just wrote for my newsletter, Food Fix, that this was the busiest week that I can ever remember in food policy because of just how many things happened that were all kind of under this, like, MAHA banner.
So just for a couple of examples, I said I could have written 10 newsletters this week, and I really did mean that. RFK Jr. had all the food, you know, top food company CEOs in a meeting to basically give them an ultimatum. Either remove synthetic dyes and other controversial ingredients.
Right, so there was a big CEOs meeting ultimatum. He posted a video on Instagram or on, um, social media that was basically like, there’s a new sheriff in town on food.
Theodore: Well, let’s talk about that meeting. Let’s talk specifically about that meeting. So, first of all, you know, I’m just quoting a little bit from Politico that this was a stark ultimatum. He told them, change your practices on food additives and artificial dyes, or he’ll do it for you. And the people who were there with the CEOs, if I think I have it correct, it’s PepsiCo, General Mills, Tyson Foods, Smucker’s, Kraft, Kraft Heinz, and Kellogg’s, along with the major, uh, trade associate.
What is the CBA? I’m sorry. What does …
Helena: Consumer Brands Association.
Theodore: So these are the biggest players in this particular field. What is their, I know you said they were freaking out, but I think let’s, let’s start with the most important question. If you have a meeting, like, what do you think is on the snack tray in a meeting like that?
Helena: Oh my gosh, I was trying to figure this out. I wanted to know desperately what were they noshing on? Nobody would tell me. I actually, one of the problems with having a CEO-level meeting is, it’s actually kind of hard to get a readout of that meeting because it’s the CEOs, right? The more staff you have in a meeting, the easier it is for someone like, you know, reporters like us to get, to get all the details.
Theodore: But that’s an important point. I mean, when you look at the executive order, sort of creating the MAHA Commission — and we’ll talk about the Maha Commission in a second — it says, and I’m reading here, all federally funded health research should empower Americans — and this is the important part — through transparency and open source data. Having a closed-door meeting with the heads of the major food companies to essentially publicly shame them.
Private meeting, public shaming. That again, we’re into contradiction land. What is the reason to have a meeting like this? Is it more important that these major companies, that he called out the companies, RFK, or that they seemed willing to respond to him calling them up?
Helena: Well, I think the Consumer Brands Association, I believe, asked for this meeting. I think that they certainly organized it. Food companies are scrambling to figure out how to respond to this. And I think the first instinct is to be, like, okay, are there voluntary things? Are there collaborative things?
Are there partnership things where we agree and we can do things and we can kind of like …
Theodore: What would those be? What would those voluntary collaborative things be?
Helena: One of the things that they could do is voluntarily take synthetic dyes out and set a timeline for doing that. Back during the Obama administration, you know, then-First Lady Michelle Obama, they were brokering private-sector agreements left and right to try to get, you know, companies to move to serve healthier, restaurant meals or to cut sodium across, you know, a whole company’s whole food portfolio.
There were all these commitments that were made, and part of the reason for doing that, too, is to get the government to back off, right? To say, like, oh no, we’re doing all this voluntarily. You don’t have to, you don’t have to do that. I think that is the, the more — that’s, that’s the approach I think the industry would rather take, right? And instead of being a fight with RFK, instead of being a fight with the Trump administration, to be like, all right, what can we, what agreement can we reach? I don’t know though that they’re gonna be able to do that here. I think it’s really hard to find agreement within the food industry on how to approach some of these issues.
If you just look at food dyes, like, you know, red 40. Every food company is gonna have a different, uh, relationship with that ingredient and how important it is to them. So if you’re a candymaker making hard-shell candies that are bright red and gummies that are fluorescent-colored, it’s a lot bigger deal for you to take out all of your synthetic colors than it is for a company that might only have one or two things that are barely color. You know, so it’s not like there’s some monolithic Big Food here that can just agree to do this. There are so many companies that would have to agree. So it’s very messy. It seems simpler, I think, than it is. So your question about, is it a bigger deal that they met privately or that he publicly kind of shamed them? I think it’s actually a bigger deal that he shamed them. And the parts of this that were public were probably bigger, because now these companies have a lot of PR risk here. And so, and right after the meeting, RFK or HHS issued a statement saying, you know we’re directing FDA to tighten up food additive oversight. And so, they’re. moving, like they’re,
the wheels are gonna be turning. How slow, you know, how fast will that be? There’s a lot of questions.
Theodore: Well, let’s talk about those wheels, right? Sorry to interrupt. Let’s try to talk about those wheels, you know, because let’s try to put it into context. I mean, we’re hearing these, these food leaders, these business leaders being called to account and, RFK Jr. essentially threatening them with, uh, with regulation.
And I think one of the interesting things that you wrote about in your newsletter today is that phrase, uh, regulating in a deregulatory environment, right? So we’re talking about the FDA, which has cut 5,200 probationary employees, including the ones working on the safety of food additives, and the director of the food division of the FDA resigning.
So what does it mean to put pressure on these companies to regulate when your foundation, your founding principles for the administration itself, if not for RFK, is deregulatory.
Helena: Well, I think the central question of MAHA is the extent to which the Trump administration’s gonna be willing to actually use regulation to, to crack down on these things, because there’s just no world in which you can get additives out of food without some level of regulation or at least threatening regulation and getting some magical voluntary agreement. On the food, on the FDA stuff, a lot of those employees have actually been quietly brought back, the food additive people, because I think internally there was a realization that, yes, you need, you need toxicologists, you need experts to be able to go through these chemicals and help the agency one by one make the case that they need to be, you know, the ones they don’t like or the ones they’re concerned about need to be pulled.
There is a process for doing that. And so it remains to be seen how this will all work out. I mean, FDA already, only had a few food chemicals that they were reassessing or basically, you know, this is the stuff we’re already eating, stuff that’s already on the food,, already in the marketplace. They’re reassessing to try to take another look. And these are mostly things that states are banning anyway, so states are moving full steam ahead. So we’re in a very interesting moment where the pressure’s coming from RFK, no question. But it’s also coming from the states. And there is this, like, the states are also giving RFK more leverage here because food companies don’t want a patchwork of rules at the state level.
Theodore: So let’s switch gears a little bit here and talk about those MAHA moms. So this is the, another closed-door meeting, the second of the two meetings that RFK Jr. held, and it’s the first meeting of the MAHA Commission, which includes a whole laundry list of various heads of federal agencies and these MAHA moms.
So tell us about this meeting. Why is this important?
Helena: Yeah, so the White House, this was the day after the — yeah, I guess it was like a day or two after the RFK CEO meeting. Then they had two White House MAHA meetings. So again, just like going back to just how much was packed into one week. So the MAHA Commission met. That’s all the, as you mentioned, that’s all the cabinet-level folks who are part of that commission.
So that includes, like, USDA, EPA, FDA, all that, all the alphabet soup of very important agencies. Some of those folks are not yet in place, though, so we don’t have the FDA commissioner quite yet. But they held an initial meeting, and then afterwards they had, um, several, MAHA moms, which are, I think it, it’s kind of a term used to describe, a lot of them are moms that are on, like, they might be influencers or authors or doctors or they come to some, they come at this from different vantage points. A lot of them have really big followings online on social media. And this meeting, the MAHA roundtable, also included the secretary of agriculture and Kennedy.
So, and the, the White House Press secretary was there. I mean, the head of the Domestic Policy Council for the White House, the deputy, um, director for the Domestic Policy Council. So they had some real heft in this, in this roundtable meeting I was bummed that it was, that there were no reporters there.
And I did ask the White House about this, and they essentially said, look, this was closed press, because a lot of these moms are not really public figures. But I think going forward, they’re gonna need to open some of these up because Kennedy himself keeps using the term radical transparency. And it’s really hard to argue that you’re being really transparent if …
Theodore: If you’re having a closed-door meeting. So let’s, let’s move on to a couple of other things happening in the news that maybe you are thinking about. One of them that I thought is pretty interesting, again, ’cause we’re getting into acronyms, is, RFK Jr.’s directing the FDA to look into the GRAS rule.
Is it GRAS?
Helena: GRAS, yeah.
Ted: The yeah, Generally Regarded as Safe rule. Um. That’s kind of an interesting thing on itself, and I want you to talk about that. But it’s also interesting, again, in the context of Donald Trump having, when he took office, pausing the creation of all new federal regulations. But this kind of gets into a loophole area because they’re not really doing anything.
They’re taking the steps. They’re, as we say in the South — my mother’s from Mississippi — they’re fixing to get ready to do something better, right?
Helena: Fixing to get ready.
Theodore: Right?
Helena: I believe it was “directing to explore the potential,” or something like that.
Theodore: But this is a pretty benevolent step if it actually happens. So take me through this. Why, why is he not actually just doing this? Why is he not changing this rule?
Helena: Well, I think they are signaling that they are going to, are likely going to. So basically what HHS put out, and this was after, this came, after the CEO’s meeting, so like it’s kind of wrapped up into this pressure they’re trying to put on the food industry, right? Which is that the feds want to take back control over this issue after the states have been in the driver’s seat.
So California just straight up banned four controversial food additives from the entire state, and they did that last year. But I think it …
Theodore: And those were generally regarded as safe. That’s how those ingredients could be introduced. So why don’t you tell people, just give a, like a quick explanation of what it means.
Helena: Generally recognized as safe is, we call it grass and food policy where GRAS, that’s the acronym. It’s the way that most food chemicals get into the food supply. And it is, um, consumer advocates have long called this the GRAS loophole because it doesn’t require FDA approval. Companies that make these products can self-affirm or sell, like self-declare something as GRAS. They can say, oh, there’s some studies that have looked at this substance and it’s not concerning, and so we’re deeming this substance GRAS, and then they can put it in food and it’s on the food supply. And oftentimes FDA doesn’t even know.
Theodore: And is this as bad as it sounds, ’cause this sounds pretty bad.
Helena: It sounds absurd. If you explain this to someone, they’re like, that can’t be how this works. So a lot of the more reputable companies do go through what’s called GRAS notification. So they do tell FDA, hey, here is the body of science we looked at. We are determining that this is GRAS. They lay it all out for FDA, and FDA can give them what’s called the no questions letter, saying like, we don’t have questions about this.
Basically, like we tacitly agree that this is GRAS. That is the legit way of doing it, but they are not required to notify FDA. So there’s all of these ingredients on the, in the food supply right now that FDA does not even know about and has not even looked at what evidence backs them. So, yeah, I think you tell any reasonable person that that’s how this works. And they’re like, that …
Theodore: It shouldn’t work that way.
Helena: Yeah.
Theodore: So what are they looking at then if they’re looking at that rule, what is the exploration that they’re going to be doing as a regulatory body? There is a process if you were to enforce it or to make it law or to make it the, the actual regulation to make them notify and go through this process.
That would seemingly be, to me, a pretty good thing to do.
Helena: So I think a lot of, I mean, consumer advocates are like, yeah, you should do this. I just saw, I was at the National Food Policy Conference and I saw two advocates who have long worked on food chemical safety, and one of them told me she did like a dance, like an actual dance, when she saw Kennedy’s statement, because she was like, I never thought I would see the government actually fix this, and it seems like maybe they will. So I think there is a lot of agreement that the GRAS loophole being addressed would be a thing a lot, I mean, a lot of people would cheer that. A lot of consumer advocates would be thrilled to see that.
But it is a weird world because they’re also looking at all these other things that RFK’s doing, and they frankly hate a lot of it.
So it’s like, we love this thing that you’re doing, um, we are horrified by the ongoing measles outbreak, or we’re horrified by the, you know, you laid off a bunch of FDA employees. So there’s this real mixed bag in terms of how, I think particularly public health and consumer advocates are looking at this administration and particularly the MAHA agenda.
But GRAS reform is one where there really seems to be broad agreement, and it’s bipartisan. We’re seeing Republicans now working on bills on Capitol Hill to basically fix the GRAS loophole and make sure FDA has very clear authority. One thing there’s been some question on is does FDA have the require, uh, the authority to require notification? Most people think they do have this authority, but sometimes it helps to clarify it.
Theodore: Well, but it also gets back to your regulating in a deregulatory environment. I mean, you have decisions from the Supreme Court that are pulling away regulatory power from different agencies, you know, from the EPA, for example. But when it comes to food where, which is a priority for the president or for the president’s appointees, then it’s a different story.
So. I don’t know what to make of that. I mean, sometimes, you know, you can take the perspective, well, take the good and ignore the bad or take the good but also protest the bad. Or you can say, well, maybe, and this is maybe my somewhat cynical perspective, you have RFK Jr. being a stopped clock that is right twice a day, right? But maybe that’s just me. So I’m gonna move on again.
I wanna talk about so much. There’s another thing that, see, there’s two other things I want to talk about that are in the news, and they both sort of fit into a similar kind of picture. And one is that you wrote about Brooke Rollins, the secretary of USDA, who was considering letting states ban soda from SNAP.
Why don’t you tell me why that’s important?
Helena: So if you go back to when everyone was fighting over who was gonna be in Trump’s cabinet, a lot of the MAHA people were pushing for reformers at both HHS and USDA. So they wanted Kennedy at HHS, and then they wanted a reformer at USDA. They wanted someone who was gonna shake things up, change the food system. They wanted, like, Thomas Massie, the congressman, who’s like libertarian, is really into raw milk and local and small, regional, you know, meat slaughter capacity. Like those are his issues, right?
They did not get that. They got Brooke Rollins, who is seen as a more mainstream sort of, Trump orbit. Like she didn’t have much of a record in agriculture, but the assumption was, oh, the reformers didn’t get their pick, so they got someone more status quo.
But what we are seeing is that Brooke Rollins is actually really showing early signs of being into some of these MAHA agenda items. She actually called herself a MAHA mom at the White House at this meeting. There’s a video of it that the White House posted on socials that people can check out, which really took me aback.
I was like, oh, anyone who was thinking, you know, that the MAHA agenda wouldn’t infect USDA, that’s just been proven wrong so far. The SNAP issue’s really where we’re seeing this. So SNAP is a program that helps 40, more than 40 million Americans buy groceries every month. This is, you know, a program that’s about, you know, more than $100 billion a year.
This is a lot of investment in trying to make sure that low-income and food-insecure households can afford food. And you can buy groceries with it. The only real constraints around it has been like, no alcohol, no, you know, you can’t use it to buy tobacco, you can’t use it to buy hot food, but you’ve been allowed to buy pretty much whatever food in there. Some states are talking now. Well, there’s, this has been an ongoing debate, but right now there’s some states talking about trying to limit sugary drinks or candy or some other menu of less than healthy options. And, you know, basically saying SNAP recipients within our state cannot buy these foods. Then they would study what happens. These would be called, like, pilots, or they would be operating under waivers. Brooke Rollins has really been pretty favorable about this idea publicly. And so, you know, conservatives are cheering this, the MAHA folks are cheering this, the food industry hates the idea.
Theodore: Well, ’cause they want to sell it. Right? But let’s talk about this. So …
Helena: And the hunger folks hate this idea because it’s limiting the choices that low-income people have at the grocery store when they’re using SNAP.
Theodore: So what’s interesting to me, I mean, you spoke of this in the context of MAHA priorities being internalized into the mainstream of, of the Trump administration and the Republican party. But I mean, is that really the case here? I mean, what we’re looking at, and one of the reasons in the past, if — and you, correct me if I’m wrong — Democrats always oppose or typically oppose this kind of regulation because they see it as sort of like a gateway drug to really just cutting SNAP, or shuttering it all together. Right? But it puts them in that position of saying, well, we all know and agree that these sugary drinks are probably not very good for us, particularly for our kids.
We also know that people are drinking far too many of them. Um, why should we be providing them to large numbers of people? So is that what this is? Is this a MAHA priority, or is this just the traditional game of the GOP trying to slash SNAP and undermine it and possibly get rid of it?
Helena: I mean, I think both things are kind of simultaneously true. The Republicans do wanna cut SNAP. Their pathways to doing that are — they have to go through Congress to do that. So, like reconciliation or a new farm bill or something. And I don’t know if anyone else is paying attention, but Congress is having a really hard time passing anything, like even keeping lights on.
Theodore: You noticed that? I hadn’t noticed that. Yes.
So that is like, we’ll see, right? They, they, I think lots of Republicans would like to cut SNAP benefits.
Helena: That’s not a secret. But with the restrictions, it doesn’t cut the benefit level. That said, a lot of anti-hunger advocates view having SNAP restrictions as a form of being patronizing or being kind of adversarial to low-income people and making the, you know, maybe adding some stigma to that program, because you would then have checkers having to police or send back certain foods. And, you know, the retailers really, really hate this idea. They don’t wanna be the ones sending, anyone back to say, like, you can’t buy this, you know, sugary drink or whatever. On the flip side, I think the, the proponents of SNAP restrictions are just saying, look, we have a very serious problem with diet-related diseases in this country.
Diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease. The fact that we are spending billions of dollars in taxpayer money to buy sugary drinks for low-income people who are disproportionately affected by some of these diseases doesn’t make sense.
And so, I think, both arguments are being made. They’re sort of happening in parallel. And it’s interesting because there was a time when SNAP restrictions were kind of supported by some Democrats. It was sort of a public health thing.
Theodore: Well, what about now? What about the very sort of forwardly interested in, in food issues, uh, major politicians, like a Cory Booker? Where does he come down on something like this?
Helena: Cory Booker is one of the few Democrats who is favorable to this concept. It has really changed, where Democrats are much more in line against the idea and now Republicans are lined up for it. So it’s been a very — we’ve seen some real alignment on this stuff — it’s really kind of disorienting at times.
Theodore: I’ll tell you — we talked about a lot of contradictions — but I was just recently in Mississippi. I’m in New York right now, I was visiting my mother in Mississippi. And one of the things that I find, which I kind of like — although I wouldn’t like it if I had it every day — if you go out to eat in Mississippi, it is, you’re rolling Coca-Cola as, as deep as you want to get. Right? I don’t even have to finish a glass of Coca-Cola or 7Up or whatever. Whatever you like. Pepsi. And they’re bringing me more. So you have, you know, in New York, that is not the case. You have to pay for your refills, which is a tragedy in some respects. But I just think that the, it’s so many ways and what’s happening in the government, they sort of flip these assumptions that we have about what people in red states or blue states actually want, right? And I don’t know if, I mean, obviously this is one small thing, it’s banning sugary drinks. But is that happening here, too, right? Is that part of it? That we think we understand what people in red states want and how they’ll react to things? But we really don’t know.
Helena: Well, I think a really interesting question is how would people react to this, right? So I think a lot of SNAP participants are not following these debates in Washington because, like, they have lives and they’re busy and they’re working multiple jobs and, you know, they’re not paying attention to this. And so if all of a sudden they were not able to buy candy or soda or even chips or whatever would end up on this list in their state, I think you could see some really interesting reactions to that, right? You could see some people upset. You could also see, I mean, I’ve also talked to folks on SNAP who were, like, you know, sometimes I wish some of these foods were banned because it kind of undermines the program when somebody else who’s not on SNAP is in line and sees someone buying foods they think are less than healthy. And they’re like, uh, we’re paying for this, right? And it’s, this kind of, it’s almost like this poses a risk in some ways, and that some, some people have asked, maybe there’d be more public support if it was more focused on staples, like …
Theodore: I mean, it’s unfair. I think it’s unfair. I mean, it’s a demonization of the poor. It’s like Ronald Reagan with the welfare queens. I mean, I don’t think it’s — I think the government can make rules to benefit public health in all kinds of ways, but those rules need to be applied evenly, and to make a particular rule that really targets the poor strikes me as maybe you have to, you have to question the motivation there, whether it is public health or anti-poverty bias, right?.
Helena: Well this does nothing to change the food environment, right? This does nothing to change food availability or like meaningfully target communities that don’t have a lot of fresh food. I mean, all of that would still be like a major, major challenge. I, you know, I think what’s, what is a safe bet now is that like some states are gonna be allowed to do this, and we’re. gonna see what happens.
Theodore: And that’s unusual in itself, correct? Like the idea of getting a waiver from USDA.
Helena: Never happen.
Theodore: Yeah, that’s a really interesting thing.
Helena: Yeah.
Theodore: All right, so I wanna do one last thing before we get to our final segment, and only because I wanna, uh, I, again, it gets into the contradictions and high hypocrisy. There’s a lot of discussion about the need or the potential to ban seed oils. Right?
Why don’t you tell me where that stands? I mean, one of the things I’m curious about with that is, could that potentially happen in any meaningful way? And is this the kind of thing where it’s like the anti-vax leader who still gets their kids vaccinated? If you went into RFK’s pantry right now, would you find a nice jar of, uh, of canola oil, or would it be strictly coconut oil and avocado oil, or something else like that?
Helena: So I’m just gonna make the bet right now that RFK does not have canola oil in his …
Theodore: You think he’s a true believer?
Helena: Really, yeah.
Theodore: Okay.
Helena: So, um, the seed oil debate. Okay, you asked if we could actually ban seed oils. I just, that, that is not going to, that is not going to happen. And even RFK has basically said, like, we wanna incentivize, you know, restaurants to move away from seed oil. So seed oils include, you know, it could be corn, soy, canola, um, really the common oils that you see, not just in processed foods, but also like in fryers. And he wants everyone to move to beef tallow or beef fat, which, you know, if anyone’s had beef fat fries, they’re delicious.
Theodore: Hey, it’s great. Yeah, I know. It’s like — but how familiar are you with the science on this?
Helena: I’m not that familiar. I really try to stay out of knife fights over nutrition methodology, but the the consensus in nutrition science world, the, I would say the majority argue that seed oils are a heart-healthier replacement to beef tallow, okay, for, for something like frying. The opponents to seed oils argue that basically they’re inflammatory. That like our, you know, we’re getting too much omega 6 fats and not enough omega 3s. And that our, I mean, it’s a, it’s kind of the foods are driving inflammation argument. And that is not the mainstream view of most nutrition science folks, but as we all know, like there are fights about everything in nutrition science.
And so it’s one of those things that’s hard. Like even several decades ago, trans fats were supposed to be better for us. Then we ended up banning them, so it can be hard in food world to be really absolute about what is better at any given time. And so I am very, like, conscious of that. But certainly criticizing seed oils goes against what most nutrition scientists would tell you. It goes against the dietary guidelines, and it would increase calories, saturated fat, all of that for these items.
Theodore: So why with the example of trans fat, though? Why is this impossible?
Helena: There’s it, there’s just not, there is physically not enough avocado oil, beef tallow, and coconut oil to replace all of the seed oils in the food system. So if you banned them, I mean, it would be — disruptive doesn’t even begin to, to explain it. I mean, I do think we’re gonna see more companies move away from this.
Like Sweet Green is not, I think they’ve mostly taken them out, if not completely. So like their salad dressings, they just actually launched, like, an oven-baked fries that I think are with, I can’t remember what fat they use.
Theodore: But not tallow, not beef tallow, right?
Helena: Not beef tallow. Not beef tallow. It’s more expensive.
I mean, this is, this is opening a whole other debate about the role of government in, you know, encouraging companies to use different ingredients. And, uh, this week we actually saw RFK Jr. go on Sean Hannity or like go on Fox News primetime with Sean Hannity at a Steak ’n Shake, which is a company, a fast-food company that has just decided to fry their fries in beef tallow.
Theodore: But this makes sense for them. I, I remember, if I’m correct, that the best thing to get at Steak ’n Shake is to get a butter burger, right? So it’s a burger with a pat of butter on it. So they’re not, they’re going off in a whole new direction. Anyway, they probably were ready to go in this direction without, without anybody’s prodding.
Helena: I have not heard of the butter burger, but now I’m very curious about it.
Theodore: I hope I didn’t go, I’m not gonna get fact-checked on that. All right, so let’s, let’s …
Helena: I’ve never been to Steak ’n Shake, actually.
Theodore: It’s a long story why I know a little bit about Steak ’n Shake. So let’s do our last segment. We’ve had a lot of discussion about some things in the food system that are difficult or frustrating or confusing or contradictory or potentially hypocritical or, I can’t remember what you said exactly, like, disruptive beyond all belief, I think was maybe what you said. But I want us to end with something that’s a little less, uh, cloudy skies, and this is our good vibes section of Forked. And tell me what is something that we can take a little bit of satisfaction out of right now?
Helena: The price of eggs is starting to decline. That is our thing.
Theodore: Yes, that’s the best we can do. Okay.
Helena: It’s still really, really high. So I actually had to pull up, like, what is the, what, you know, it changes like every day, but the average cost of a dozen large white eggs is now $4.90. The all-time high was $8.64 as of like 10 days ago.
Theodore: So wait, it’s cut in half, you’re saying.
Helena: That’s what they’re saying. This is, I believe, whole, this might be, I don’t know if they measure retail or wholesale, but they’re going down. But that’s way, way higher than where they were, which was like two, three bucks not that long ago.
Theodore: Yeah, I saw, I saw one report that said even with the price cuts, and maybe this is — I mean this is a pretty fast-moving target, so maybe this is a couple of days ago — but it said that the price of eggs had skyrocketed by more than 170 percent from a year ago. And that is after the first rounds of people noticing that the prices were gonna come back down. So you know these are small …
Helena: It’s relative, it’s directionaly, I think, helpful for consumers that are just really struggling with high food prices. I think about my Grandma Helen, who would be so upset if eggs were over 99 cents a dozen, and how my grandma would be calling me if she were still here, like every week to just be, like, I cannot believe what I paid for eggs. I mean, it’s a real, it’s just a real, you know, kitchen table issue, no pun intended. And so I think that is really good news, and I hope it continues because there are so many people that are on fixed incomes that are really struggling to afford food right now.
Theodore: All right, well, let’s, let’s you know, all enjoy the good times for the incredible edible egg. Helena, this was a great conversation. I really enjoyed it. I hope everyone out there subscribes to your newsletter. Do you want to tell them how they can do it?
Helena: Yeah, you can go to foodfix.co and drop your email in. It’s a free newsletter on Friday and yeah, thank you for joining us. I think you’re supposed to, like, rate and subscribe, or I don’t know.
Theodore: Thank you very much, and we will see you next time.
Teresa: REAP/SOW and Forked are both a production of the Food and Environment Reporting Network. Our Executive Producers are Theodore Ross, Tom Laskawy, and Brent Cunningham. Our Sound Engineer is Lauryn Newson. Katie Gardner is the Producer of Forked and the Video Producer for REAP/SOW. I’m your host, Teresa Cotsirilos.
Special thanks to Food Fix’s Helena Bottemiller Evich for her work on this episode.
Find out more about FERN and donate to support our independent, non-profit reporting at www.thefern.org