A Food System Shift Roadmap by Farm Sanctuary

IV: What Can We Do?

Shifting Federal Policy for Healthy Families, Farmers, and Communities

Pathways to healthy families, farmers, and communities: Nutritional security, community infrastructure, and food climate strategies

A national nutritional security strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

We can shift nutrition programs to support healthy food access

We can shift food service to support healthy food access

We can shift credit to support healthy food production

We can shift insurance to support sustainable agriculture

We can shift R&D to support healthy and sustainable food production

We can shift public crop R&D to support Hispanic-serving (Latine-serving) agricultural research institutions and farm worker justice

We can shift support to farm transitions that promote conservation

We can shift regulations to stop enabling hazardous commodity crop production

A national community infrastructure strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

We can shift federal lending programs for social impact

We can shift food service programs and procurement

We can shift federal assistance programs for equitable food access

We can shift R&D programs to advance equitable food infrastructure

We can combat consolidation and support anti-trust regulations

A national food, climate, and environment strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

We can bolster the safety net for low-emission farms

We can shift credit programs to bolster sustainable practices

We can shift agricultural conservation and sustainability programs

We can shift agricultural R&D programs to reduce emissions

We can shift food service to lower its carbon footprint

Part 1: Designing a Cross-Movement Strategy for Food System Reform in the United States

The U.S. possesses sufficient resources to feed everyone healthy, sustainable, and compassionate food, yet federal policies prioritize large corporations and factory farms, neglecting the needs of families, farmers, and communities. Farm Sanctuary conducted extensive outreach over two years, engaging diverse constituents to inform a resource-based approach to shifting federal investments. This approach recognizes the importance of elevating food as a policy priority and promoting plantbased foods to achieve shared goals of nutritional security, sustainable farming, and social justice. Policymakers can support transformative changes that benefit animals, people, and the planet by redirecting federal investments away from harmful factory farming practices and toward more sustainable and inclusive plant-based food production.

The Roadmap: Healthy families, farmers, and communities

The following Roadmap is a foundation for collaboration. It is a synthesis of pathways promoted by policymakers, practitioners, activists, researchers, families, and communities to “build the good” — just and sustainable food systems that nourish everyone.

The Roadmap identifies 40 federal policies focused on nutritional security, infrastructure, and the climate that can provide pathways toward a flourishing food system that supports the social-ecological health of families, farmers, and communities.

Shifting federal food policy

Federal policy leads to wasted and misused resources, exacerbating inequality and accelerating environmental crises. However, improved national strategies focused on nutritional security, infrastructure, and the climate can improve public health, protect public resources, support rural economies, conserve land and water, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and increase climate resilience. The Roadmap explores such national strategies to advance these shared priorities, serving as an educational tool for policymakers, community members, and advocates to achieve systemic and sustainable food system transformation.

Three strategies for shifting federal food policy:

1. Nutritional security strategy. Implementing a national nutritional security strategy is crucial to ensuring communities and families are well-nourished while prioritizing specialty crop production and sustainable opportunities for farmers to grow food for people.

The problem: Current investments in industrial-scale livestock feed and commodity crop-based fuel production result in the waste of vital agricultural resources, negatively impacting farmers, families, farmworkers, and the environment.

The solution: Redirecting federal lending, expenditure, and regulatory frameworks toward bolstering a comprehensive food production and accessibility strategy can mitigate waste, improve soil health, enhance food system resilience, and support agricultural livelihoods.

2. Community infrastructure strategy: Elevating local food service partners and small-scale regional producers to critical infrastructure stakeholders is essential for empowering local communities and enhancing the resilience of our food systems.

The problem: Federal policies impede community food service providers from developing sustainable, long-term solutions, which adversely affects farmers, families, food chain workers, regional economies, and the environment.

The solution: Realign federal lending, spending, and regulatory frameworks to be data-driven and community-led, leveraging existing investments in nutrition, conservation, and sustainability to enhance food infrastructure nationwide.

3. Food climate strategy. Integrating food and agriculture into the national GHG reduction strategy, including conservation and sustainability objectives, is necessary to address increased climate instability and environmental degradation caused by our food systems.

The problem: Agriculture has been largely excluded from meaningful sustainability initiatives, resulting in significant harm to farmers, farm workers, families, air quality, soil health, water resources, and wildlife.

The solution: Integrate food and agriculture into the GHG reduction agenda by prioritizing emissions reduction in food production processes and advancing climate-friendly diets. Invest in low-emission foods (e.g., fruits, vegetables, and legumes) and conservation strategies (e.g. agroforestry and reforestation) to sequester carbon and reduce food system emissions.

We can advance shared goals by leveraging equitable plant-based food systems

There are enough resources in the United States to feed everyone healthy, sustainable, and compassionate food.

Unfortunately, federal investments prioritize factory farms, billion-dollar corporations, and the country’s largest landowners at the expense of everyone else: farmers, farm workers, families, communities, animals, and our shared environment.

In the past two years, we have built partnerships with organizations and community change-makers nationwide. Through this extensive outreach, we gained valuable insights, including:

• Food must be elevated as a policy and civic sector priority. Food holds significant importance for health, sustainability, rural development, social justice, and animal welfare. Decision-makers must prioritize food interventions to address these intersecting issues.

• Whole plant-based foods advance shared goals. We identified shared goals in universal nutritional security, sustainable farmer opportunity, and justice across the food system supply chain. The U.S. must meet these priorities by reorienting its food systems to focus on sustainable plant-based foods.

• Shifts in federal investment for animals, people, and the planet. The federal government must prioritize high-impact land transitions from corporate landowners to small and medium-sized farmers, particularly Black, Indigenous, Latine, and Asian-identifying producers. The current factory food-based investment strategy rewards large agribusinesses for practices that do not nourish people, prevent local investment in communitydriven food systems, and harm the environment.

Timeline and key events

More than 2,500 food system stakeholders and change-makers were engaged through conversation, surveys, and live events from April 2021 to May 2023. The results of this extensive outreach are summarized below. Please refer to the next section, “Building the Roadmap: A cross-movement collaboration,” for a list of organizations and individuals who provided critical feedback.

April 2021 – June 2021

Farm Sanctuary and the Center for Biological Diversity connected with more than 500 organizations to identify shared challenges and goals. These findings were used to build a cross-movement response to the USDA's call for a "holistic" and "transformative" review of the food system supply chain.

We co-authored comments that recognized “the U.S. food system creates immense, interconnected harms to animals, people, and our shared environment.” These comments, ultimately co-signed by more than 90 farmer, worker, environment, health, community, justice, and animal-centered organizations representing 20 million members, argued federal policy must shift food system assets to advance shared flourishing.¹

The comments identified both shared challenges and key tenets for shifting the food system. Specifically, we found that U.S. food systems:

• Present significant economic, health, and safety risks to farmers, farm workers, and farming communities.

• Deepen local and global environmental crises.

• Undermine regional food systems and household nutritional security.

• Perpetuate systemic racism and other forms of inequity.

We also found support for specific shifts in federal investments toward:

• Food that nourishes people, including sustainable and just forms of fruit, vegetable, legume, fungus, and grain production, rather than the status quo of funding intensive livestock, poultry, and fish production, crops raised for animal feed, or other forms of extractive commodity crop production.

• Regional food systems, including using schools, hospitals, food hubs, community kitchens, and other community food infrastructure to connect farmers with families in need.

• Farmers’ and food chain workers’ interests instead of increasing corporate profits in consolidated industries.

• A sustainable future prioritizing source-reduction strategies in pesticide and fertilizer use, GHG emissions, and water consumption.

June 2021 – October 2022

In response to Agriculture Secretary Vilsack's call for a food system review in June 2021 and to the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022, Farm Sanctuary connected with more than 1,000 organizations. This outreach included important milestones in building a food system that works for animals, people, and the planet.

Phase 1: Building a shared approach

Farm Sanctuary became the first animal-centered organization to formally endorse funding for the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health — the first White House food summit in more than 50 years.

While the White House Conference recognized the importance of the relationship between farmers and families, the resulting strategy only briefly discussed workers' priorities or the environment. In the 44page national strategy, environmental issues are only mentioned twice: in relation to the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts (with USDA and FDA) to address food waste and in the document’s final action to “research the intersection of climate change, food security, and nutrition.”²

As a next step, we contacted the organizations that co-endorsed funding for the conference to learn how they approach work in their communities. We also connected with food chain workers and environmental organizations to learn how to integrate their interests. These conversations reinforced the need to elevate food as a priority at local and national levels. Many of the policies discussed later in this Roadmap were also highlighted.

These conversations — along with the White House strategy — reaffirmed that workers, the environment, and farmed animals have been and continue to be excluded from legal protections and food policy discussions. Leading hunger and nutrition advocates today recognize, however, that nourishing food can also be environmentally sustainable and, in fact, needs to be to ensure long-term food security. The key takeaways include:

1. Food justice and community-led organizations understand how policy can better serve their needs by addressing intersectional issues.

We had the opportunity to engage with food justice leaders from across the country as part of our commitment to holistic and equitable food system reform. Although we initially reached out to them due to their work on food system issues, many organizations were not strictly “food” organizations; they were also involved in social work, workforce development, conservation, education, and community organizing. Despite being essential to the community and achieving food justice, these activities did not easily align with existing investment or programmatic structures.

The conversations highlighted the need for an intersectional approach to food with an inclusive process to meet communities' needs.

2. Agriculture and food system academics and experts agree that there is scientific consensus about many food system solutions, but research funding to support those solutions is limited.

Currently, federally funded academic resources are heavily invested in technological or commercial advances, often in commodity crop production, reflecting USDA R&D priorities.³ Moreover, professional legal, policy, and business education rarely emphasizes food issues or applications. At the same time, nutrition and agriculture education rarely emphasizes legal, policy, or business issues. Nevertheless, outreach to emerging food policy centers and leading academics suggested a new "community-based, systems-level" approach to food research, policy, and practice continues to emerge.

These conversations reinforced the expertise of the USDA extension education network and the role of HBCU land grants in connecting farmers and communities’ needs. They also suggested new avenues for USDA R&D research to support nutrition, sustainability, conservation, and food waste.

Phase 2: Sharing visions of food system shifts

October 2022 – August 2023

We shared and refined our vision of a food system shift with more than 1,000 farmers, policymakers, entrepreneurs, academics, and advocates. The outreach took two forms: events that built shared understanding and conversations exploring how to best communicate shared priorities. We co-hosted, sponsored, or otherwise co-organized the following events:

1. Congressional Food System Staffer Appreciation Day. More than 55 agriculture, nutrition, conservation, and technology staffers and 17 food system, farmer, and animal-centered organizations attended this event on Capitol Hill. We disseminated a list of federal policies to test support for various issues. Plant-centered strategies were also explored as a means of supporting cross-governmental, politically salient priorities during the event. As a follow-up, lobbying meetings were held with Hill staff to continue advocating for these federal policies.⁴

2. Rural Food Forum. The forum was organized by the Eva Clayton Rural Food Institute, with participation from the USDA, national food system funders, academics, food justice advocates, and more than 200 farmers and food entrepreneurs. It focused on how rural economic challenges, diet-related diseases, and racial discrimination are driven by food system failures. It also highlighted how rural communities often face the unfair perception that they are “food deserts” or lack capacity. These communities are leading transformational approaches to building just, sustainable, plant-based food systems.⁵

3. Capitol Hill Roundtable. This event focused on universal nutritional security and sustainable farmer opportunity. It was hosted by Ranking Member of the Rules Committee Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), with participation from Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA), the USDA, community food justice leaders, and national advocates for agriculture, the environment, and animal welfare. The event tested the viability of two food system goals in the context of Farm Bill reform. The event also highlighted the importance of plant-centered strategies to achieve these priorities.⁶

4. Shift the Farm Bill Panel. Hosted on Capitol Hill by Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR), with participation from health, sustainability, community justice, and animal-centered advocates, to introduce the Food and Farm Act. The event highlighted the need for a cross-movement, resource-based approach to shift federal investments. It also illustrated how policy-driven misuse of food system resources harms animals, people, and the planet.⁷

5. 12 Shift the Farm Bill Events. Twelve events across the country, largely co-hosted with law and policy schools, offered the opportunity to engage in cross-movement federal and state priorities beyond the Farm Bill, reflecting the need for an intersectional, “systems-change” approach. From Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Pennsylvania Law Schools to community events in Himrod, New York, and Oxford, Iowa, these events gathered student, professor, and activist feedback on messaging and priorities for both the Farm Bill and food systems more broadly.⁸

Additional Working Groups

Concurrently, through 1:1 and group conversations, we identified core goals: universal nutritional security, sustainable farmer opportunity, and justice across the food system supply chain. We then used outreach, earned and digital media, and external events to test how best to discuss these goals.

From those results, we developed working definitions for these goals, including:

a. Universal Nutritional Security – Ensure everyone can nourish themselves in healthful, culturally appropriate food environments.

b. Sustainable Farmer Opportunity – Ensure present and future generations of small-to-medium farmers can access agricultural land, support themselves, nourish their neighbors, and steward our shared environment.

c. Justice Across the Supply Chain – Represent the interests of all beings and reorient food system governance to advance economic, environmental, and racial justice.

These working definitions synthesize key themes from our research thus far and can help advocates, academics, and practitioners start conversations and coordinate with one another. Additionally, the framework of “Healthy Families, Farmers, and Communities” can help meet people where they are while highlighting many of the outcomes associated with this agenda.

As we work across movements to elevate food system transformation and support change that benefits everyone, we welcome the opportunity to learn how to better advance food justice, particularly from the community-driven organizations who have been working to advance justice for decades, often without the support of governments and markets.

Shift the Farm Bill Panel on Capitol Hill, March 2023.

from left to right: Dr. Ron Weiss, Ethos Primary Care; Mark Rifkin, Center for Biological Diversity; Eloísa Trinidad, Chilis on Wheels; Gene Baur, Farm Sanctuary; Alexandra Bookis, Farm Sanctuary; U.S. Representative Earl Blumenauer

Hill Roundtable on Sustainable Farmer Opportunity and Nutritional Security, January 2023. Pictured from left to right: Dr. Sheila Fleischhacker, National Institute of Food and Agriculture; Earline Middleton, Eva Clayton Rural Food Institute; Christina Williams-DeBrew, Green Rural Redevelopment Organization; Joe Van Wye, Farm Action; Rebecca Valdez, Corbin Hill Food Project; Mark Rifkin, Center for Biological Diversity; Aaron Rimmler-Cohen, Farm Sanctuary

Capitol

Pictured

Building the Roadmap: A cross movement collaboration

Over the span of two years, Farm Sanctuary reached out to more than 2,500 organizations representing farmers, food service workers, animals, the environment, and public health. This extensive outreach informed the recommendations in this Roadmap, which focuses on a cross-movement, resource-based approach to shift federal investments. Through a combination of discussions, surveys, and over 20 in-person events held in locations such as Capitol Hill, Harvard Law School, Henderson, North Carolina and Oxford, Iowa, we gained insights into how shifts in public resources can better support public priorities.

We cannot list all 2,500+ organizations, practitioners, and advocates, as well as more than 150 Congressional lawmakers and staffers who participated in conversations and events that informed this report. A special thank you to the following organizations, whose programming and advice helped to shape this Roadmap’s development.

Alabama Childhood Food Solutions

Alianza Agricola

Bountiful Cities/Food Justice Planning Initiative

Center for Biological Diversity

Chilis on Wheels

Congressional Hunger Center

Dubuque County Food Policy Council (IA)

Eva Clayton Rural Food Institute

Fair Farms

Farm Action

Food Chain Workers Alliance

Food in Neighborhoods Community Coalition

Frederick County Food Council (MD)

Friends of Family Farmers

Grounded Roots

Harvard Animal Law and Policy Clinic

Idaho Hunger Relief Task Force

Local Matters, OH

Maine Network of Community Food Councils

Marshall County Food Council (IN)

Michigan Sustainable Business Forum

Missouri Coalition for the Environment

Natural Resources Defense Council

Northwest Tennessee Local Food Network

Physicians Association for Nutrition USA

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Pittsburgh Food Policy Council (PA)

Pueblo Food Project

Regenerative Organic Alliance

Rodale Institute

Sicangu Community Development Corporation

Slow Food USA

Sustainable Food Center

Urban Seeds

Wellness in the Schools

Western Watersheds

Wisconsin Farmers Union

Authors:

Aaron Rimmler-Cohen, Farm Sanctuary

Alexandra Bookis, Farm Sanctuary

Contributors:

Hannah Connor, Center for Biological Diversity

Jennifer Molidor, Center for Biological Diversity

Stephanie Feldstein, Center for Biological Diversity

Jennifer Mishler, Farm Sanctuary

Cynthia von Schlichten, Farm Sanctuary

Miranda Eisen, Farm Sanctuary

Part II: Elevating Food

A way forward

Today's federal food system investments fail nearly all of us, enriching only a small group of landowners and corporate consolidators. It causes immense harm to animals, people, and the planet. We can work across movements to prioritize food that nourishes people, identify underused and misused resources, and shift policies to advance shared goals.

Food policy matters. Not only once every five years because of the Farm Bill, or once every 50 years when it is the subject of a White House Conference. But every day.

Food policy is essential because of the outsized influence it has on people’s everyday lives. Food not only meets basic needs, but is a central part of our history, culture, economy, and way of life. Food policy matters to all of us, whether it concerns individual health, rural vitality, planetary sustainability, family farms, animal well-being, communities’ right to reject out-of-town polluters, food sovereignty, or other social justice issues. Policymakers and agendasetters must elevate federal food policy as an opportunity for shared progress.

Going forward we need to:

1. Dispel the food efficiency myth: The U.S. food system is inefficient. Contrary to the popular belief driven by industry narratives, the U.S. factory food investment model is neither economically efficient nor effective for animals, people, or the planet.

2. Prioritize food system reform to address shared challenges. Diet-related diseases are the top cause of death in the U.S. and industrial agriculture’s GHG emissions, as well as the mismeasurement and underreporting of these emissions, threaten environmental progress.

3. Invest in food systems to build shared prosperity and support healthy communities. Investing in evidence-based federal policies can produce shared economic gains and help animals, people, and the planet flourish.

In defense of bold federal action

Federal action is imperative for the United States if we are to build food systems that benefit animals, people, and the planet.

We firmly believe that bold action on the part of the federal government is critical for the welfare of people, animals, and the planet.

The prevailing model is fundamentally flawed, and a transformative shift in the U.S. food system is inevitable. The pivotal question is not whether this transformation will take place, but rather whose interests it will ultimately serve.

The landscape of American food systems has undergone significant evolution over the past half-century. Once mainly occupied by small and medium-sized farms, today's agricultural terrain is dominated by feed-and-fuel operations and industrial-scale farms.⁹ This transition has resulted in a globalized, consolidated, and precarious production and distribution network, where corporate profits soar at the expense of farmers, laborers, animals, and environmental sustainability.10

Amidst the challenges posed by a changing food system lie opportunities for collective progress across realms of animal welfare, human health, and ecological integrity. While burgeoning global and local populations exacerbate environmental crises, demographic shifts, and ecological transformations, they also catalyze the emergence of innovative technologies and community-driven models. These potential systemic transformations hold promise for fostering equitable, compassionate, and sustainable solutions for all.

Collaborative efforts between animal, human, and environmental advocates are pivotal for realizing progress. Informed by empirical data and lived experiences, policy reforms at all levels are imperative for advancing societal well-being. A bold federal response is warranted to overhaul the current paradigm of federal expenditure, lending practices, and regulatory frameworks.

Establishing a shared language and strategic objectives is essential for galvanizing ambitious federal action. Despite the abundance of U.S. resources, the prevailing factory food system, shaped by federal policies, perpetuates exploitation of these resources.11 Framing cross-movement challenges through the lens of "healthy families, farmers, and communities" delineates the potential for a more equitable and resilient system.

To advance the cause of healthy families, farmers, and communities, the subsequent section delineates three strategic shifts: nutritional security, community infrastructure, and a food climate strategy. Although these pathways are not exclusively reliant on plantbased solutions, they acknowledge the significant role of plants and plant-based foods in driving collective objectives. Drawing insights from the deficiencies of the current system, these strategies aim to cultivate a food system that caters to the needs of all stakeholders.

Dispelling the food efficiency myth

The U.S. factory food investment model: A story of inefficiency

The current factory food system is only “efficient” at producing cheap food in ways that waste tremendous financial, social, and natural resources. The system fails to nourish people while accelerating local and global environmental crises.

The prevalence of cheap food has not improved even basic access to adequate nutrition. While U.S. households spend 8.6% of disposable income on food, less than any other country tracked,12 one in five U.S. households overall and one in four U.S. households with children still suffered from food insecurity in 2022.13

Prioritizing cheap agricultural production also generates significant environmental harms. 80%90% of U.S. corn and soy is grown not to nourish people but as an input for unsustainable fuel and factory farms.14 As a result of widespread pollution from factory food production, more than half of all U.S. rivers are in poor biological health, and an estimated 16,000 people die every year from farming-related air pollution. 80% of those deaths result from factory farms.15

U.S. Food System Productivity Declined From 2010-2019

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service United States World

U.S. Invested More Resources Into Food System for Less Return

(2010-2019)

Growth Rate in Land, Labor, Capital, Feed and Fertilizer Overall Food System Growth Rate United States World

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service

Prioritizing food system reform to address shared challenges

Food policy interventions can create outsized challenges or benefits across numerous political and social priorities. Inefficient, unhealthy, and unjust food systems affect our personal and public health, the environment, shared economic gain, social justice, and animal welfare.

Shared concerns include:

a. Personal health: Since COVID-19, personal health has become more of a priority for people in the U.S.16 In fact, U.S. consumers were least likely to cut health spending in response to inflation.17 And although 85% of healthcare spending is related to diet-related chronic disease,18 these illnesses remain the top cause of death in the U.S.19

b. Environmental sustainability: Seven in ten people in the U.S. favor a pathway to carbon neutrality by 2050.20 Individuals under the age of 30 identify environmental sustainability as their top issue by an even higher percentage.21 Food systems cause 33% of global GHG emissions,22 but only 3% of public climate finance goes to food interventions.23

c. Shared economic gains: More than 70% of people in the U.S. prioritized strengthening the economy as their top issue in 2022.24 Since 2000, over 70% of wealth gain has accrued to the top 10% of households, with wealth inequality worsening faster since 2020.25 More than one in 10 people in the U.S. work in the food system. However, food chain workers receive the lowest median wages of any industry, with 40% at or below the federal poverty level.26

d. Social justice: Human Rights Watch has identified “flagrant [food system] violations” of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by the U.S.27 Two in three Black people in the U.S. say Congress should prioritize “racial issues” as its top priority.28 Food insecurity rates among Black or Latine households is double that experienced by White households.29 More than eight in 10 farmworkers identify as non-White,30 and farmworkers suffer from poisoning events 29 times more often than the average worker.31

e. Animal well-being: The U.S. food system raises more than 10 billion animals and countless fish.32 The vast majority live in factory farm conditions that cause immense physical, mental, and emotional harm.33 A 2022 Ipsos survey found more than eight in 10 people in the U.S. expressed concerns related to factory farms, with more in favor of a factory farm ban than opposed. Furthermore, 79% highlighted animal welfare concerns, second only to public health.34

Food intervention and plant-based strategies are part of the solution

From lower healthcare costs and positive economic impacts to household security, community well-being, and ecosystem-wide health, food interventions and plant-based strategies have a proven track record of producing strong, interconnected benefits for farmers, workers, families, and communities both human and non-human.

a. Personal health: Plant-based diets are associated with reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, chronic pain, and diet-related disease.35 Each adult enabled to become food secure would reduce annual healthcare costs by $1,834 annually.36

b. Environmental sustainability: Most U.S. farmland and agro-chemicals are used to grow food for animals, not people.37 Plant-based foods provide greater nutritional benefits with fewer emissions while conserving soil and water.38

c. Shared economic gains: Nutrition and farm-to-school programs return $1.5 – $2.1 in economic value for every dollar spent.39 This is among one of the highest community multipliers of any policy.40 A nine-state study of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fruit and vegetable incentives found an up to $3 return in economic value for every dollar spent—double standard nutrition returns.41

d. Social justice: Community-led groups, such as those making up the Equitable Food Oriented Development (EFOD) collaborative, demonstrate how food and agriculture projects can build “shared power, cultural expression, and community asset-building.”42 More culturally appropriate menus in schools, hospitals, and carceral institutions will reflect greater plant-forward and plant-based options.43

e. Animal well-being: Factory farming is among the top causes of species loss, and we are currently experiencing a “sixth mass extinction.”44 In terms of biomass, a majority of land vertebrates live as animals on farms. Plant-based nutrition and agriculture, in concert with other conservation and environmental practices, can promote biodiversity and reduce U.S. reliance on farmed animals.45

Part III: Identifying Underused and Misused Food System Resources

Food system reform can support shared prosperity and shared flourishing

The United States has sufficient natural, social, and financial resources to nourish all residents in an equitable, compassionate, and sustainable manner.46 Unfortunately, federal policies mismanage these resources. For instance, producer investments often exacerbate environmental challenges and result in even more consolidation, which harms family farmers and rural communities.47 In the meantime, little legislative progress has been made since Nixon-era reforms to end hunger and build nutritional security.48

Federal investments can better nourish people.

• Federal investments drive supply-side decisionmaking. The total federal food system loan and

investment portfolio is equivalent to 1/3 of food’s annual contributions to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).49 These investments “stack” to benefit large landowners and agribusinesses producing industrial inputs — crops designed for feed, fuel, and junk food. Federal investments can be shifted to better prioritize crops that sustainably nourish people, including fruits, vegetables, and legumes.

• Many programs prioritize commercial production or cost efficiency over public needs. Nutrition, food service, conservation, and research programs can be better leveraged to improve families' nutritional security, environmental sustainability, and equity.

National investments shape U.S. food systems, particularly industrial farm production.

• Federal agencies invest tens of billions in taxpayer dollars in U.S. food systems and hundreds of billions are used to subsidize food and farm loans. In the U.S., industrial food production is publicly financed and privately managed. In 2019, the federal agricultural loan portfolio, through the Farm Service Agency and Farm Credit System ($250.4B) and investments ($127.1B), was equal to approximately 34% of the food system’s contributions to the GDP (1.1T).50 The rules of these loans and the priorities reflected in public investments shape U.S. food system outcomes. These investments and their corresponding economic impacts are not evenly distributed across the supply chain. Farm lending and investments greatly exceed other forms of federal investment.51

• Public agricultural loans and direct investments drive on-farm production. In 2019, the federal agricultural lending and spending portfolio more than doubled farms’ annual contributions to GDP.52 In an average year, the Farm Credit System and Farm Service Agency fund guarantee approximately 51% of the farm lending market.53 This means public regulations shape access to cheaper debt — a golden opportunity in farm and food industries, which are often capital-intensive. Through these producer investments, the federal government offers risk-free, publicly subsidized opportunities to those who can access funding. While these investments could be used to support marginalized farmers producing nutritious food, those with the most access are often largescale producers leveraging credit, revenue insurance, and conservation payments to grow industrial feed, fuel, and commodity crops.

Food System Lending & Spending Drive Production 2019

U.S. Agricultural Lending & Spending Portfolio Far Exceeds Farms’ Annual Contributions to GDP (2019)

Food System Contributions to GDP

Agricultural funding favors corporate consolidators and worsens inequity

Large landowner profits are fueled by agricultural loans and spending

A large proportion of the Farm Credit System's money goes to millionaire landowners rather than small and medium-sized family farms.

Over 52% of Farm Credit System debt is owed by the top 1% of borrowers.54 These borrowers each took out loans of $5 million or more.55 The debt of loans of $250 million or more exceeds the debt of loans of $1,000 - $250,000 by over 30%.56

A public agricultural loan reduces the cost of farming per acre, benefiting large-scale farmers disproportionately. The current lending practices bolster consolidation and the production of feed and fuel commodities over foods that nourish people directly. This lending simultaneously creates barriers to land access that is fundamental to farming, especially for small and medium sized producers.

The top 7% largest commodity subsidy recipients have received 69% of all payments.57

Most of these payments are “revenue protection” or federal guarantees of private incomes. Together, the credit and revenue protection programs de-risk industrial agricultural production. They also drive economic inequality and consolidation, supporting the largest landowners at the expense of small and medium-sized farms. More than Half of All Farm

Sources: Congressional Research Service, Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation, U.S. Department of Agriculture

7-in-10 Federal Commodity Support Dollars Go to Top 7% Largest Recipients (1995-2020)

Source: Environmental Working Group Most Insurance Protects Revenues, Not Against Disasters (2019)

Federal agricultural insurance often supports basic agricultural incomes for the largest landowners, not yield protection.58

Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) have replaced traditional direct-to-farmer commodity payments.59 This form of “revenue-based insurance” acts as a subsidy for commodity production.

Agricultural loans and spending primarily support feed and fuel, not food for consumers

In the period between 2015 and 2019, revenue insurance payments for corn and soybeans were 35% higher than payments for all other commodities.60 Most of these payments are “revenue protection” or federal guarantees of private income.

As of 2013, over three-quarters of all corn and soy crops were grown for industrial-scale livestock feed or fuel production.

It is also likely that these figures understate the proportion of corn and soy that today supports feed and fuel in two important ways. About 11% of corn and 5% of soy were exported primarily as animal feed or biofuel in 2013, according to the USDA. This means that well over 80% of both corn and soy were used, whether domestically or globally, for animal feed or biofuel.61 Furthermore, corn and soy exports have grown since 2013. Corn exports grew by over 25%, while soybean exports grew by about 30%.62

Corn-derived ethanol is not a climate solution. Ethanol combustion is at least 24% more carbon-intensive than gasoline combustion, according to a 2022 study of the "Renewable Fuel Subsidy."63

Revenue Insurance Payments by Commodity (2015-2019)

Source: Environmental Working Group

2013 USDA Report Shows 3-in-4 Corn and Soy Crops are Feed or Fuel Crops

Corn Wheat

Federal agricultural investments reflect and deepen structural inequalities, particularly systemic racism

Black, Indigenous, and Latine farmers do not benefit from federal programs at the same levels as White farmers.

Black and Latine farmers receive less in government payments, per farmer, than White farmers, resulting from Black and Latine farmers’ comparatively smaller landholdings. However, although Indigenous farmers have more land, on average, than White producers, Indigenous farmers also receive less funding, on average, than White producers.64

Rewarding land ownership through federal credit, insurance, and conservation payments reinforces structural racism.

Agricultural investments typically reward "production," which is a result of land ownership and industrial use. As the vast majority of farmland in the country is owned by people who identify as White (98% in 2014), they receive most of the benefits.65

Thousands of U.S. Dollars

Producers Who Identify as Black Receive About Half in Government Payments Compared With Producers Who Identify as White (2017)

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Producers Who Identify as Indigenous Receive About 40% in Per-Acre Government Payments Compared With Producers Who Identify as White (2017)

Thousands of U.S. Dollars

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Black White

Indigenous White

Federal land resource management prioritizes industry over people and the environment

Meat production uses more federally-owned land than any other activity — including national parks and national defense.66

Grazed grasslands make up more than one-third of federally owned land.67 The approximately 230 million acres dedicated to rangeland is more than 2.5x more land than what is dedicated to national parks.68

Most grasslands in the western United States are managed by public land agencies.69 U.S. meat producers are undercharged by nearly 1500% for land access.70

Every year, public lands grazing costs the public over $100 million. These costs result from administrative expenses that exceed fees for use.71 As of 2024, the federal government charges the lowest grazing fee allowable by law ($1.35/animal unit).72 The USDA 17-state average for grazing fees on private land is $21.50/ animal unit.73 The $20.15 difference between public and private fees represents an additional multibillion-dollar subsidy for ranchers.

Funding meat production on public land accelerates environmental disasters.

From water use and pollution to land habitat fragmentation and degradation, wildlife killing, and GHG emissions, grazing livestock on public lands accelerates environmental crises.74 Public lands management can be better directed to mitigate climate change through ecosystem restoration and rewilding, while supporting tourism and the environment.

Federal inaction enables corporate consolidation at the expense of communities

Tyson Foods, JBS, Marfrig, and Seaboard — the top meat producers — increased their profits by 300% in 2021.75 The profits of other major food producers also increased as their market power increased.76

Under current policies, corporate consolidation is prioritized over consumer access and well-being.

Corporate consolidators continue to benefit from both federal supply-side investment, which lowers their costs, and virtually non-existent antitrust enforcement in food and agriculture, which allows the consolidators to gouge customers and exploit workers.77 As a result, farmers cannot sustain themselves, children work in unsafe meatpacking and slaughterhouse environments, and consolidator profits continue to grow.78

Federal food service programs make significant, direct food system investments but fail to prioritize nutrition security and sustainability

USDA food service programs and DOD procurement are major contributors to the U.S. food system.

A comparison of supply-side producer investments and food service investments is shown in the graph (right). Food service investments exceeded supply-side investments by even more in prior years. From 2016-2018, federal commodity payments averaged $8.3 billion, less than half the 2019 figure. In those years, the National School Lunch Program alone invested 70% more than commodity support, including revenue-based insurance.79

School Food and DOD Food System Investments Equal to Commodity & Insurance Agricultural Spending in 2019

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Most school meal program investments originate from the federal government, even though local communities make purchasing decisions.80

Labor, kitchen equipment, and other food service capital expenses are included in the figure (right). These figures may underestimate the federal contribution to school food in important ways. Grants and subsidized loans to support school food infrastructure, for instance, would not be included as federal contributions.81

Most school food spending is reinvested in the factory food system.

Nearly 3-in-4 School Food Dollars Come From Federal Government

Federal Funding for School Food

All Other School Food Expenditure

Sources: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Although nutrition and food service investments are quite substantial, the investments are not properly directed to bolster nutritional security, environmental sustainability, and other public priorities.82 Instead, red tape and restrictions make it difficult, expensive, time-consuming, and confusing to source fresh, healthy, sustainable or even local, organic foods, and instead lead to purchasing from food conglomerates, ultra-processed foods, and above all industrial scale, factory-farmed meat production.83

Through current organizing by organizations such as the Center for Good Food Purchasing and the Food Chain Workers Alliance, vital regulatory reforms have been advanced to give schools the flexibility they need to nourish their own communities.84 Like SNAP users, schools face significant restrictions in purchasing and planning.85 As a result of temporary COVID relief measures, local communities demonstrated tremendous capacity. Regulatory reform can enable this type of innovation.

This regulatory approach can be complemented by infrastructure and incentives. Community food infrastructure models, notably central kitchens for public schools, have achieved holistic progress over the last decade.86 School districts have also leveraged federal investments to support healthy and sustainable local food systems with state-level incentives, such as Michigan's "10 cents-a-meal" for fruits, vegetables, and legumes.87

The school milk mandate wastes resources and harms children, communities, and cows

29% of all milk served in U.S. schools is thrown out.88

For schools to receive federal funds, they must serve dairy milk as their primary beverage option.89 Consequently, the program wastes about $300 million a year.90 That’s enough money to fund the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program and the Value-Added Producer Grant programs for the next four years.91

Milk mandates are structurally discriminatory and force milk onto non-White students who disproportionately cannot digest lactose.

About one-third of people in the U.S. suffer from lactose intolerance, but 70-95% of people who identify as Asian, Black, Indigenous, and Latine cannot digest lactose.92 The milk mandate is challenged by civil rights groups as an example of dietary racism. In an August 2022 letter to the USDA's Equity Commission, 28 civil rights and health organizations described the policy as "inherently inequitable and socially unjust." 93 A subsequent letter to the USDA from 31 members of Congress highlighted the importance of sharing the physical and mental harms associated with the mandate, such as discomfort, poor academic performance, and anaphylaxis.94 Culturally appropriate meals and products should be available to students at schools.

The milk subsidy shifts food investments to support a small number of states.

California produces almost one out of every five gallons of milk in the United States.95 In states like Alabama, where there are only 25 dairy farms, the milk mandate shifts decision-making power away from local communities.96

The milk subsidy harms mother cows and their children.

Mother cows and their babies suffer immense physical and emotional harm in the dairy industry.97 Dairy production relies on the continuous forced impregnation of cows and the severing of the mother-child bond through early separation and often the prevention of nursing. In addition, the dairy industry props up the veal industry. Male calves of dairy cows, who serve no economic purpose on dairy farms, are sold then confined alone in veal crates before slaughter.98

Conservation spending deprioritizes the most effective practices for soil and climate

Conservation programs spend more on individual conservation practices and less on wholefarm sustainability.99 This helps industrial-scale producers, but neglects sustainable agricultural approaches with the most environmental and social benefit.

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)'s "whole farm" approach had a much higher return-oninvestment than the other two major conservation programs, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.100 Despite this, CSP funding declined from 2016 to 2019 as other programs grew.101

Most of the conservation funding goes to either cover crops for commodity producers or activities that claim to mitigate the negative impacts of factory farms.102 Additional payments are made to large farmers who are already subsidized by agricultural lending and spending programs.103 Not only does this deepen inequality among farmers, but it also excludes many of the farmers and agricultural practices that could have a significant impact on climate change.

Best-available research shows if 10% of the highest-impact U.S. pastureland and cropland were transitioned to agroforestry, we could sink 30% of all U.S. emissions.104

Conservation Stewardship Program

Net Change in Funding (2016-2019) Estimated Program Return in Investment

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Private sector agricultural research has replaced federal research, yet public research continues to invest in private priorities

Public sector agricultural R&D funding has been replaced by the private sector.

From 2000-2014, private sector agricultural research and development (R&D) doubled, from approximately $6.8B to $13.7B (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars), while public sector R&D fell by 23%.105

Federal agricultural R&D funding prioritizes commercial outcomes over social ends.

The Agricultural Research Service, the USDA’s internal science program, spends more on production than any other area.106

Agricultural research in the United States is now private sector led.107 The remaining public sector research supports commercial ends, further squeezing public priorities.108

Millions of Inﬂation Adjusted (2019) U.S. Dollars

Federal Agriculture R&D Investment Has Declined to 1970’s Lows

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture: Economic Research Service

Federal Agricultural Research Service Invested More In Production-Enhancing Research than Nutrition & the Environment Combined (2022) Production Protection & Safety Environment & Sustainability

Human Nutrition

Other

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research Service

Shifting food system resources to improve nutrition and food security

Federal food system investments can better support healthy, equitable, and sustainable outcomes for animals, people, and the planet

Our factory food system, designed and funded by federal policy, wastes tremendous abundance.

Producer investments support unsustainable, inequitable forms of food production that fail to nourish people. Families and communities are hindered from making their own food choices because of food service and nutrition investments. Conservation and R&D ask, “how can fundamentally unsustainable and inequitable systems improve incrementally?” as opposed to “how can the federal government invest in strategic shifts that will most benefit all of us — animals, people, and the planet?”

A major problem with U.S. farm policy is that we invest in crops that harm farmers, workers, and the environment and do not nourish the population.

Investments in federal farm programs help large landowners and agribusinesses grow crops that, for the most part, do not nourish people. These investments drive U.S. fertilizer and pesticide use (the highest in the world per capita), harming local environments, farmworkers, and their families.109 They also make factory farming cheaper, subsidizing the most GHG-intensive form of food production.110

Second, U.S. policy pushes nutrition and food service program purchasers, schools, communities, and families to prioritize cost over purpose.

Federal nutrition and food service investments make little use of proven, evidence-based interventions like per-purchase quality incentives. About 3.6% of SNAP beneficiaries use fruit and vegetable incentives, which are only available in certain states.111 Pilot projects like Michigan's 10-cent subsidy for meals including in-state grown fruits, vegetables, and legumes have not been scaled or replicated, despite their clear success.112

Long-term planning and infrastructure development are also hindered by this efficiency mindset, which seeks to maximize users served and minimize perunit costs. As one local food justice group involved in federal food service programming described, “they treat us more like Instacart shoppers than vital infrastructure.”

Then, U.S. policy uses the remaining conservation and research and development programs to double-down on commercial priorities.

Conservation programs prioritize helping factory farms clean up their mess while paying feed-and-fuel farms to do the bare minimum. The reasons for this include Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) requirements that force half of federal spending to support animal agriculture, as well as spending that invests more in EQIP-style "activities" and less in CSP's "whole-farm" approach.113 Despite the rise of private agricultural R&D and the relative decline of public investment, federal R&D programs support commercial production more than other priorities.114

Ultimately, it is the factory food investment model that enables the raising and slaughter of 10 billion farmed animals in the United States every year. 115

Subsidies support cheap feed and guarantee revenues for the largest factory farmers, while providing animals with virtually no legal protection.116 Public lands directly support unsustainable ranching practices, cost taxpayers more than $100 million annually, and subsidize ranchers with cheap land access worth more than all annual federal investments in fruit and vegetable producers combined.117

Together, nutrition and food service, conservation, and R&D programs can help to anchor food systems that work for everyone.

Federal policy underuses these resources. Nutritional security, whole-farm sustainability, and community-led research collaborations can promote healthy families, farmers, and animal well-being.

U.S. farm programs can also be reformed to hold large-scale operations accountable and advance effective solutions.

Federal policy can hold large-scale producers and factory farms accountable for their environmental harms while standardizing current conservation best practices incentivizing the most-impactful environmental and nutritional security solutions.

Part IV: What Can We Do?

Shifting Federal Policy for Healthy Families, Farmers, and Communities

Pathways to healthy families, farmers, and communities: Nutritional security, community infrastructure, and food climate strategies

Nutritional security, infrastructure, and food climate pathways can catalyze systems-wide transformation that supports healthy families, farmers, and communities. The pathways outlined by the 40 federal policies that follow are not intended to address every issue confronting today's food supply chain, but are part of a wider strategy to shift the anchor of federal policy from one that entrenches the factory food system to one that supports flourishing for all.

A national nutritional security strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

The Status Quo: Investments in feed and fuel commodity crops waste agricultural resources that could be used to grow food, harming farmers, families, farmworkers, taxpayers, and the shared environment.

Farmers suffer harm: While industry farms growing feed and fuel make record profits, family farmers are struggling to survive.118 To sustain their operations, small and medium-sized farmers rely on off-farm income.119 The largest landowners rely on federal farm lending and spending programs, including credit, insurance, conservation, and R&D.

Reforming the farm safety net to prioritize crops that nourish people over feed and fuel crops can reduce farm consolidation and build sustainable farmer opportunities. Currently, just 30% of farmers are eligible for subsidies covering their crops.120 As a result of a feed-and-fuel to food transition, federal farm program benefits will be distributed more fairly.

Families suffer harm: We eat what we produce, and what we’re eating is killing us. More than nine in 10 federal agriculture dollars do not support fruits, vegetables, legumes, and grains that nourish people, and more than nine in 10 U.S. adults do not consume USDA-recommended fruits and vegetables.121 85% of healthcare expenses are related to diet-related diseases, which are the top cause of death in the U.S. and disproportionately affect Black, Brown, and Latine communities.122

It is also important to promote healthy food access through demand-side programs. Nutrition and food service programs can use fruit, vegetable, and legume incentives to improve health equity and nutritional security. Through other pathways, including strengthening medically tailored meal and produce prescription programs through Medicaid and Medicare, targeted assistance can be provided to those most in need of affordable medical care that integrates food as medicine.

Farmworkers suffer harm: Conventional corn production uses about 40% of all pesticides in the U.S., and about 80%-90% of corn is used for feed or fuel, not food for people.123 Due to pesticide exposure, it is estimated that farmworkers suffer pesticide-related illness and injury at 37x the rate of nonagricultural workers.124 However, this is likely a significant underestimate given legal and structural barriers facing many farmworkers.125

In coordination with other USDA programs like the EQIP Organic Initiative, a feed and fuel to food transition can dramatically reduce pesticide use. Additionally, Congress should ban toxic pesticides already banned in the European Union or China.

Taxpayers suffer harm: Over the last three decades, corn and soy have received more commodity support than any other crop.126 Feed-and-fuel crops waste billions of taxpayer dollars that could be used to build nutrition security and sustainable opportunities for farmers.

The environment suffers harm: Feed-and-fuel commodity crop investments drive chemical use and make the highest GHG-emitting foods cheaper.127 As a result, nitrogen imbalances, pollinator declines, and rising global temperatures threaten future food production.128

In coordination with this Roadmap's integrated food climate and environmental pathway, a feed-and-fuel to food transition can support local and global environmental sustainability and the health of the U.S. population. By implementing such a transition, EQIP and other agricultural programs can accomplish many of their priorities more efficiently.

We can shift nutrition programs to support healthy food access

Families rely on SNAP and school meal programs for reliable nourishment.

Approximately 82% of the new Farm Bill will invest in nutrition spending.129 It is estimated that approximately 40 million people each year will be able to feed their families as a result of these investments.130 From the USDA’s “Healthy Incentives Pilot” to “Double Up Food Bucks” SNAP programs, healthy incentives support more nourishing food access and consumption.131 States, however, implement SNAP in ways that limit its accessibility and restrict families' power to purchase the food they want.132 Current policy leaves out 96% of participants.133

Changes in SNAP policy keep nourishing food accessible for millions of people, despite the COVID pandemic and once-in-a-generation levels of inflation.134

The SNAP program served 41.2 million people on average every month in 2022. That's one in eight Americans.135 Since SNAP is a "countercyclical" program, it invests more as the need increases.136 As a result of COVID-era reforms, the program was able to keep up with inflation.137

Support healthy food choices through national SNAP fruit and vegetable incentives.

Summary: Provide a $0.30 cash-back floor for all fresh, frozen, canned, or dried fruits and vegetable purchases, excluding 100% fruit juice or products with added sugars, fats, oils, and salt, up to a monthly limit.

Rationale: SNAP nutrition incentives are proven, evidence-based solutions to support families, farmers, retailers, and local economies.138 Unfortunately, fewer than 4% of SNAP users receive Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) “Double Up Food Bucks” benefits.139 A “National GusNIP Expansion Act” scales the successful Massachusetts “Healthy Incentives Pilot,” (HIP) a model touted by the 2022 Biden-Harris national strategy.140 HIP used a $0.30 incentive to increase SNAP users’ fruit and vegetable consumption by 25%.141

The policy would also enable a more rapid expansion of GusNIP, supporting more producers at farmers markets and more families wherever they shop. Among those who responded to our survey, more than nine in 10 endorsers of the White House Conference supported a $0.30 floor. This includes the Congressional Hunger Center, Health Care Without Harm, the Idaho Hunger Relief Task Force, and Alabama Childhood Food Solutions.

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) food packages should be flexible to meet the nutritional needs of young families and close gaps in access to the program.

Summary: First, allow the equivalent fruits, vegetables, legumes, or peanut butter to replace any other WIC food package category. Second, provide federal administrative support to help states close the WIC access gap, targeting eligible families with children who are at least two years old.

Rationale: The WIC food package should support nourishing food choices for all who need support. Right now, strict regulations, according to WIC administrators and recipients, prevent families from making their own food choices. As a former WIC dietician and current New York City food justice organizer said during Farm Sanctuary’s 2023 Capitol Hill Roundtable:

“Working for a local WIC agency, [we] provided critical nutrition assistance. However, I found myself having the same conversations. They’d say, ‘My kids love fruits - could we get more fruit?’ and I’d reply, ‘No, but I can give you four gallons of milk. Would that work for you?’ . . . Federal allocations uphold the status quo, not nutrition.” 142

Currently, nearly all eligible families with children under one year old participate in WIC. Eligible families with children over one year old have a participation rate of less than 50%.143 Developing administrative support tools for all eligible participants should be a collaborative effort between USDA and states.

We can shift food service to support healthy food access

Support healthy and sustainable food choices for USDA Food and Nutrition Service program participants through fruit, vegetable, and legume incentives.

Summary: Provide school food authorities and qualified caregivers with an incentive of $0.10 per meal for National School Breakfast, Lunch, and Summer Meals, as well as Child and Adult Care Food Program meals containing fruits, vegetables, and legumes grown locally (within 200 miles). Provide an additional $0.10 match for any state that provides a $0.10 incentive.

Rationale: Federal nutrition programs should invest in local producers. Schools face significant barriers when it comes to establishing relationships with producers and distributors, setting up infrastructure for drop-offs and deliveries, and training food workers.144 Schools continue to face a significant challenge due to rising costs, particularly following the most recent inflationary period.145 Many producers with whom we spoke had no interest in supporting these federal programs unless they could be compensated fairly.

Michigan's 10-cents-per-meal subsidy and New York's 30% initiative support this transaction. The 10-cents-per-meal pilot allowed participating schools to apply for grants to subsidize fruit, vegetable, and legume purchases within the state.146 New York schools that use more than 30% of their food budgets on in-state food products are eligible for a $0.25 subsidy the following year.147

We spoke with farmers, school food directors, and academics who said the Michigan model has several advantages over the New York model. First, 30% is a high threshold for many schools to meet, particularly schools serving predominantly low-income students.148 A per-meal subsidy with no threshold is more equitable. Second, the New York initiative could apply to any New York food product.149 For example, a local Domino’s pizza serving New York schools could count as a “New York product” for the purposes of reimbursement. The Michigan model better targets nutritional outcomes, as well as farmer and environmental benefits.

We can shift credit to support healthy food production

Incentivize healthy and sustainable transitions for feed and fuel crop farmers.

Summary: Reduce APR by 0.1% on Farm Credit System or Farm Service Agency debt for every 1% of farmland transitioned away from feed or fuel crops to growing fruits, vegetables, legumes, fungi, or grains that nourish people. Scale incentives to 0% APR on debt for borrowers up to $5 million in debt, and to the Federal Reserve Rate on debt for borrowers of $5 million or more, prioritizing Black and Latine borrowers.

Rationale: Feed and fuel crop production wastes critical agricultural resources. The federal government can incentivize land-use transition from food agricultural waste to food that nourishes people.

Farm Credit System and Farm Service Agency debt manages approximately 51% of all agricultural debt in the United States.150 The Farm Credit System is popular among large landowners who can leverage their land at publicly subsidized rates.151 A cutoff of $5 million will make the maximum incentive available to more than 99% of borrowers.152 Pegging the largest borrowers’ maximum benefit to the Federal Reserve Rate ensures the transition incentive benefits the borrower without further fueling consolidation.

This policy may be particularly beneficial in a rising interest rate environment. According to Farm Credit East, two-thirds of their borrowers hold variable interest rate loans.153 This means that as the Federal Reserve raises interest rates, the costs to borrowers increase.

Charge the largest feed and fuel producers their fair share to fund equitable fruit, vegetable, and legume production.

Summary: Charge a 1% annual fee of total debt owed to any Farm Credit System borrower of $1M or more who receives more than 50% of their gross cash farm receipts from feed or fuel crops. Use proceeds to support federal funding for disadvantaged fruit, vegetable, and legume farmers through subsidized loans, grants, and/or government contracts.

Rationale: A 1% annual fee on total debt acts as a tax on feed and fuel crop production. This policy targets the top 1.2% of Farm Credit System borrowers, who are responsible for over half of Farm Credit System debt.154 Farm Credit System loans address 44% of agricultural debt.155 This tax would raise about $620 million annually to support disadvantaged farmers growing foods that nourish people.156 The tax will also support diversification of feed and fuel croplands, benefiting farm workers and the environment.

We can shift insurance to support sustainable agriculture

Support healthy and sustainable transitions for feed and fuel commodity crop farmers.

Summary: Charge farmers who receive more than 50% of their gross cash farm receipts from feed or fuel crops a 10% higher monthly premium for Price Loss Coverage (PLC) or Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) plans covering those commodities. Use proceeds from the fee to support USDA extension and technical assistance for feed and fuel crop farmers transitioning to specialty crops or shifting from industrial production to smaller, diversified operations integrating sustainable practices such as agroforestry, organic production, or riparian buffer strips.

Rationale: In the 2014 Farm Bill, the federal government replaced direct-to-farmer subsidies with PLC and ARC.157 A 10% higher monthly premium acts as a tax on feed and fuel crop farmers that can then be used to support farmers engaging in sustainable land-use transitions.

The emphasis on agroforestry and riparian buffer strips supports best-available evidence on how best to reduce GHG emissions. The buffer strips, lines of forest and vegetation along rivers, have the potential to reduce nitrogen emissions by up to 90%.158 Moreover, their placement along rivers creates freshwater conservation benefits.159

Stop helping large landowners and agribusinesses get rich by growing crops that don’t nourish people.

Summary: For any farmer with gross cash farm receipts of more than $1M annually, adjust Price Loss Coverage (PLC) payments for feed and fuel commodity crops by calculating the market year average price and national average loan rate for the commodities with a 20% built-in premium.

Rationale: The largest landowners should not be able to invest, risk-free, in growing commodity crops. Targeting high-income recipients of PLC plans can curb the worst inequalities, leading to less policy-driven consolidation.

PLC protects farmers from receiving less than their “reference price” for a commodity. This form of revenue protection uses the market year average price and national average loan rate as benchmarks for a farmer’s revenues.160 By building in a premium to these prices, only a gap greater than 20% will be covered.161

We can shift R&D to support healthy and sustainable food production

Shift public crop R&D to support farmers and the environment.

Summary: End all federally funded research designed to enhance the productivity of feed and fuel crops. Shift 50% to support feed and fuel commodity crop transitions to specialty crops, agroforestry, or rewilding.

Rationale: Private-sector agricultural R&D has grown dramatically over the last 20 years, while publicsector R&D has declined.162 This dynamic frees the federal government to divert public research away from commodity productivity to other priorities.

Key challenges lie ahead in the just transition away from industrial livestock and fuel crop production. In conversations with producers undergoing transition in North Carolina and South Dakota, primary concerns included market access, technical knowledge, and soil conservation. R&D can support science and extension to learn how best to support commercially viable and environmentally sustainable agricultural transitions.

Moreover, most cropland producing industrial livestock feed and fuel crops are in the Midwest.163 Environmental land-use interventions in this region can have a significant, outsized benefit for the nation’s watersheds.

We can shift public crop R&D to support Hispanic-serving (Latineserving) agricultural research institutions and farm worker justice

Shift R&D to support Latine families and communities.

Summary: End all federally funded research designed to enhance the productivity of feed and fuel commodity crops. Shift 50% to support Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs), with 25% of this funding dedicated to researching pesticide-related poisonings and providing extension services to support farmworker communities for at least 10 years.

Rationale: The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 created Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACUs) to engage Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs).164 As of 2021, there are 535 HSIs in the United States. Just 52 of those HSIs are provided funding by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Of the 52 funded, one in four are in California.165

Farmworkers and their families, more than eight in 10 of whom identify as Latine, suffer significant pesticide-related health harms. The federal government has failed to properly fund, resource, and prioritize efforts to fully understand the extent of these harms and how best to support impacted communities. HSACUs are well positioned to study these issues and provide the community outreach needed to support health and environmental justice outcomes.

We can shift support to farm transitions that promote conservation

Create a Farm Transition Initiative within the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service that rewards the conservation benefits of transitioning from feed and fuel crops to growing healthy, sustainable, and compassionate food.

Summary: Create a special initiative within EQIP to encourage feed and fuel crop farmers to diversify or shift to specialty crops, agroforestry, ecosystem restoration, or rewilding.

Rationale: EQIP provides agricultural producers with assistance to address concerns over natural resources, including:

“Improved water and air quality, conserved ground and surface water, increased soil health, reduced soil erosion and sedimentation, improved or created wildlife habitat, and mitigation against drought and increasing weather volatility.” 166

Transitioning feed and fuel crops to food production or rewilding accomplishes each of these goals. EQIP has five ongoing multi-state initiatives supporting high tunnels, organic production, air quality, landscape conservation, and on-farm energy. To accomplish specific conservation activities, these initiatives coordinate technical and financial assistance.167 This type of "roadmap"-building approach would be beneficial for supporting farmers transitioning from commodity groups to growing less resource-intensive food.

We can shift regulations to stop enabling hazardous commodity crop production

Protect farm workers and their families from toxic pesticides.

Summary: Pass the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act to ban more than 100 toxic pesticides.

Rationale: According to Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), author of the Protect America’s Children from Toxic Pesticides Act:

“In 2017 and 2018, the Environmental Protection Agency registered more than 100 pesticides containing ingredients widely considered dangerous. Approximately one-third of annual U.S. pesticide use – over 300 million pounds from 85 different pesticides – comes from pesticides banned in the European Union.” 168

According to Teresa Romero, President of the United Farm Workers of America:

“Pesticide hazards haunt farm workers, especially those that are parents. No parent should worry that hugging their children after a long day of work could expose them to brain-harming chemicals. No pregnant worker should have to wonder what the effects will be on a developing baby. Just living in an agricultural community places farm worker families at the front lines of exposure to dangerous nerve agents. This silent risk extends to every consumer who could unknowingly put food with toxic residue on their family’s table.” 169

End the ethanol fuel mandate.

Summary: Phase out corn ethanol from the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Rationale: The emissions and environmental impacts of ethanol, compared to gasoline, are likely negative according to the best available research (although the EPA approach measures corn ethanol’s impact as slightly better than gasoline).170 This means that 18% of all croplands in the United States supports fuel production with minimal or no environmental benefit.171

Moreover, the consequences for families and farm workers are significant. Corn ethanol uses some of the most fertile soil in the world to create a fuel with negligible benefits over gasoline.172 This soil could be used to grow foods that nourish people. Corn ethanol requires significant pesticide use. Poisoned farm workers suffer not to “feed the world,” but as a part of a payout to the largest landowners and agribusinesses.173

A national community infrastructure strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

The Status Quo: Federal policy hinders the ability of community food service providers to build long-term capacities, harming farmers, families, food chain workers, regional food economies, and the environment. Federal policy can support an evidence-based, nationwide, equitable and community-driven food infrastructure strategy that leverages existing investments.

Farmers suffer harm: Federal policies prioritize cost, squeezing producers. The production of food for institutional purchasers is hindered by numerous barriers, including Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) accreditation, production and processing coordination, delivery logistics, and price.174 The challenges disproportionately affect small and medium-sized farms, which often lack the regional infrastructure to benefit from economies of scale required to support community purchasers.175

These needs are not fully addressed by current efforts to change institutional purchasing through regulatory changes or public pressure. Food infrastructure development, including central kitchens, processing capacities, and food hub distribution, combined with nutrition incentives in the food transitions pathway, can assist institutional purchasers in supporting farmers.

Families suffer harm: School and hospital food are critical, underutilized resources. School food can improve children’s physical health, social-emotional well-being, and academic performance.176 Food in hospitals and other healthcare settings can support the treatment of diet-related disease and improve recovery and longevity.177

Distributors of school foods and medically tailored meals consistently cited sourcing, processing, and production challenges as bottlenecks. These bottlenecks, as well as other regional food system needs, can be addressed through community kitchens, processing, and infrastructure.

Food service workers suffer harm: The current investment model minimizes per-meal cost, squeezing frontline food service staff. Most cafeteria workers earn between $11 and $16 an hour, below the living wage.178

Community food infrastructure lowers the per-meal cost of food production, as well as the labor-per-meal required to produce school food, resulting in better paying jobs. The projects can also support technical training of employees to support career advancement.179

Regional food economies are harmed: The current investment model outsources institutional food production. This prevents local producers and food service providers from expanding their business through partnerships with charter schools, aging and care facilities, emergency meal distributors, and local food retailers.180

Community food infrastructure can be anchored by federal food investments, allowing these additional income streams to grow over time. These additional income streams can be re-invested to support community nutritional security, local food entrepreneurship, related environmental programming, or other regional food priorities.

The environment is harmed: The current cost-per-meal structure encourages highly processed foods purchased from the factory food system. This reinvests federal food service investments into the factory food system, promoting greater chemical use and GHG-intensive food supply chains, while adding “food miles” through product transportation.181

Procurement practices based in supporting community infrastructure can also help schools reduce waste. Schools and institutions can work with regional suppliers to improve ordering to prevent waste, create opportunities for composting, and reduce the amount of single-use plastic by building community-supported reuse systems.

We can shift federal lending programs for social impact

Make it less expensive for cities to invest in community food infrastructure through municipal bond reform.

Summary: Create a permanent “Build America Bond” category for food infrastructure. Pay 28% of interest to the bond issuer on community food infrastructure projects, lessening the burden on municipalities investing in central kitchens for public schools or other forms of community food infrastructure.

Rationale: It’s too expensive for communities to take on debt to support community food infrastructure. Due to their ties to federal and local funding, these projects pose a low risk. More than a dozen public school central kitchens were reviewed, most of which were partially financed by municipal bonds.

As part of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, "Build America Bonds" (BABs) were created to reduce the cost of municipal and state borrowing for infrastructure projects.182 A total of $181 billion in BABs were issued between April 2009 and December 2010. Approximately 30% of these projects supported educational facilities, but no projects, to our knowledge, supported centralized kitchen, processing, food hub projects, or other food infrastructure projects.183 Food infrastructure needs to be supported through the bipartisan American Infrastructure Bonds Act of 2021, and interest costs should be increased by the federal government.

Community food infrastructure, funded through less expensive municipal bonds, can shift local procurement far more than regulatory change alone. It is possible to reduce the cost of production per meal by leveraging infrastructure at scale. A mixed-use model can serve multiple community food service functions; supporting municipal bonds for food infrastructure provides communities with a flexible tool to address unique needs. In addition to supporting community collaboration, infrastructure planning and implementation can bring together food entrepreneurs, other anchor institutions like hospitals and universities, and community food advocates to identify and advance shared food system goals.

Pay for positive food system outcomes through social impact bond funding to support healthy families, farmers, and communities.

Summary: Use social impact bonds’ “pay for results” framework to support shared food system goals. Adapt the bipartisan Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA) for food and agriculture projects that advance key benchmarks.184

By partnering with schools, hospitals, child and adult care feeding programs, or other local partnerships that can leverage pre-existing federal investment in agriculture, food, and nutrition, benchmarks could include the following, or any other number of measurable food system outcomes:

• Increasing the on-farm income of small and medium-sized farmers (those with less than $500,000 in annual sales) of specialty crops and minor commodity crops (crops that nourish people, excluding sorghum and sugar).

• Increasing new farmer opportunities for young and/or socially disadvantaged farmers, including land access and ownership, market access, and access to other necessary resources.

• Increasing the financial earnings, access to healthcare, workforce development opportunities, or other economic benefits to food chain workers.

• Reducing the rates of food chain workers’ workplace injuries, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses.

• Increasing child nutritional security, including daily access to fruits and vegetables.

• Decreasing rates of diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and other diet-related diseases.

• Decreasing food waste.

• Increasing SNAP or WIC participation rate without changing requirements to eligibility.

• Increasing the number of grocery stores, corner stores, farmers markets, and other food retailers that sell fresh fruits and vegetables in lowincome census tracts with limited geographic access (1 mile from nearest store in urban areas; 10 miles from nearest store in rural areas).

• Increasing schools, hospitals, and carceral institutions' abilities to procure, prepare, and serve locally grown (within state or 100mile radius) fruits and vegetables, leveraging other federal, state, or local investment in agriculture, food, and nutrition.

• Reducing agricultural and other food system sources of air pollution, water pollution, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions.

• Scaling farm transition models that support specialty crop production, leveraging other federal, state, or local investment in agriculture, food, and nutrition.

Rationale: As a tool for supporting human health and other social benefits, social impact payments were initially piloted using $100 million from the original SIPPRA.185 A key part of its development was to maximize the impact of federal investments by framing its benchmarks in ways that enabled state social service reductions.186 By enabling public-private partnerships to advance food system priorities, SIPPRAFood could maximize federal funds.

To identify final food system success benchmarks, a multi-agency task force could be organized like SIPPRA. By coordinating a "whole-of-government" food system strategy, the 20+ agencies whose priorities, regulations, investments, and procurement overlap with U.S. food systems could support healthy families, farmers, and communities.

Use federal lending programs to support communities’ and changemakers’ access to credit.

Summary: Create a new program within the Farm Credit System to support loans for community food infrastructure. Make $50 billion in funds available initially, approximately equivalent to the Farm Credit System’s rural infrastructure lending.

Rationale: The Farm Credit System already invests in many activities outside of farm lending. As of 2023, its agribusiness and rural infrastructure debt portfolio exceeds $120 billion, or 71% of the farm lending portfolio.187 The bank can apply this expertise to support communities, businesses, and other entities involved in community food infrastructure projects.

Similarly to farm loans, a federal credit program can anchor the food infrastructure lending market. In conjunction with social impact and municipal bond reforms, expanding traditional credit opportunities can provide the liquidity that operators need to move projects from planning to shovel-ready, as well as provide access to bridge capital as the project scales.

We can shift food service programs and procurement

Help schools invest in equipment, infrastructure, and staff needed to serve healthy, cost-effective meals.

Summary: Use guaranteed loans (up to 80% of total loan cost) and grants to support healthy meal production through the bipartisan School Food Modernization Act. The USDA can support equipment, infrastructure, and staff training to help schools serve more nourishing meals for less cost.

Rationale: Schools need support to serve healthy meals. According to a Pew Kids’ Safe Healthful Foods Project survey, 88% of school districts need at least one piece of new kitchen equipment, and 55% require infrastructure changes.188 As Congressman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) highlighted:

“Many school nutrition professionals face challenges dealing with adequate capacity for procuring, storing, refrigerating, preparing, and serving nutritious meals to students. The School Food Modernization Act provides the opportunity for schools to update their kitchen equipment and infrastructure so that students receive healthy and nutritious meals to fuel their academic success." 189

The bill, in conjunction with the credit reforms above, creates an investment architecture that allows local communities to build long-term capacity. These capacities will better leverage existing school food and other USDA food service programs, shifting existing funding to anchor more just, sustainable food systems with the capacity to serve more plant-centered meals.

Use federal procurement investments to support local produce, schools, and disadvantaged farmers.

Summary: As part of the Fresh Produce Procurement Reform Act, USDA should partner with growers, distributors, and food hubs to provide fresh, U.S.-grown fruits and vegetables to community organizations like schools, food pantries, and youth organizations, while prioritizing socially disadvantaged farmers.

Rationale: The USDA procurement infrastructure was not designed to purchase or distribute fresh fruits and vegetables. As a result of the COVID-19 Farmers to Families Food Box Program’s success, the Fresh Produce Procurement Reform Act could re-orient USDA architecture to better support fresh food procurement, particularly from disadvantaged farmers and to connect institutional buyers.190

Federal and local stakeholders will benefit from improving USDA procurement infrastructure. First, USDA fresh procurement practices could be adopted by the Department of Defense (DOD), supporting military readiness. Second, a healthier commodity purchasing system will provide anchor purchasing to community infrastructure projects, including medically tailored meal processing, produce prescription organizing, and food hub-style aggregation.

We can shift federal assistance programs for equitable food access

Use Medicaid and Medicare to help one in three people in the U.S. purchase fruits and vegetables.

Summary: Establish a 30% prescription produce incentive within Medicaid and Medicare and provide technical assistance to help states, healthcare providers, and patients take advantage of the program.

Rationale: Together, Medicaid and Medicare cover one in three U.S. citizens. A federal health insurancefunded fruit and vegetable incentive can support more than 100 million people in the United States, advancing health equity and reducing total national health expenditures.191

Independent analysis found a 30% prescription produce incentive would provide “substantial health gains and be highly cost-effective,” resulting in 1.93 million fewer cardiovascular disease events, 4.64 million additional quality adjusted life-years, and almost $40 billion in healthcare savings.192

Using fruit and vegetable incentives in Medicaid and Medicare may result in additional benefits, beyond food accessibility. Involving health insurance, and thus healthcare providers, tightens the connection between healthy food producers and institutional purchasers. A broadly available program could also act as an additional revenue stream for community food infrastructure, joining school food and other USDA food service programs as anchor federal income streams.

Support collaboration among schools, hospitals, early childhood education providers, and other municipal and community institutions to improve Women Infants and Children (WIC) enrollment rates.

Summary: Establish online portals for state and federal WIC programs and provide technical assistance to state and local agencies to enable greater collaboration among schools, hospitals, early childhood education providers, and other community institutions that may serve young or expecting mothers.

Rationale: WIC provides young families with critical nutrition access, yet participation among eligible families has declined.193 Technology, service provider coordination, and intergovernmental collaboration can all better support healthcare agencies and ensure families-in-need can access benefits.

From 2011 to 2017, the participation rate for WIC among eligible families fell from 63.5% to 51.2%.

Participation among eligible families in California, which leads the country in enrollment, plunged more than twice as fast as nationally.194 A state review found that WIC providers and users must often coordinate with many other health and service providers, but that information sharing, technology, and planning processes across local, state, and federal governments were not well coordinated.195

We can shift R&D programs to advance equitable food infrastructure

Support research, education, and extension outreach to advance community food infrastructure projects, particularly by Historically Black College and University (HBCU) land grants.

Summary: Increase funding for nutrition within the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and prioritize community-led infrastructure research, education, and outreach. Support HBCU land grants building more participatory, equitable approaches to building nutritional security and addressing racial disparities in nourishing food access and the burdens of diet-related-diseases.

Rationale: The public sector's investment in food and agriculture research has plummeted over the last two decades.196 The current research into human nutrition focuses on nutrition science, meal pattern analysis, and other aspects of individual nutrition.197 There is a need for more research into communitybased approaches. This work will also strengthen extension’s ability to connect local producers with institutional purchasers.

Community-based participatory research, often used in public health to co-create interventions with communities and elicit community support, can support community-led nutrition and food system interventions. In our conversations, “1890s” HBCU land grants appear best positioned to use funding in ways that build local buy-in and inform project replicability.

Use innovation grants to help communities build scalable or replicable community infrastructure projects that reduce food waste.

Summary: Use Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants to coordinate USDA and EPA jointprojects to eliminate food waste, particularly among schools, hospitals, and carceral institutions.

Rationale: USDA and EPA are two of 11 agencies that participate in SBIR programs designed “to help develop innovative technologies that protect human health and the environment, including projects that address preventing food waste,” according to the USDA.198 Institutional food waste represents a significant cost to families, taxpayers, and the environment.199

Moreover, community food waste, infrastructure, and technology projects can have important privatesector spillover effects. In one case, a North Carolina reusable lunch tray model used in schools also supported area restaurants and food retailers.200

We can combat consolidation and support anti-trust regulations

Strengthen antitrust enforcement in food and agriculture.

Summary: Establish a new division within USDA to address competition in the agriculture sector, or empower Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to take on these responsibilities.

The new competition division should assess the state of competition in all sectors of agriculture where it has the legal authority, including the Packers & Stockyards Act, the Agricultural Marketing Act, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act, and the Egg Products Inspection Act.

Measures of market share concentration in specific sectors and regions should be included, as well as impacts on competition and price discovery from vertical integration, contracting practices, and intellectual property practices. In addition to assessing competition in agriculture, this division should also recommend cases for referral to antitrust authorities (such as the U.S. Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission) for enforcement actions and work with those authorities to address meat industry concentrations.

Rationale: The U.S. food system is heavily consolidated. According to economists, abuses are more likely in markets where the "Big 4" food producers share at least 40% of the market. Globally, farm equipment (45%), seeds (50%), animal pharmaceuticals (58%), and agrochemicals (65%), exceed economists’ threshold for abuse. In the U.S., 14 industries meet this standard, including chicken processing (54%), pork processing (67%), beef processing (73%), and soybean processing (80%).201

The U.S. factory food system relies on a fragile, global supply chain that can be strengthened through community food infrastructure. Anti-trust regulations can further support a level playing field for producers and businesses harmed by corporate consolidation.

Protect meatpacking workers by establishing and enforcing health and safety standards.

Summary: Create a fairer market to support farmers, local food systems, and food chain workers through legislation like the Protect America’s Meatpacking Workers Act. The bill would protect poultry workers from unsafe line speeds, strengthen protections against retaliation, and support a transparent process for inspecting poultry facilities and reporting on worker well-being.202

Rationale: Abuses resulting from industry consolidation and poor regulations cause immense harm to food chain workers. Farm workers have been excluded from standard labor protection laws, including the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act. Across the supply chain, food chain workers suffer from legal exclusion and/or a lack of enforcement.203 These harms have been made clearer to national audiences. From COVID-19-related deaths in meatpacking plants to the recent revelations involving child labor in food production and slaughterhouse facilities, many now recognize the need to better protect frontline workers.204

Support land justice and end racial discrimination in USDA land grants and other programs.

Summary: Create an independent civil rights oversight board to review complaints against the USDA and create a USDA Office of Civil Rights, protect against further land loss by supporting “heirs property” and succession issues, support Black farmers with land grants, create a Farm Conservation Corps to support vocational training, and advance other just agricultural reforms through the Justice for Black Farmers Act.

Rationale: The racial wealth gap has grown because of U.S. agriculture. Black farmers in the United States have suffered significant land loss due to racial disparities in USDA program access. During the 20th century, agricultural land loss resulted in an estimated $326 billion in lost wealth among Black communities. There are still persistent disparities that need to be addressed.205

As Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) reflected as part of her contribution to Farm Sanctuary’s 2023 Capitol Hill Roundtable on Universal Nutritional Security and Sustainable Farmer Opportunity:

“I’m proud to continue my work on the Justice for Black Farmers Act . . . legislation would enact policies to protect the 50,000 remaining Black farmers from losing their land, and provide land grants to create a new generation of Black farmers.”206

Together with worker reforms outlined above, land justice supports equitable supply chains. To ensure that future community food infrastructure projects support food chain workers and farmers of all backgrounds, these basic protections are essential.

A national food, climate, and environment strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

The Status Quo: U.S. sustainability goals have failed to adequately address food and agriculture, resulting in immense harm to farmers, families, farm workers, air, soil, water, biodiversity, and the global climate.

Federal policy can integrate food and agriculture with climate and environmental priorities across programming. Leverage less carbon intensive agricultural production, such as growing fruits, vegetables, and legumes, while promoting agroforestry and rewilding to fix nitrogen and sink carbon.

Consider the following specific harms:

Farmers suffer harm: Changing weather patterns and extreme climate events hurt farmers. Specialty crop producers suffer particularly severe impacts, as they are more vulnerable to weather shocks and less covered by the existing farm safety net.207 For example, in 2023, a late frost destroyed approximately 90% of Georgia peach production.208

An integrated climate and conservation strategy better supports specialty crop farmers. Specialty crops’ comparatively low carbon footprint, limited water consumption, and vulnerability to extreme weather events elevates their importance. It also strengthens the production and nutrition access outcomes advanced by the nutritional security and community food infrastructure strategic pathways.209

Families suffer harm: Regions vulnerable to climate change may be more likely to lose nourishing food producers. Moreover, some foods are less nutritious as a result of higher carbon dioxide concentrations, a trend that will continue as climate change intensifies. Harvard research found that commodities exposed to projected 2050 carbon dioxide levels “lose as much as 10% of their zinc, 5% of their iron, and 8% of their protein content.” 210

An integrated climate and conservation strategy evaluates how people in the U.S. can best access needed nutrients in ways that reduce GHG emissions. Transitioning feed and fuel crop production to support food production, for example, addresses a critical nutrition security need and reduces GHG emissions. Shifting the protein production mix away from GHG-intensive forms of production to less-intensive forms, including legume production and plant-based proteins, can support nutritional security and climate goals.

Farm workers suffer harm: Agricultural workers are vulnerable to heat waves, natural disasters, and other climaterelated events.211 Farm workers are often less protected by physical infrastructure, including modern buildings and air conditioning. They also enjoy less access to medical leave, deepening the challenges.212

An integrated climate and conservation strategy recognizes the importance of previous proposals that protect farm workers through collective bargaining rights. It also shifts social, technical, and financial resources to frontline communities, like farm workers, to mitigate harm.

Our air is polluted: The highest GHG-emitting forms of food production also emit the most air pollution. Research suggests 16,000 annual excess deaths result every year from food system air pollution. 80% of these deaths come from animal agriculture, the most GHG-intensive form of food production.213

Air pollution deaths from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) often represent a form of environmental injustice. Farm workers exposed to this air pollution identify disproportionately as Hispanic/Latine.214 In states with significant non-White populations, such as North Carolina, researchers have found that CAFO locations disproportionately harm Black, Hispanic/Latine, and Indigenous communities.215

An integrated climate and conservation strategy emphasizes source reduction over emissions efficiency. This approach supports holistic environmental and health benefits, advances environmental justice, and maximizes emissions reduction.

Our water is polluted: The most carbon-intensive forms of food production also use the most water. Global agriculture consumes 92% of all freshwater used annually, according to the most comprehensive analysis of global water use to date.216 And as a result of widespread pollution from factory food production, more than half of all U.S. rivers are in poor biological health.217

Animal agriculture accounts for a large amount of our water usage from U.S. rivers, including 46% of water from the Colorado River.218 As argued above, an integrated climate and conservation strategy emphasizes source reduction to support holistic benefits for people as well as local and global environments.

Our soil is harmed: U.S. farms are losing twice as much topsoil per year as the Great Plains lost in a typical year at the height of the Dust Bowl. Industrial feed and fuel crop production, often performed in ways that include tilling and lack cover crops, drives U.S. soil erosion.219

Integrated climate and conservation strategies standardize conservation practices for commodity crop growers and incentivize the most effective ones. In such a system, cover cropping is standard and the bare minimum (not posed as a topline solution), while practices highlighting legume farming, agroforestry, agroecology, and rewilding are supported where possible.

The climate and ecosystem stability are threatened: Animal agriculture is a key, under-measured, and underemphasized driver of GHG emissions.220 Globally, about one third of GHG emissions come from food systems.221 After accounting for pertinent food system GHG under-measurements, EPA estimates undercount animal agriculture emissions by approximately 67%.222 Additionally, fertilizer use, predominantly to grow feed and fuel crops, results in nitrogen and other nutrient pollution in our air, land, and water.223

In an integrated climate and conservation strategy, food plays a key role in the nation's broader emissionsreduction efforts. In addition to investing in conservation and rewilding techniques designed to sink carbon emissions, federal food policy can support a shift toward production of low-carbon, nutritious foods like fruits, vegetables, and legumes.

We can bolster the safety net for low-emission farms

Strengthen the farm safety net for low-GHG emissions forms of food production.

Summary: Strengthen Whole Farm Revenue Protection to support specialty crop producers. For growers under $1M in gross on-farm cash receipts, add a 15% premium to annual revenue, making the possible coverage level up to 100% of annual revenues. For growers of $1M-$5M in gross on-farm cash receipts, add a 10% premium to annual revenue.

Rationale: Specialty crop growers lack adequate insurance coverage for disasters and adverse market conditions.224 The Whole Farm Revenue Protection program, designed specifically for farms up to $17 million in insured revenue, is available in every county in the United States and supports specialty crop farms and diversified farms.225

However, conversations with farmers and advocates suggested current programming is not accessible to the program’s intended beneficiaries: small and medium-sized family farmers or specialty crop farmers. Adding a premium to the annual revenue estimate will help the intended beneficiaries access the program.

Require basic conservation practices to receive revenue-based insurance. Require the highest return-on-investment climate interventions on the largest farms.

Summary: Require cover cropping on 20% of land for all recipients of revenue-based insurance. Among revenue-based insurance recipients with gross on-farm cash receipts of greater than $1M, require riparian buffer strips along any fresh waterways.

Rationale: Cover crops are a basic farming method that can preserve soil and water as well as reduce pesticide use.226 In a 2021 survey on agricultural conservation practices, 59% of respondents reported planting cover crops on 40% of their croplands, a significant increase over the 8% reported in the 2017 Census of Agriculture.227 A public guarantee of price should require revenue-based insurance recipients to plant cover crops on at least 20% of their property. Right now, only 5% of U.S. cropland benefits from cover crops.228

While cover crops are one means to address climate change, they are not a solution on their own. Cover cropping must be a basic requirement and only incentivized alongside other interventions, including vegetative barriers, alley cropping, and other forms of agroecology or agroforestry.

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service reports that riparian forest buffers along waterways sink carbon, prevent erosion and runoff, and benefit waterways.229 Ideally, the largest farms should plant these riparian buffers.

Use revenue-based insurance to support the transition of the most GHG-intensive forms of food production.

Summary: Create a special commodity program for small-to-medium sized growers of non-genetically engineered alternative protein inputs, such as tofu, tempeh, and beans. Allow growers to enroll in priceloss coverage insurance as if they were a major commodity producer.

Rationale: According to the United Nations, animal-based foods, such as red meat, dairy products, and shrimp, are the most GHG-intensive.230 According to Our World in Data's review of existing literature, beef, lamb, and cheese produce the most GHG emissions per pound of food.231

A study of alternative proteins shows that plant-based, algal-based, and cultured proteins have a significantly lower footprint when it comes to GHG emissions and land use, compared with meat production.232 With the development of technologies and the increasing use of renewable energy sources on the grid, these benefits will grow.

Alternative protein inputs should be funded by the farm safety net in the U.S. The U.S. can grow faba beans, lentils, and many other commonly grown crops sustainably to nourish people while mitigating GHG emissions.

We can shift credit programs to bolster sustainable practices

Incentivize the highest return-on-investment climate interventions.

Summary: Farm Credit System or Farm Service Agency borrowers may eliminate interest on debt for land dedicated to ecosystem restoration or rewilding for at least 25 years. Forgive up to $100K in debt every year for commensurate carbon sequestration value in ecosystem restoration or rewilding. Require riparian buffer strips along any fresh waterways for any Farm Credit System or Farm Service Agency borrower who borrows at least $1M.

Rationale: Agroforestry techniques help sequester more carbon, protect crops, and improve soil health.233 Agroforestry can not only reduce GHG emissions but potentially avoid emissions by decreasing the usage of fossil fuels and energy, according to the USDA.234

The largest farmers have significant stewardship responsibilities. Best-available research shows if 10% of the highest-impact U.S. pastureland and cropland were transitioned to agroforestry, we could sink 30% of all U.S. emissions.235 Riparian forest buffers target these highest-impact interventions.

We can shift agricultural conservation and sustainability programs

Prioritize whole-farm conservation programs and other evidence-based best practices to maximize environmental benefit.

Summary: Prioritize agroforestry, riparian buffers, and whole-farm conservation programming, such as through the Conservation Stewardship Program.

Rationale: The USDA Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) returns nearly $4 in social and ecological benefits for every dollar invested. This return is far greater than the activity-based funding programs, like EQIP.236 Provide greater support to whole-farm sustainability, or risk funding large polluters to clean up some of their mess.

Prioritize high tunnels

Summary: Provide a one-time, $2,000 tax credit to specialty crop farmers who purchased a high tunnel in the tax year. High tunnels can be used to reduce energy and pesticide usage as well as runoff and nutrient pollution.237

Rationale: USDA has identified high tunnels as a strategic conservation practice. EQIP’s High Tunnel Initiative provides grants and technical assistance to support high tunnel construction.238 These activities could be maximized through a federal tax credit that defrays the cost of up-front implementation.

In our conversations, growers on recently transitioned feed and fuel cropland used high tunnels to extend the growing season and improve soil quality. High tunnels were particularly important early in the transition process, when soils required 1-2 years of “rehabilitation” to support nourishing food production.

High tunnels can be a cost-effective solution for small farmers and community food producers by facilitating longer growing seasons and providing protection from weather.239 In conversations with food hubs and other food aggregators, farmers on less than an acre have used high tunnels to produce significant quantities of nourishing food.

We can shift agricultural R&D programs to reduce emissions

Shift the focus of agricultural research from bolstering productivity toward reducing emissions and increasing sustainability.

Summary: All federally funded research aimed at enhancing the productivity of animal agriculture operations should be ended. Shift funding to research, education, and extension activities that support farm transitions, plant-based meat alternatives, specialty crops, agroecology, agroforestry, or rewilding.

Rationale: Over the last 20 years, private-sector agricultural Research and Development has grown dramatically, whereas public-sector Research and Development has declined.240 The federal government can divert public research funds away from animal agriculture productivity to other priorities thanks to this dynamic.

We can shift food service to lower its carbon footprint

Reduce federal food service and procurement carbon footprint by 40% by 2035.

Summary: Use food waste, local procurement, transportation, infrastructure, and plant-based substitution strategies to reduce school meal program and other federal food procurement emissions by 40% by 2035.

Rationale: Federal food procurement should anchor sustainable food system supply chains. Beef and dairy represent the most significant sources of GHG emissions in school food, and likely other forms of procurement.241 In conjunction with holistic food service best practices for sustainability, strategies to implement plant-based menu options can significantly reduce the federal food service and procurement's carbon footprint.242

As a result of using this plant-forward strategy, Sodexo, a large food service company, has been able to reduce GHG emissions by 40% since 2011.243 To set high environmental standards for federal food service and procurement, the federal government should learn from this private success story.

We can shift nutrition and public land usage regulations

Diversify federal land use to better meet national climate priorities.

Summary: Rewild 50% of federal lands used for ranching by 2050. Raise federal grazing rate to 90% of the private rate. Use surplus funds to support rewilding or ecosystem restoration efforts.

Rationale: The purpose of public lands should be to serve the public good. Approximately 155 million acres, or 25%, of all federal land is used by livestock producers.244 Most of them receive grazing access at rates at least 1500% below average.245 This directly subsidizes beef agriculture, one of the most intensive forms of food production in the world.246 Overall, the top 20 meat and dairy companies together release more GHGs than Germany (933mt v. 902mt), a top four global economy by size.247

Shifting land-use to recovering, preserving, and conserving forest and grasslands can sink carbon. Approximately 230 million acres of federal land serves livestock grazing for cattle and sheep. Shifting 115 million acres of land to forests has the double benefit of reducing emissions from animal agriculture and sinking carbon. It would increase the total forested area in the United States (about 823 million acres) by 14%.248

Finally, raising the federal grazing rate to 90% of the private rate ends the public giveaway to ranchers and can help to fund transitions away from emissions intensive food production. Right now, the low costs of access for ranchers cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 million annually in administrative costs.249 Raising the public rate to slightly less than the private rate responsibly phases out environmentally irresponsible land use and provides funds to support producers transitioning to sustainable practices, low-carbon food production, or rewilding efforts.

End the dairy milk mandate in public schools and offer nutritionally equivalent plant-based milk.

Summary: The USDA requires schools to include fat-free or low-fat dairy milk in school lunches in order to receive federal reimbursement.250 This mandate should be repealed and the USDA should require offerings of nutritionally-equivalent plant-based milk (e.g. soy milk).

Rationale: The milk mandate wastes food system resources and harms cows, children, and the environment. Dairy production is water intensive and is an outsized source of GHG emissions, air and water pollution, zoonotic pathogens, antimicrobial resistance, land use change, soil degradation, wildlife killing, and biodiversity loss.251

Most federal resources that go to the dairy industry do not support family farmers or local farms. Widescale industry consolidation has led to massive dairy expansion and since 1987, the median dairy farm has grown from 80 cows to 1,300 cows.252 This growing consolidation has led to just five states producing over half of the nation’s milk supply.253 California alone produces nearly 20% of the nation’s dairy milk.254 As a result, in most states, the dairy milk mandate outsources milk from mega-dairies and out-of-state farmers.

The dairy milk mandate also does not serve children equitably. According to the National Institutes of Health, lactose intolerance is a question of health, racial justice, and equity: 95% of Asian Americans, 60-80% of Black Americans, 80-100% of Indigenous Americans, and 50-80% of Latine Americans cannot effectively digest lactose.255 As a result, 29% of milk served is discarded and hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars are wasted.256 In addition to ending the dairy milk mandate, the USDA should require nutritionally-equivalent plant-based milk alternatives be made available in its programs.

Part V: Conclusion

This Roadmap provides a pathway to prioritizing healthy, sustainable, and equitable food systems by redirecting U.S. government investments to benefit families, farmers, and communities.

A national nutritional security strategy, community infrastructure strategy, and food climate strategy can work together to shift federal food investments from propping up our inefficient, inequitable, and unsustainable food system toward one that improves food security, supports farmers and rural communities, prioritizes equity, and protects our land, water, climate, and biodiversity. The multifaceted benefits of plant-based strategies, such as improved health

outcomes, environmental conservation, economic value, social empowerment, and animal welfare are an important part of this transition. To achieve this, it is necessary to revamp agricultural policies to prioritize nutritious food, align federal frameworks with community needs, and integrate food and agriculture into national climate strategies.

This type of progress will take a village. With the collaboration of diverse stakeholders and policymakers, we believe this Roadmap paves the way for transformative changes that benefit animals, people, and the planet, ultimately contributing to a flourishing, resilient, and inclusive food system. However, we must work together to make this vision a reality.

Comment Letter on Supply Chains for the Production of Agricultural Commodities and Food Products (AMS-TM21-0034). (June 21, 2021). United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/environmental_health/pdfs/USDAFederalSupplyChainComments-6-21.pdf

The White House. (September 2022). Biden-Harris administration national strategy on hunger, nutrition, and health. https://www. whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/White-House-National-Strategy-on-Hunger-Nutrition-and-Health-FINAL.pdf

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (May 17, 2022). Agricultural and food research and development expenditures in the United States. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-and-food-researchand-development-expenditures-in-the-united-states/; e.g., Schnepf, R. (May 6, 2008). High agricultural commodity prices: What are the issues? Congressional Research Service. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20080506_ RL34474_0d997edabdffadbb8c22eb607a8cd6169d361762.pdf; United States Department of Agriculture. (August 23, 2023). USDA grows private sector tech innovation in food and agriculture. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2023/08/23/usda-growsprivate-sector-tech-innovation-food-and-agriculture

Farm Sanctuary. (October 25, 2022). Farm Sanctuary hosts first “Congressional Food System Staffer Appreciation Day.” https://www. farmsanctuary.org/news-stories/farm-sanctuary-first-congressional-food-system-staffer-appreciation-day/

Farm Sanctuary. (February 7, 2023). Reflections on the Eva Clayton Rural Food Institute’s Rural Food Form in honor of Black History Month. https://www.farmsanctuary.org/news-stories/reflections-rural-food-forum-black-history-month/

Farm Sanctuary. (February 1, 2023). As farm bill approaches, Farm Sanctuary hosts “Roundtable Review of U.S. Food Systems” on Capitol Hill. https://www.farmsanctuary.org/news-stories/capitol-hill-roundtable-review-of-us-food-systems/; Farm Sanctuary. (February 3, 2023). Farm Sanctuary comes to Capitol Hill: Building a table where we’re all invited. https://www.farmsanctuary.org/ news-stories/roundtable-review-us-food-systems/

Farm Sanctuary. (March 27, 2023). Shift the farm bill: A “Farm Bill For All” must build the good for farmed animals, people, and the planet. https://www.farmsanctuary.org/news-stories/food-and-farm-act-2023/

Farm Sanctuary. (May 4, 2023). Students shifting the farm bill. https://www.farmsanctuary.org/news-stories/students-shifting-the-farmbill/

McGreal, C. (March 9, 2019). How America’s food giants swallowed the family farms. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2019/mar/09/american-food-giants-swallow-the-family-farms-iowa; MacDonald, J. M. (February 3, 2020). Consolidation in U.S. agriculture continues. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture . https://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/2020/february/consolidation-in-u-s-agriculture-continues/

Hendrickson, M. K., Howard, P. H., Miller, E. M., & Constance, D. H. (November 19, 2020). The food system: Concentration and its impacts, a special report to the family farm action alliance. Farm Action. https://farmactionalliance.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/11/ Hendrickson-et-al.-2020.-Concentration-and-Its-Impacts-FINAL.pdf

Cryer, S. A. (May 15, 2021). Commodifying the commons: American individualism and corporate agriculture. Fordham University. https://research.library.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1114&context=environ_2015

Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. (2023). U.S. food system factsheet. https://css.umich.edu/publications/ factsheets/food/us-food-system-factsheet

Waxman, E., Salas, J., Gupta, P., & Karpman, M. (September 2022). Food insecurity trended upward in midst of high inflation and fewer supports. The Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/HRMS%20Food%20Insecurity%20Brief_0.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (February 2015). USDA coexistence fact sheets: Corn. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/documents/coexistence-corn-factsheet.pdf; United States Department of Agriculture. (February 2015). USDA coexistence fact sheets: Soybeans. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf

Domingo, N., Balasubramanian, S., Thakrar, S. K., & Hill, J. (2021). Air quality–related health damages of food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118 (20), 1. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2013637118

Sharpe, M., & Spencer, A. (August 18, 2022). Many Americans say they have shifted their priorities around health and social activities during COVID-19. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/08/18/many-americans-say-they-haveshifted-their-priorities-around-health-and-social-activities-during-covid-19/

Shryock, T. (December 5, 2022). Survey: Health and wellbeing a financial priority for Americans. Medical Economics. https://www. medicaleconomics.com/view/survey-health-and-wellbeing-a-financial-priority-for-americans

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Food and nutrition security. https://www.usda.gov/nutrition-security

Mokdad, A. H., Ballestros, K., Echko, M., Glenn, S., Olsen, H. E., Mullany, E., Lee, A., Khan, A. R., Ahmadi, A., Ferrari, A., Kasaeian, A., Werdecker, A., Carter, A., Zipkin, B., Sartorius, B., Serdar, B., Sykes, B., Troger, C., Fitzmaurice, C., Rehm, C. D., Santomauro, D., . . . Murray, C. J. L. (2018). The state of US health, 1990-2016: Burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors among US states. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 319(14): 1444–72. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2678018

Tyson, A., Funk, C., & Kennedy, B. (March 1, 2022). Americans largely favor U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/03/01/americans-largely-favor-u-s-taking-steps-to-become-carbonneutral-by-2050/

Schaeffer, K. (2022). For Earth Day, key facts about Americans’ views of climate change and renewable energy. Pew Research Center. https://pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/04/22/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewableenergy/

Crippa, M., Solazzo, E., Guizzardi, D., Monforti-Ferrario, F., Tubiello, F. N., & Leip, A. (2021). Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions. Nature Food, 2(3): 198–209. https://www.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/food_systems_ are_responsible_for_a_third_of_global.pdf

Global Alliance for the Future of Food. (October 24, 2022). Food and farming massively underfunded in climate plans. https:// futureoffood.org/insights/food-and-farming-massively-underfunded-in-climate-plans/

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (March 22, 2024). Distributional financial accounts. https://www.federalreserve. gov/releases/z1/dataviz/dfa/distribute/chart/

Food Chain Workers Alliance & Solidarity Research Cooperative. (2016). No piece of the pie: U.S. food workers in 2016. https:// foodchainworkers.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/FCWA_NoPieceOfThePie_Exec-Summary_FINAL.pdf

Human Rights Watch. (August 8, 2022). Racial discrimination in the United States. https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/08/08/racialdiscrimination-united-states/human-rights-watch/aclu-joint-submission

Odoms-Young, A. (2019). Examining the impact of structural racism on food insecurity: Implications for addressing racial/ethnic disparities. National Library of Medicine, 41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5823283/

National Center for Farmworker Health, Inc. (January 2022). Facts about agricultural workers. http://www.ncfh.org/facts-aboutagricultural-workers-fact-sheet.html

Prado, J. P., Mulay P. R., Kasner, E. J., Bokes H. K., & Calvert, G. M. (2017). Acute pesticide-related illness among farmworkers: Barriers to reporting to public health authorities. Journal of Agromedicine, 22(4): 395-405. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC5846675/

Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2023). Animal welfare. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/animal-welfare

Nalon, E. (September 27, 2018). ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ prevails when it comes to farmed animal suffering. Faunalytics. https:// faunalytics.org/out-of-sight-out-of-mind-prevails-when-it-comes-to-farmed-animal-suffering/

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (December 10, 2019). Survey: Majority of voters surveyed support greater oversight of industrial animal farms. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2019/survey-majority-of-voters-surveyed-support-greater-oversight-ofindustrial-animal-farms

Kim, H., Caulfield, L. E., Garcia-Larsen, V., Steffen, L. M., Coresh, J., & Rebholz, C. M. (2019). Plant-based diets are associated with a lower risk of incident cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular disease mortality, and all-cause mortality in a general population of middle-aged adults. Journal of American Heart Association, 8 (16). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31387433/

Berkowitz, S. A., Basu, S., Gundersen, C., & Seligman, H. K. (2019). State-level and county-level estimates of health care costs associated with food insecurity. Preventing Chronic Disease, 16: E90. https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2019/18_0549.htm

Fernandez-Cornejo, J., Nehring, R., Osteen, C., Wechsler, S., Martin. A., & Vialou, A. (May 2014). Pesticide use in U.S. agriculture: 21 selected crops, 1960-2008. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/43854/46734_ eib124.pdf; United States Department of Agriculture. (October 30, 2019). Fertilizer use and price. https://www.ers.usda.gov/dataproducts/fertilizer-use-and-price/.

Gibbs, J., & Cappuccio, F. P. (2022). Plant-based dietary patterns for human and planetary health. Nutrients, 14(8): 1614. https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9024616/; USA Pulses. (n.d.). Sustainability—Pulses: Healthy crops for the people and the planet. https://pulses.org/us/sustainability/

Canning, P. (July 18, 2019). Quantifying the impact of SNAP benefits on the U.S. economy and jobs. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2019/july/quantifying-the-impact-of-snap-benefits-onthe-u-s-economy-and-jobs/; National Farm to School Network. (May 2020). The benefits of farm to school. https://assets.website-files. com/5c469df2395cd53c3d913b2d/611027419232d281ad2f51ff_BenefitsFactSheet.pdf

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. (October 6, 2020). Comparing fiscal multipliers. https://www.crfb.org/papers/comparing-fiscal-multipliers

Thilmany, D., Bauman, A., Love, E., & Jablonski, B. B. R. (January 2021). The economic contributions of healthy food incentives. Colorado State University. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/economic_contributions_incentives_2_2_21.pdf

Equitable Food Oriented Development. (n.d.). Food for powerful communities & equitable development. https://efod.org

Dress, B. (August 9, 2022). Civil rights groups, including Al Sharpton-led organization, urge USDA to fix ‘dietary racism’ in school lunch programs. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/3594330-civil-rights-groups-including-al-sharpton-led-organization-urge-usda-tofix-dietary-racism-in-school-lunch-programs/

Kolbert, E. (2014). The sixth extinction: An unnatural history. Henry Holt and Company, LLC.

Ritchie, H. (December 15, 2022). Wild mammals make up only a few percent of the world’s mammals. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass

Cox, S. (August 10, 2021). Enough for Everyone. Yes! Magazine. https://www.yesmagazine.org/issue/how-much-is-enough/2021/08/10/ what-is-enough

Union of Concerned Scientists. (April 14, 2021). Bigger farms, bigger problems. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/bigger-farmsbigger-problems

Berg, J. (March 2010). Doing what works to end U.S. hunger. Center for American Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2010/03/pdf/dww_hunger.pdf

Congressional Research Service. (April 21, 2021). Agricultural credit: Institutions and issues. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R46768/2; Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (April 19, 2024). Ag and food sectors and the economy. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-andthe-economy/; Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture. (September 30, 2019). Executive summary farm loan programs, FY 2019. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Farm-Loan-Programs/pdfs/program-data/FY2019_ Executive_Summary.pdf

The White House Office of Management and Budget. (n.d.). Analytical perspectives: Budget of the U.S. government, fiscal year 2024. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/spec_fy2024.pdf

Congressional Research Service. (April 21, 2021). Agricultural credit: Institutions and issues. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R46768/2

Croatan Institute. (November 2023). Credit worth and soil wealth: An environmental, social, and governance analysis of the farm credit system. https://croataninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Credit-Worth-and-Soil-Wealth-FINAL.pdf

Held, L. (June 5, 2023). Farm credit can make or break farms. Should it be more equitable? Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2023/06/05/ farm-credit-can-make-or-break-farms-should-it-be-more-equitable/

Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). Commodity subsidies in the United States totaled $278.8 billion from 1995-2023. https://farm. ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=totalfarm&page=conc&regionname=theUnitedStates

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. (January 23, 2023). Record-high crop insurance subsidies are unsustainable. https:// sustainableagriculture.net/blog/record-high-crop-insurance-subsidies-are-unsustainable/

Babcock, B. A. (October 2017). Covering losses with price loss coverage, agricultural risk coverage, and the stacked income protection plan. American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Covering-Losses-with-Price-Loss-CoverageAgricultural-Risk-Coverage-and-the-Stacked-Income-Protection-Plan.pdf

Environmental Working Group. (n.d.). Crop insurance in the United States. https://farm.ewg.org/cropinsurance. php?fips=00000&regionname=theUnitedStates; Schechinger, A. (September 7, 2023). Crop insurance costs soar over time, reaching a record high in 2022. Environmental Working Group. https://www.ewg.org/research/crop-insurance-costs-soar-over-time-reachingrecord-high-2022

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (October 24, 2023). Soybeans and oil crops: Related data and statistics. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/soybeans-and-oil-crops/related-data-statistics/; Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). U.S. corn exports in 2023. https://fas.usda.gov/data/commodities/corn

Lark, T., Hendricks, N., Smith, A., Pates, N., Spawn-Lee, S., Bougie, M., Booth, E. G., Kucharik, C., & Gibbs, H. (2022). Environmental outcomes of the US renewable fuel standard. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(9): 3. https://www.pnas.org/ doi/10.1073/pnas.2101084119

Danish, M. (April 15, 2019). More Latinx farmers own their land. Could they make the food system more sustainable? Civil Eats. https:// civileats.com/2019/04/15/ag-census-more-latinx-farmers-own-their-land-could-they-make-the-food-system-more-sustainable/; Lacy, K., & Key, N. (May 30, 2024). Understanding farm diversity: Insights from the agricultural resource management survey. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/may/understanding-farmdiversity-insights-from-the-agricultural-resource-management-survey/; Nicholson, B. (January 14, 2010). American Indian farmers have more land, less cash.” The San Diego Union-Tribune. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-american-indian-farmershave-more-land-less-cash-2010jan14-story.html; United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Selected farm characteristics by race: 2017. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_0061_0061.pdf

Horst, M., & Marion, A. (2019). Racial, ethnic and gender inequities in farmland ownership and farming in the US. Agriculture and Human Values, 36(1). https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/usp_fac/241/

Munch, D. (July 5, 2023). Public lands grazing vital to the rural west. American Farm Bureau Federation. https://www.fb.org/marketintel/public-lands-grazing-vital-to-the-rural-west

Congressional Research Service. (February 21, 2020). Federal land ownership: Overview and data. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/ R42346.pdf; Congressional Research Service. (August 28, 2017). Statistics on livestock grazing on federal lands: FY2002 to FY2016. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44932/3

Congressional Research Service. (February 21, 2020). Federal land ownership: Overview and data. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/ R42346.pdf

Munch, D. (July 5, 2023). Public lands grazing vital to the rural west. American Farm Bureau Federation. https://www.fb.org/marketintel/public-lands-grazing-vital-to-the-rural-west

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. (February 28, 2024). 2024 grazing fee, surcharge rates, and penalty for unauthorized grazing use rates. https://www.blm.gov/policy/im2024-017; United States Department of Agriculture. (January 2024). 17 state grazing fees animal unit. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_am.php

Molvar, E., Stade, K., Spivak, R., & Krupp, C. (February 21, 2019). Trump administration lowers grazing fees, endangering public land. Center for Biological Diversity. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2019/grazing-fees-02-21-2019.php

Mohr, K. (February 9, 2022). What’s getting more expensive? Everything but grazing fees. High Country News. https://www.hcn.org/ articles/south-public-lands-whats-getting-more-expensive-everything-but-grazing-fees/; United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. (February 28, 2024). 2024 grazing fee, surcharge rates, and penalty for unauthorized grazing use rates. https://www.blm.gov/policy/im2024-017

United States Department of Agriculture. (January 2024). 17 state grazing fees animal unit. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_ Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_am.php

National Geographic. (January 5, 2024). Ranching. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ranching/ Shalal, A. (December 10, 2021). Meat packers’ profit margins jumped 300% during pandemic - White House economics team. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/meat-packers-profit-margins-jumped-300-during-pandemic-white-houseeconomics-2021-12-10/

Kiezebrink, V. (January 30, 2024). Hungry for profits. SOMO. https://www.somo.nl/hungry-for-profits/; Popli, N. (April 6, 2023). How food companies’ massive profits are making your groceries more expensive. Time. https://time.com/6269366/food-company-profits-makegroceries-expensive/

Farm Action. (November 16, 2020). The feed-meat complex: Unpacking the truth about how big meat pockets billions in farm subsidies. https://farmaction.us/2020/11/16/thefeedmeatcomplex/; National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. (February 12, 2021). The time is ripe for competition and antitrust reform in agriculture. https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/the-time-is-ripe-for-competition-andantitrust-reform-in-agriculture/

Romero, L. (February 22, 2024). Labor department cites meatpacking cleaning company for ‘oppressive child labor’ practices. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/labor-department-cites-meatpacking-cleaning-company-oppressive-child/story?id=107462176; Wilson, C. (November 13, 2023). Too big to fail: How consolidation in the Agricultural Industry has created unintended consequences that threaten farmers, consumers, and our national security. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law 28 (2): 172-188. https://aglawjournal. wp.drake.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/66/2024/01/Wilson-Ready-for-PUBLISH.pdf

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (February 7, 2024). Government payments by program. https:// data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17833; United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Budget for 2016. https://www.usda.gov/ our-agency/about-usda/budget/budget-2016; United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). FY 2017: Budget summary. https://www. usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fy17-budget-summary.pdf; United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). FY 2018: Budget summary. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/USDA-Budget-Summary-2018.pdf; United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). FY 2019: Budget summary. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-fy19-budget-summary.pdf

Congressional Research Service. (December 18, 2023). School meals and other child nutrition programs: Background and funding. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46234

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (September 27, 2023). National School Lunch Program. https:// www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/child-nutrition-programs/national-school-lunch-program/; Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (September 27, 2023). School Breakfast Program. https://www.ers.usda.gov/ topics/food-nutrition-assistance/child-nutrition-programs/school-breakfast-program; Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (September 27, 2023). Summer Food Service Program. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutritionassistance/child-nutrition-programs/summer-food-service-program/

Congressional Research Service. (February 29, 2024). Farm bill primer: Budget dynamics. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/IF/IF12233; Farm Action. (August 4, 2022). Putting our money where our mouths should be: The great contradiction between U.S. food subsidies and dietary guidelines. https://farmaction.us/2022/08/04/putting-our-money-where-our-mouths-should-be-thegreat-contradiction-between-u-s-food-subsidies-and-dietary-guidelines/; Helmer, J., & Walhout, H. (January 3, 2024). A new report envisions federal food spending as a force for good. Food Print. https://foodprint.org/blog/federal-food-procurement/

Biesbroek, S., Kok, F. J., Tufford, A. R., Bloem, M. W., Darmon, N., Drenowski, A., Fan, S., Fanzo, J., Gordon, L. J., Hu, F. B., Lähteenmäki, L., Nnam, N., Ridoutt, B. G., Rivera, J., Swinburn, B., & Veer, P. V. (2023). Toward healthy and sustainable diets for the 21st century: Importance of sociocultural and economic considerations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 120 (26). https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10293822/; Lakhani, N. (February 15, 2024). ‘America is a factory farming nation’: Key takeaways from US agriculture census. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/15/us-agriculture-census-farming; Mande, J. (March 1, 2023). Processed foods are making us sick. It’s time for the FDA and USDA to step in. Harvard Public Health. https:// harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/processed-foods-make-us-sick-its-time-for-government-action/

Center for Good Food Purchasing. (n.d). Stories & successes. https://goodfoodpurchasing.org/stories/; Food Chain Workers Alliance. (May 16, 2023). Procuring food justice: Grassroots solutions for reclaiming our public supply chains. https://foodchainworkers. org/2023/05/procuring-food-justice-read-our-new-report/

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (November 9, 2023). USDA child nutrition program procurement regulations. https://www.fns.usda.gov/f2s/usda-procurement-regulations

Cooper, A. (June 15, 2016). The case for central kitchens. Chef Ann Foundation. https://www.chefannfoundation.org/blog/the-casefor-central-kitchens/; The Lunch Box. (n.d.). Central Kitchens. https://www.thelunchbox.org/management/central-kitchens/

Michigan State University. (n.d.). 10 Cents A Meal. https://www.canr.msu.edu/10-cents-a-meal/

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (April 7, 2023). School nutrition and meal cost study. https://www. fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study

Meal Requirements for Lunches and Requirements for Afterschool Snacks, 7 CFR § 210.10(d) (2024); Meal Requirements for Breakfasts, 7 CFR § 220.8(d) (2024).

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (April 7, 2023). School nutrition and meal cost study. https://www. fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study

National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture. (2022). Request for applications: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/FY23-SARE-RFA-508-F.pdf; Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture. (2024). Value-Added Producer Grants. https://www.rd.usda.gov/programsservices/business-programs/value-added-producer-grants

Boston Children’s Hospital. (n.d.). Lactose intolerance. https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/lactose-intolerance; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. (February 2018). Definition & facts for lactose intolerance. https://www.niddk. nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/lactose-intolerance/definition-facts; Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. (February 22, 2019). Doctors urge 2020-2025 dietary guidelines advisory committee to ditch dairy. https://www.pcrm.org/news/newsreleases/doctors-urge-2020-2025-dietary-guidelines-advisory-committee-ditch-dairy

Carter, T., Lieu, T., Barragán, N. D., Jeffries, H., Thompson, B., DeFazio, P. A., Khanna, R., Carson, A., Escobar, V., Williams, N., Veasey, M. A., Correa, J. L., Moulton, S., Porter, K., McGovern, J. P., Dingell, D., DeSaulnier, M., Quigley, M., Norton, E. H., . . . Rush, B. L. (October 13, 2022). Members of Congress Call on USDA Secretary Vilsack to Address Dietary Racism in the National School Lunch Program. [Letter]. https://troycarter.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/troycarter.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/quill-letter-to-sec.-vilsackto-support-equity-at-the-school-lunch-counter-final.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (2024). Milk cows and production by state and region (annual). https://www.ers.usda.gov/ webdocs/DataFiles/48685/milkcowsandprod.xlsx?v=5679

Encyclopedia of Alabama. (May 17, 2023). Dairy industry in Alabama. https://encyclopediaofalabama.org/article/dairy-industry-inalabama/

Farm Sanctuary. (n.d.). Cows used for dairy. https://www.farmsanctuary.org/cows/#horizontal_section_explainer_1

Jacobs, A. (December 29, 2020). Is dairy farming cruel to cows? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/29/science/ dairy-farming-cows-milk.html

Stanley, P. (August 31, 2018). What Congress does next on the farm bill could cost farmers and taxpayers billions. Civil Eats. https:// civileats.com/2018/08/31/what-congress-does-next-on-the-farm-bill-could-cost-farmers-and-taxpayers-billions/

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2018). Appendix—Farmers and taxpayers stand to lose billions with elimination of the conservation stewardship program: CSP’s high value farm conservation delivers 4-to-1 return on investment. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/ files/attach/2018/08/CSP-ROI-Appendix-FINAL.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d). FY 2016: Budget summary and annual performance plan. https://www.usda.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/FY_2016_Budget_Summary_and_Annual_Performance_Plan.pdf; Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (February 28, 2024). Conservation. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-bill/2018-farm-bill/conservation/

Myers, S. (January 13, 2023). Overview of title II conservation programs in the farm bill. American Farm Bureau Federation. https:// www.fb.org/market-intel/overview-of-title-ii-conservation-programs-in-the-farm-bill; Schechinger, A. (October 5, 2023). Giving IRA conservation funds to farm subsidies threatens millions of cover crop acres. Environmental Working Group. https://www.ewg.org/ news-insights/news/2023/10/giving-ira-conservation-funds-farm-subsidies-threatens-millions-cover

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. (November 2020). Farmer’s guide to the Conservation Stewardship Program. https:// sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/CSP-2020-draft3-interactive-1-1.pdf

Chenyang, L., Currie, A., Darrin, H., & Rosenberg, N. (2021). Farming with the trees: Reforming U.S. farm policy to expand agroforestry and mitigate climate change. Ecology Law Quarterly, 48 (1): 4-5. https://www.ecologylawquarterly.org/wp-content/ uploads/2021/09/48.1-Chenyang_Internet-1.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). FY 2022 budget summary. https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2022budget-summary.pdf

Nelson, M. (September 26, 2019). Investing in the future of farming. American Farm Bureau Federation. https://www.fb.org/market-intel/ investing-in-the-future-of-farming

Food & Water Watch. (April 2012). Public research, private gain: Corporate influence over university agricultural research. https:// foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Public-Research-Private-Gain-Report-April-2012.pdf

Donley, N., & Bullard, R. (January 18, 2024). US pesticide regulation is failing the hardest-hit communities. It’s time to fix it. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-pesticide-regulation-is-failing-the-hardest-hit-communities-its-time-to-fix-it/; Elbein, S. (February 2, 2023). Americans want farm subsidies to go to human food, not animal feed: Survey. The Hill. https://thehill.com/ policy/equilibrium-sustainability/3841276-americans-want-farm-subsidies-to-go-to-human-food-not-animal-feed-survey/; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2022). Pesticides use, pesticides trade and pesticides indicators: Global, regional and country trends, 1990-2020. https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/78705276-3455-4c70-ac77-3082095f83b3/ content; Sharma, A. (2019). How U.S. agricultural subsidies degrade land and soil. Foodtank. https://foodtank.com/news/2019/07/ opinion-how-us-agricultural-subsidies-degrade-land-and-soil/

Baur, G. (July 21, 2023). Why is healthy food so expensive in America? Blame the farm bill that Congress always renews to make burgers cheaper than salad. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2023/07/21/why-healthy-food-so-expensive-in-america-blame-farmbill-congress-always-renews-make-burgers-cheaper-salad-gene-baur/; Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock – A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/4/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

DeSilver, D. (July 19, 2023). What the data says about food stamps in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/ short-reads/2023/07/19/what-the-data-says-about-food-stamps-in-the-u-s/; Fair Food Network Program. (n.d.). Double Up Food Bucks 2021 annual impact report. https://doubleupindiana.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/DUFB-Impact-Report-2021-1-1.pdf; Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (September 2014). Healthy Incentives Pilot final evaluation report. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/hip/final-evaluation-report

Michigan State University. (n.d.). 10 Cents A Meal. https://www.canr.msu.edu/10-cents-a-meal/

Happ, M. (April 14, 2022). Payments for pollution: How federal conservation programs can better benefit farmers and the environment. Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy. https://www.iatp.org/payments-pollution-how-federal-conservation-programs-can-betterbenefit-farmers

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (May 17, 2022). Agricultural and food research and development expenditures in the United States. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agricultural-and-food-research-and-developmentexpenditures-in-the-united-states/; Evans, K., Matthews, K. R. W., Hazan, G., & Kamepalli, S. (July 23, 2021). U.S. federal scientific research and development: Budget overview and outlook. Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. https://www.bakerinstitute. org/research/us-federal-scientific-research-and-development-budget-overview-and-outlook

Ritchie, H. (September 25, 2023). How many animals are factory farmed? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/how-manyanimals-are-factory-farmed

Ólafsson, B. (August 11, 2023). What farm subsidies are and why they matter, explained. Sentient. https://sentientmedia.org/why-arefarmers-subsidized/; Winders, D. (October 19, 2021). Farmed animals lack legal protections. What needs to change? Sentient. https:// sentientmedia.org/farmed-animals-lack-legal-protections-what-needs-to-change/

Kestenbaum, R. (June 9, 2022). How sustainability may alter the food chain. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ richardkestenbaum/2022/06/09/how-sustainability-may-alter-the-food-chain/?sh=4ba9be5c17ad; Molvar, E., Stade, K., Spivak, R., & Krupp, C. (February 21, 2019). Trump administration lowers grazing fees, endangering public land. Center for Biological Diversity. https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2019/grazing-fees-02-21-2019.php; Smith, S. V., & Garcia, C. (July 26, 2019). The U.S. has nearly 1.9 billion acres of land. Here’s how it is used. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/26/745731823/ the-u-s-has-nearly-1-9-billion-acres-of-land-heres-how-it-is-used

Gustafson, A. (November 20, 2023). Corporations make record profits as food prices soar, says new ‘greedflation’ report. https:// pennsylvaniaindependent.com/politics/greedflation-report-bob-casey-inflation-corporate-profits/; Semuels, A. (November 27, 2019). ‘They’re trying to wipe us off the map.’ Small American farmers are nearing extinction. Time. https://time.com/5736789/smallamerican-farmers-debt-crisis-extinction/

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (February 29, 2024). Farming and farm income. https://www.ers. usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/farming-and-farm-income

Environmental Working Group. (September 15, 2023). USDA conservation funding benefits all farmers, not just rice, cotton and peanut farmers. https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2023/09/usda-conservation-funding-benefits-all-farmers-not-just-rice-cotton-and Farm Action. (n.d.). References: Federal farm subsidies. https://farmaction.us/subsidies-sources/; Ducharme, J. (November 27, 2017). About 90% of Americans don’t eat enough fruits and vegetables. Time. https://time.com/5029164/fruit-vegetable-diet/

United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Food nutrition and security: What is nutrition security? https://www.usda.gov/nutritionsecurity; Reeves, R. V., & Smith, F. (August 7, 2020). Black and Hispanic Americans at higher risk of hypertension, diabetes, obesity: Time to fix our broken food system. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/black-and-hispanic-americans-at-higherrisk-of-hypertension-diabetes-obesity-time-to-fix-our-broken-food-system/

Gro Intelligence. (June 10, 2018). A look at fertilizer and pesticide use in the US. https://www.gro-intelligence.com/insights/a-look-atfertilizer-and-pesticide-use-in-the-us; Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (December 21, 2023). Feed grains sector at a glance. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance/

Calvert, G., Beckman, J., Bonnar Prado, J., Bojes, H., Schwartz, A., Mulay, P., Leinenkugel, K., Higgins, S., Lackovic, M., Waltz, J., Stover, D., & Moraga-McHaley, S. (2016). Acute occupational pesticide-related illness and injury—United States, 2007-2011. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 63 (55): 15. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/63/wr/mm6355a3.htm#contribAff

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2019). Farmworkers at risk: The growing danger of pesticides and heat. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/ default/files/2019-12/farmworkers-at-risk-report-2019-web.pdf

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (February 8, 2024). Agricultural production and prices. https:// www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/agricultural-production-and-prices/

Center for Biological Diversity & World Animal Protection. (February 22, 2022). New report: More than 200 million pounds of pesticides in U.S. are applied to crops grown to feed animals on factory farms. https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-reportmore-than-200-million-pounds-of-pesticides-in-us-are-applied-to-crops-grown-to-feed-animals-on-factory-farms-2022-02-22/; Center for International Environmental Law. (October 6, 2022). Fossils, fertilizers, and false solutions: Agrochemicals are propping up the fossil economy. https://www.ciel.org/news/fossils-fertilizers/; Gillette, D., & Barge, W. (April 20, 2022). The true cost of a hamburger. American Institute for Economic Research. https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/; United Nations. (n.d.). Food and climate change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food

Houlton, B. Z., Almaraz, M., Aneja, V., Austin, A. T., Bai, E., Cassman, K. G., Compton, J. E., Davidson, E. A., Erisman, J. W., Galloway, J. N., Gu, B., Yao, G., Martinelli, L. A., Scow, K., Schlesinger, W. H., Tomich, T. P., Wang, C., & Zhang, X. (2019). A world of cobenefits: Solving the global nitrogen challenge. Earth’s Future, 7(8): 865-66. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001222; Smith, M. R., Mueller, N. D., Springmann, M., Sulser, T. B., Garibaldi, L. A., Gerber, J., Wiebe, K., & Myers, S. S. (2022). Pollinator deficits, food consumption, and consequences for human health: A modeling study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 130 (2). https://ehp.niehs.nih. gov/doi/10.1289/EHP10947; United Nations. (n.d.). The world’s food supply is made insecure by climate change. https://www.un.org/en/ academic-impact/worlds-food-supply-made-insecure-climate-change

Congressional Research Service. (February 29, 2024). Farm bill primer: Budget dynamics. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/ IF/IF12233

Latch, A. (May 17, 2023). Expanding Double Up Bucks is essential for reducing food insecurity. The Center for Law and Social Policy. https://www.clasp.org/blog/expanding-double-up-bucks-is-essential-for-reducing-food-insecurity/; Wang, Y. (December 22, 2022). Assessment of Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP). Medium. https://medium.com/@keirawangworld/assessment-of-healthy-incentivespilots-hip-67dc9435885

Barrón-López, L., & Buhre, M. L. (April 1, 2024). State laws create disparities in access to government food benefits. Public Broadcasting Service. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/state-laws-create-disparities-in-access-to-government-food-benefits; Wahowiak, L. (August 2015). SNAP restrictions can hinder ability to purchase healthy food: Stigma, payment options among issues. The Nation’s Health. https://www.thenationshealth.org/content/45/6/1.3

Loanes, E. (March 4, 2023). SNAP boosts kept millions out of poverty during covid. Now they’re gone. Vox. https://www.vox.com/ policy/2023/3/4/23625015/snap-poverty-covid-benefits

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (February 23, 2024). Key statistics and research: Supplemental nutrition assistance program. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-programsnap/key-statistics-and-research/; United States Census Bureau. (2024). U.S. and world population clock. https://www.census.gov/ popclock/

Jeong, J. (December 21, 2017). In defense of SNAP. Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation, Harvard Law School. https://chlpi.org/ news-and-events/news-and-commentary/commentary/in-defense-of-snap/

United States Government Accountability Office. (January 19, 2023). Inflation and rising food prices: How does federal food assistance change? https://www.gao.gov/blog/inflation-and-rising-food-prices-how-does-federal-food-assistance-change

Fair Food Network Program. (n.d.). Double Up Food Bucks 2021 annual impact report. https://doubleupindiana.org/wp-content/ uploads/2023/05/DUFB-Impact-Report-2021-1-1.pdf

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (September 2014). Healthy Incentives Pilot final evaluation report. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/hip/final-evaluation-report; Fair Food Network Program. (n.d.). Double Up Food Bucks 2021 annual impact report. https://doubleupindiana.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/DUFB-Impact-Report-2021-1-1.pdf; DeSilver, D. (July 19, 2023). What the data says about food stamps in the U.S. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/19/ what-the-data-says-about-food-stamps-in-the-u-s/

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (September 2014). Healthy Incentives Pilot final evaluation report. https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/hip/final-evaluation-report

Farm Sanctuary. (2023). Building the good: Advocacy’s February highlights. https://www.farmsanctuary.org/news-stories/building-thegood-advocacy-february-highlights/

Neuberger, Z., Hall, L., & Sallack, L. (February 21, 2024). WIC’s critical benefits reach only half of those eligible. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wics-critical-benefits-reach-only-half-of-those-eligible

Mauriello, T. (December 8, 2021). Michigan schools struggle to feed students because of supply chain issues and worker shortages. Chalkbeat Detroit. https://www.chalkbeat.org/detroit/2021/12/8/22824119/school-food-shortage-supply-chain-warren-michiganschool-cafeterias/; Ronto, R., Rathi, N., Worsley, A., Sanders, T., Lonsdale, C., & Wolfenden, L. (2020). Enablers and barriers to implementation of compliance with school-based healthy food and beverage policies: A systemic literature review and metasynthesis. Public Health Nutrition, 23 (15): 2840-55. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10200683/; Qu, S., Fischer, L., & Rumble, J. (2019). Building bridges between producers and schools: The role of extension in the farm to school program. Journal of Extension, 57(4): 3. https://archives.joe.org/joe/2019august/pdf/JOE_v57_4a4.pdf

Ewall-Wice, S. (January 18, 2023). Schools struggle to provide meals for kids as inflation sends food costs soaring. CBS News. https:// www.cbsnews.com/news/schools-struggle-to-provide-meals-for-kids-as-inflation-sends-food-costs-soaring/

Michigan State University. (n.d.). 10 Cents A Meal. https://www.canr.msu.edu/10-cents-a-meal/

Cornell Cooperative Extension. (n.d.). 30% NY Initiative. https://cals.cornell.edu/cornell-cooperative-extension/work-teams/new-yorkstate-farm-school/find-farm-school-resources/30-ny-initiative

Bilinski, C., Bull, C., & O’Connor, B. (January 2022). 30% Initiative: Opportunities, barriers, and pathways to success. Cornell Cooperative Extension, Harvest NY. https://harvestny.cce.cornell.edu/uploads/doc_217.pdf; Bull, C., Baker, S., Spangler, K., Perry, M., & Ruxin, A. (November 2023). The 30% Initiative: Designing opportunities for access, equity, and economic impact in New York’s farm to school incentive program. American Farmland Trust, Farm to Institute New York State, & National Farm to School Network. https://finys.org/ sites/default/files/2023-12/AFT%20Report%2030%25%20Full%20Report%20v.%206%2011.30.23.pdf

New York State Education Department. (2018). Program description handbook 2018-19: School lunch programs that have purchased at least 30% of their total food products from NYS farmers, growers, producers, or processors. https://www.nysed.gov/budgetcoordination/school-lunch-programs-have-purchased-least-30-their-total-food-products-nys

Congressional Research Service. (April 21, 2021). Agricultural credit: Institutions and issues. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/ pdf/R/R46768/2

Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation. (June 1, 2024). Farm Credit System: Investor presentation. https://www. farmcreditfunding.com/ffcb_live/current/InvestorPresentation.pdf

Farm Credit East. (May 2018). Why are variable interest rates increasing? https://www.farmcrediteast.com/-/media/farm-credit-east/ knowledge-exchange/Reports/2018/201805_VariableInterestRates.ashx

U.S. Congressional Research Service. (July 27, 2022). Agricultural credit: Institutions and issues. https://crsreports.congress.gov/ product/pdf/R/R46768

Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation. (June 1, 2024). Farm Credit System: Investor presentation. https://www. farmcreditfunding.com/ffcb_live/current/InvestorPresentation.pdf

Dlamini, J. C., Cardenas, L. M., Tesfamariam, E. H., Dunn, R. M., Loick, N., Charteris, A. F., Cocciaglia, L., Vangeli, S., Blackwell, M. S. A., Upadhayay, H. R., Hawkins, J. M. B., Evans, J., & Collins, A. L. (2022). Riparian buffer strips influence nitrogen losses as nitrous oxide and leached N from upslope permanent pasture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 336. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0167880922001803

Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Riparian forest buffers. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/practices/riparianforest-buffers.php

Farm Service Agency, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). ARC/PLC program. https://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-andservices/arcplc_program/

Lehner, P., & Rosenberg, N. A. (2021). Farming for our future: The science, law, and policy of climate neutral agriculture. Environmental Law Institute.

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (December 21, 2023). Feed grains sector at a glance. https:// www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance/; Stillerman, K. P. (August 3, 2018). Why the midwest’s food system is failing. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2018/08/03/why-the-midwests-food-system-is-failing/

National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Hispanic-serving agricultural colleges and universities (HSACU). https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/hispanic-serving-institutions-education-grants-hsi-program/ hispanic-serving-agricultural-colleges-universities-hsacu

National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Hispanics Serving Institutions (HSIs) and HSIS with Hispanic-Serving Agricultural Colleges and Universities (HSACU) certification. https://www.nifa.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/2023-01/NIFA_HSI_HSACUMAPFY23_0123_Remediated_v3.pdf

Lindsey, D. (March 15, 2024). Fridays on the farm: Farming in her footsteps. Farmers.gov, United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.farmers.gov/blog/fridays-on-farm-farming-in-her-footsteps

Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip-environmental-quality-incentives

Booker, C. (November 23, 2021). Booker announces legislation aimed at banning dangerous pesticides from our agriculture system. Cory Booker, United States Senator for New Jersey. https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/press/booker-announces-legislationaimed-at-banning-dangerous-pesticides-from-our-agriculture-system

Lark, T .J., Hendricks, N. P., Smith, A., Pates, N., Spawn-Lee, S. A., Bougie, M., Booth, E. G., Kucharik, C. J., & Gibbs, H. K. (2022). Environmental outcomes of the US Renewable Fuel Standard. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(9). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2101084119

Mumm, R. H., Goldsmith, P. D., Rausch, K. D., & Stein, H. H. (April 12, 2014). Land usage attributed to corn ethanol production in the United States: Sensitivity to technological advances in corn grain yield, ethanol conversion, and co-product utilization. Biotechnology for Biofuels, 7: 6. https://biotechnologyforbiofuels.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1754-6834-7-61

Farm Energy. (April 3, 2019). Corn or biofuel production. National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture. https://farm-energy.extension.org/corn-for-biofuel-production/; Hill, J. (2022). The sobering truth about corn ethanol. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(11). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC8931354/

Apfel, C., & Ellis-Ramirez, M. (April 15, 2022). Biofuels: Why growing food for fuel is a foolish choice. Earthjustice. https://earthjustice. org/experts/carrie-apfel/biofuels-why-growing-food-for-fuel-is-a-foolish-choice; Earthjustice. (April 26, 2021). Pesticide protection for farmworkers. https://earthjustice.org/case/pesticide-protection-for-farmworkers

Lacagnina, G., Hughner, R., Barroso, C., Hall, R., & Wharton, C. (2017). Supply chain barriers to healthy, affordable produce in Phoenixarea food deserts. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 48 (3): 2-12. https://www.fdrsinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/ JFDR_48.3_01_Wharton.pdf; Sinkel, D., Khouryieh, H., Daday, J. K., Stone, M., & Shen, C. (2018). Knowledge and implementation of Good Agricultural Practices among Kentucky fresh producer farmers. Food Production Trends, 38 (2): 112. https://www.foodprotection. org/files/food-protection-trends/mar-apr-18-sinkel.pdf

Nehring, R., Miranda, A., & Howe, A. (2017). Making the case for institutional demand: Supporting smallholders through procurement and food assistance programmes. Global Food Security, 12: 97-99. https://www.oneplanetnetwork. org/sites/default/files/from-crm/36.%2520Making%2520the%2520case%2520for%2520Institutional%2520Demand_ Supporting%2520smallholders%2520through%2520procurement%2520and%2520food%2520assistance%2520programmes.pdf

Food Research & Action Center. (August 2019). School meals are essential for student health and learning. https://frac.org/wp-content/ uploads/School-Meals-are-Essential-Health-and-Learning_FNL.pdf; Hanks, Q. (n.d.). School meal participation contributes to positive mental health outcomes. Food Research & Action Center. https://frac.org/blog/school-meal-participation-contributes-positivemental-health-outcomes

Cather, A. (November 7, 2016). Healthy hospital food: A new approach to patient recovery. Hunter College New York City Food Policy Center. https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/healthy-hospital-food-new-approach-patient-recovery/; Fadnes, L. T., Økland, J. M., Haaland, Ø. A., & Johansson, K. A. (2022). Estimating impact of food choices on life expectancy: A modeling study. PLOS Medicine, 19(2): 1-14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8824353/; Rhoads, E. (n.d.). How health care providers can use food to treat disease. Foodtank. https://foodtank.com/news/2022/05/how-health-care-providers-can-use-food-to-treat-disease/

Indeed. (n.d.). Cafeteria worker hourly salaries in the United States. https://www.indeed.com/cmp/School-Cafeteria/salaries/CafeteriaWorker; World Population Review. (2024). Livable wage by state 2024. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/livablewage-by-state; Zippia. (April 25, 2024). Average school cafeteria cook salary. https://www.zippia.com/salaries/school-cafeteria-cook/

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. (June 2019). Helping communities increase self-sufficiency and food security. https:// sustainableagriculture.net/publications/grassrootsguide/local-food-systems-rural-development/community-food-project-grants/

Gaddis, J. E. (September 21, 2020). The big business of school meals. Kappan. https://kappanonline.org/big-business-school-mealsfood-service-gaddis/

Gaddis, J. E. (September 21, 2020). The big business of school meals. Kappan. https://kappanonline.org/big-business-school-mealsfood-service-gaddis/; Hill, H. (2008). Food miles: Background and marketing. The National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service. https://attra.ncat.org/publication/food-miles-background-and-marketing/#top; United Nations Environment Programme. (July 20, 2020). 10 things you should know about industrial farming. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/10-things-you-should-knowabout-industrial-farming

Office of Performance and Innovative Finance, United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. (2017). Build America Bonds (BABS). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/fact_sheets/babs.aspx

Salwati, N., & Wessel, D. (August 4, 2021). What are Build America Bonds or direct-pay municipal bonds? The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-are-build-america-bonds-or-direct-pay-municipal-bonds/

United States Department of the Treasury. (n.d.). SIPPRA - Pay for results. https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impactpartnerships/sippra-pay-for-results

Social Finance. (n.d.). The Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act. https://socialfinance.org/sippra/; United States Department of the Treasury. (January 19, 2024). SIPPRA frequently asked questions. https://home.treasury.gov/services/social-impactpartnerships/sippra-pay-for-results/sippra-frequently-asked-questions

Urban Institute. (n.d.). Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for Results Act (SIPPRA). https://pfs.urban.org/get-started/issue-areas/ content/social-impact-partnership-pay-results-act-sippra.html

Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation. (June 1, 2024). Farm Credit System: Investor presentation. https://www. farmcreditfunding.com/ffcb_live/current/InvestorPresentation.pdf

Kids’ Safe and Healthful Food Project. (March 26, 2014). States need updated school kitchen equipment. The Pew Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2014/03/26/states-need-updated-school-kitchen-equipment-b

Congressman Mark DeSaulnier. (July 9, 2021). Congressman DeSaulnier introduces bill to help provide healthy meals to students. https://desaulnier.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-desaulnier-introduces-bill-help-provide-healthy-meals

Karst, T. (July 25, 2022). Food banks left wanting for produce boxes from USDA. Produce Market Guide. https://www. producemarketguide.com/news/food-banks-left-wanting-for-produce-boxes-from-usda; Food Safety News. (September 24, 2021). Bill to reshape and revive Families Food Box Program introduced by powerful House democrat. https://www.foodsafetynews. com/2021/09/bill-to-reshape-and-revive-families-food-box-program-introduced-by-powerful-house-democrat/

Keisler-Starkey, K., Bunch, L. N., & Lindstrom R. A. (September 12, 2023). Health insurance coverage in the United States: 2022. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-281.html; USA.gov. (n.d.). Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). https://www.usa.gov/agencies/centers-for-medicare-and-medicaid-services

Lee, Y., Mozaffarian, D., Sy, S., Huang, Y., Liu, J., Wilde, P. E., Abrahams-Gessel, S., Jardim, T. V., Gaziano, T. A., & Micha, R. (2019). Costeffectiveness of financial incentives for improving diet and health through Medicare and Medicaid: A microsimulation study. PLOS Medicine, 16(3). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30889188/

Carlson, S., & Neuberger, Z. (January 27, 2021). WIC works: Addressing the nutrition and health needs of low-income families for more than four decades. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. www.cbpp.org/wicworks; Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (May 7, 2024). National and state level estimates of WIC eligibility and program reach in 2021. https://www. fns.usda.gov/research/wic/eligibility-and-program-reach-estimates-2021

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (November 24, 2021). National and state level estimates of Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) eligibles and program reach, 2011. https://www.fns. usda.gov/wic/national-and-state-level-estimates-special-supplemental-nutrition-program-women-infants-and-1; Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (May 7, 2024). National and state level estimates of WIC eligibility and program reach in 2019. https://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/national-state-level-estimates-eligibility-program-reach-2019; Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (May 7, 2024). National and state level estimates of WIC eligibility and program reach in 2021. https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/wic/eligibility-and-program-reach-estimates-2021

Neuberger, Z., & Hall, L. (November 14, 2022). WIC coordination with medicaid and SNAP. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/wic-coordination-with-medicaid-and-snap-0

Nelson, K. P., & Fuglie, K. (June 6, 2022). Investment in U.S. public agricultural research and development has fallen by a third over past two decades, lags major trade competitors. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers. usda.gov/amber-waves/2022/june/investment-in-u-s-public-agricultural-research-and-development-has-fallen-by-a-third-over-pasttwo-decades-lags-major-trade-competitors/

Lei, L., Hui, S., Chen, Y., Yan, H., Yang, J., & Tong, S. (2024). Effects of soy isoflavone supplementation on blood pressure: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrition Journal, 23 (1). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38454401/; Saintila, J., Carranza-Cubas, S. P., Santamaria-Acosta, O. F. A., Serpa-Barrientos, A., Ramos-Vera, C., López-López, E., Geraldo-Campos, L. A., Calizaya-Milla, Y. E. (2024). Breakfast consumption, saturated fat intake, and body mass index among medical and non-medical students: A cross-sectional analysis. Scientists Reports, 14. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-63440-x

America’s Seed Fund. (n.d.). Participating federal agencies. U.S. Small Business Administration. https://beta.www.sbir.gov/participatingagencies; United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Funding opportunities: Food loss and waste. https://www.usda.gov/ foodlossandwaste/funding

Sorvino, C. (July 14, 2022). Food waste costs U.S. taxpayers billions of dollars a year. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ chloesorvino/2022/07/14/food-waste-costs-us-taxpayers-billions-of-dollars-a-year

WRAL News. (September 2, 2022). Partnership brings reusable lunch items to Durham charter school. https://www.wral.com/story/ durham-charter-school-and-local-non-profit-partner-to-implement-reusable-lunch-items/20445410/

Hendrickson, M. K., Howard, P. H., Miller, E. M., & Constance, D. H. (May 6, 2021). The food system: Concentration and its impacts, a special report to the family farm action alliance. Farm Action. https://farmaction.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Hendrickson-et-al.2020.-Concentration-and-Its-Impacts_FINAL_Addended.pdf

Protect America’s Meatpacking Workers Act, S.270, 118th Cong. (2023). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/270

Costa, D., Martin, P., & Rutledge, Z. (December 15, 2020). Federal labor standards enforcement in agriculture. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/federal-labor-standards-enforcement-in-agriculture-data-reveal-the-biggest-violatorsand-raise-new-questions-about-how-to-improve-and-target-efforts-to-protect-farmworkers/; Farmworker Justice. (n.d.). Agricultural exceptionalism: A history of discrimination against farmworkers in labor laws results in poverty for farmworkers. https://www. farmworkerjustice.org/blog-post/agricultural-exceptionalism-a-history-of-discrimination-against-farmworkers-in-labor-laws-resultsin-poverty-for-farmworkers/

Kim, J. (September 25, 2023). Perdue Farms and Tyson Foods under federal inquiry over reports of illegal child labor. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/2023/09/25/1201524399/child-labor-perdue-farms-tyson-foods-investigation; Saitone, T. L., Schaefer, K. A., & Scheitrum, D. P. (2021). COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in U.S. meatpacking counties. Food Policy, 101. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC8026277/

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. (n.d.). Black Farmers FAQ. https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/black-farmers-faq/ Farm Sanctuary. (February 3, 2023). Farm Sanctuary comes to Capitol Hill: Building a table where we’re all invited. https://www. farmsanctuary.org/news-stories/roundtable-review-us-food-systems/

Climate Hubs, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Specialty crops and climatic variability. https://www.climatehubs.usda. gov/hubs/topic/specialty-crops-and-climatic-variability; Climate Hubs, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). The economic impact of climate change on northwest farms. https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/economic-impact-climatechange-northwest-farms; National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. (February 2024). Unsustainable: State of the farm safety net. https://sustainableagriculture.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Farm-Safety-Net-Report-February-2024-Final.pdf

Sayers, D. M. (June 5, 2023). More than 90% of the peach state’s peaches were lost this year after extreme winter weather. CNN. https:// www.cnn.com/2023/06/05/us/georgia-peach-loss-climate/index.html

Armstrong, M. (June 7, 2021). Which foods need the most water to produce? World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2021/06/water-footprint-food-sustainability/; Climate Hubs, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Specialty crops and climatic variability. https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/topic/specialty-crops-and-climatic-variability; United Nations. (n.d.). Food and climate change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet. https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/science/climate-issues/food

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. (August 27, 2018). As carbon dioxide levels climb, millions at risk of nutritional deficiencies. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/climate-change-less-nutritious-food/

Becerra, N. R. (October 13, 2023). Impacts of the climate crisis on American farm workers. American Lung Association. https://www. lung.org/blog/climate-change-impacts-farmworkers

Rodriguez, J. O. (January 18, 2023). With less access to paid leave, rural workers face hard choices about health, family. National Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/01/18/1149693773/with-less-access-to-paid-leave-rural-workers-face-hardchoices-about-health-fami

Becerra, N. R. (October 13, 2023). Impacts of the climate crisis on American farm workers. American Lung Association. https://www. lung.org/blog/climate-change-impacts-farmworkers

Son J. Y., Muenich R. L., Schaffer-Smith, D., Miranda, M. L., & Bell, M. L. (2021). Distribution of environmental justice metrics for exposure to CAFOs in North Carolina, USA. Environmental Research, 195. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33581087/

This approach, higher than other estimates, recognizes that some forms of water use allow for water to be recycled.

Environmental Protection Agency. (March 26, 2013). EPA survey finds more than half of the nation’s river and stream miles in poor condition. https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/26a31559bb37a7d285257b3a00589ddf.html

Richter, B. D., Lamsal, G., Marston, L., Dhakal, S., Sangha, L. S., Rushforth, R. R., Wei, D., Ruddell, B. L., Davis, K. F., Hernandez-Cruz, A., Sandoval-Solis, S., & Schmidt, J. C. (2024). New water accounting reveals why the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea. Communications Earth & Environment 5(134). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01291-0

Silver, W. L., Perez, T., Mayer, A., & Jones, A. R. (2021). The role of soil in the contribution of food and feed. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences, 376(1834). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8349637/

Ritchie, H. (March 8, 2021). How much of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food? Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata. org/greenhouse-gas-emissions-food

Lehner, P., & Rosenberg, N. A. (2021). Farming for our future: The science, law, and policy of climate neutral agriculture. Environmental Law Institute.

United Nations Environment Programme. (January 16, 2023). Four reasons why the world needs to limit nitrogen pollution. https://www. unep.org/news-and-stories/story/four-reasons-why-world-needs-limit-nitrogen-pollution

National Sustainable Agriculture Program. (February 2024). Unsustainable: State of the farm safety net. https://sustainableagriculture. net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Farm-Safety-Net-Report-February-2024-Final.pdf

Risk Management Agency, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Whole-Farm Revenue Protection (WFRP). https://www.rma. usda.gov/en/Policy-and-Procedure/Insurance-Plans/Whole-Farm-Revenue-Protection

College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences, Ohio State University. (May 12, 2017). Using cover crops to improve soil and water quality. https://ohioline.osu.edu/factsheet/anr-57

National Agricultural Statistics Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (October 2022). Conservation Practice Adoption Motivations, 2021: Cropland and Confined Livestock Practices. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2022/CPAMS.pdf

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (April 16, 2024). 2022 Census of Agriculture: Cover crop use continues to be most common in eastern United States. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chartdetail/?chartId=108950

National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (October 2020). Conservation practice: Standard riparian forest buffer. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-09/Riparian_Forest_Buffer_391_CPS_10_2020.pdf

Climate Action, United Nations. (n.d.). Food and climate change: Healthy diets for a healthier planet. https://www.un.org/en/ climatechange/science/climate-issues/food

Ritchie, H., Rosado, P., & Roser, M. (2022). Environmental impacts of food production. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/ environmental-impacts-of-food

Duluins, O., & Baret, P. V. (2024). A systematic review of the definitions, narratives and paths forwards for a protein transition in highincome countries. Nature Food, 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00906-7

National Agroforestry Center, United States Department of Agriculture. (April 2021). How can agroforestry increase carbon sequestration? https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/assets/documents/workingtrees/infosheets/WTInfoSheet-CarbonSequestration.pdf

Climate Hubs , United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). How can agroforestry support climate change mitigation in the Northeast? https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northeast/topic/how-can-agroforestry-support-climate-change-mitigationnortheast

Chenyang, L., Currie, A., Darrin, H., & Rosenberg. N. (2021). Farming with trees: Reforming U.S. farm policy to expand agroforestry and mitigate climate change. Ecology Law Quarterly, 48. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3717877

Union of Concerned Scientists. (August 22, 2018). What Congress does next could cost farmers and taxpayers billions. https://blog. ucsusa.org/science-blogger/what-congress-does-next-could-cost-farmers-and-taxpayers-billions/

United States Department of Agriculture. (March 2018). High Tunnel System Initiative. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/sites/default/ files/2022-12/HighTunnelFactSheet.pdf

National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). High Tunnel Initiative: EQIP. https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/programs-initiatives/eqip-high-tunnel-initiative; National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Growing all seasons: High tunnels. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/other-topics/organic/nrcsassistance-for-organic-farmers/growing-all-seasons-high-tunnels

National Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Growing all seasons: High tunnels. https://www. nrcs.usda.gov/getting-assistance/other-topics/organic/nrcs-assistance-for-organic-farmers/growing-all-seasons-high-tunnels

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (June 6, 2022). Investment in U.S. public agricultural research and development has fallen by a third over past two decades, lags major trade competitors. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/2022/june/investment-in-u-s-public-agricultural-research-and-development-has-fallen-by-a-third-over-past-two-decadeslags-major-trade-competitors/

Stern, A. L., Blackstone, N. T., Economos, C. D., & Griffin, T. S. (2022). Less animal protein and more whole grain in US school lunches could greatly reduce environmental impacts. Communications Earth & Environment, 3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00452-3

Kim, Y., & Kim, M. (2023). What is on plates for school meals: Focusing on animal- vs. plant-based protein foods. Nutrition Research and Practice, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.4162/nrp.2023.17.5.1028

Sodexo. (n.d.). Reducing carbon emissions. https://in.sodexo.com/positive-impact/sustainability/reducing-carbon-emissions.html

Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Livestock grazing on public lands. https://www.blm.gov/ programs/natural-resources/rangelands-and-grazing/livestock-grazing

Plummer, K. (February 28, 2023). Money doesn’t grow on public lands: The cost of livestock grazing in the American west. University of Washington School of Marine and Environmental Affairs. https://smea.uw.edu/currents/money-doesnt-grow-on-public-lands-thecost-of-livestock-grazing-in-the-american-west/

Fassler, J. (May 3, 2023). Inside big beef’s climate messaging machine: Confuse, defend, and downplay. The Guardian. https://www. theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine; Plummer, K. (February 28, 2023). Money doesn’t grow on public lands: The cost of livestock grazing in the American west. University of Washington School of Marine and Environmental Affairs. https://smea.uw.edu/currents/money-doesnt-grow-on-public-lands-the-cost-of-livestock-grazing-in-theamerican-west/

Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Friends of the Earth Europe, & Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz. (September 2021). Meat atlas 2021: Facts and figures about the animals we eat. https://friendsoftheearth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MeatAtlas2021_final_web.pdf

Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (April 22, 2019). The state of the forest. https://www.fs.usda.gov/features/ state-forest

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (June 6, 2024). Updates to the school nutrition standards. https:// www.fns.usda.gov/cn/school-nutrition-standards-updates

Bolotnikova, M. (April 16, 2024). The dairy industry really, really doesn’t want you to say “bird flu in cows.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/ future-perfect/24128700/bird-fludairy-meat-industry-h5n1-cows-milk-eggs-safety; Gerber, P.J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A., & Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://www.fao.org/4/i3437e/i3437e.pdf; Hussain, G. (September 14, 2022). What are the environmental impacts of dairy farming? Sentient. https://sentientmedia.org/the-dairyindustry-environment/; Olson-Sawyer, K. (October 21, 2022). Dairy, drought and the drying of the American west. FoodPrint. https:// foodprint.org/blog/dairy-water-footprint/; Sentient. (February 22, 2022). Environmental impact of dairy farming: What you didn’t know. https://sentientmedia.org/environmental-impact-of-dairy-farming-what-you-didnt-know/; Sharma, C., Rokana, N., Chandra, M., Singh, B. P., Gulhane, R. D., Singh Gill, J. P., Ray, P., Puniya, A. K., & Panwar, H. (2018). Antimicrobial resistance: Its surveillance, impact, and alternative management strategies in dairy animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 4. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ fvets.2017.00237/full

MacDonald, J. M., Law, J., & Mosheim, R. (July 2020). Consolidation in U.S. dairy farming. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/98901/err-274.pdf

Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (October 31, 2023). Farm milk production. https://www.ers.usda. gov/topics/animal-products/dairy/background/

California Department of Food and Agriculture. (2019-2020). California agricultural statistics review. https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/ PDFs/2020_Ag_Stats_Review.pdf

National Institutes of Health. (2006). Lactose intolerance: Information for health care providers. https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/ eot2008/20090113185727/http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/upload/NICHD_MM_ Lactose_FS.pdf

Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture. (April 7, 2023). School nutrition and meal cost study. https://www. fns.usda.gov/school-nutrition-and-meal-cost-study

A Food System Shift Roadmap

Contents:

Part I: Designing a Cross-Movement Strategy for Food System Reform in the United States

Part II: Elevating Food Policy

Part III: Identifying Underused and Misused Food System Resources

Part

IV: What Can We Do?

Shifting Federal Policy for Healthy Families, Farmers, and Communities

Part 1: Designing a Cross-Movement Strategy for Food System Reform in the United States

The Roadmap: Healthy families, farmers, and communities

Shifting federal food policy

Timeline and key events

April 2021 – June 2021

June 2021 – October 2022

Phase 2: Sharing visions of food system shifts

October 2022 – August 2023

Building the Roadmap: A cross movement collaboration

Part II: Elevating Food

A way forward

Going forward we need to:

In defense of bold federal action

Dispelling the food efficiency myth

Prioritizing food system reform to address shared challenges

Food intervention and plant-based strategies are part of the solution

Part III: Identifying Underused and Misused Food System Resources

Food system reform can support shared prosperity and shared flourishing

Agricultural funding favors corporate consolidators and worsens inequity

Large landowner profits are fueled by agricultural loans and spending

Agricultural loans and spending primarily support feed and fuel, not food for consumers

Federal agricultural investments reflect and deepen structural inequalities, particularly systemic racism

Federal land resource management prioritizes industry over people and the environment

Federal inaction enables corporate consolidation at the expense of communities

The school milk mandate wastes resources and harms children, communities, and cows

Conservation spending deprioritizes the most effective practices for soil and climate

Private sector agricultural research has replaced federal research, yet public research continues to invest in private priorities

Shifting food system resources to improve nutrition and food security

Part IV: What Can We Do?

Shifting Federal Policy for Healthy Families, Farmers, and Communities

A national nutritional security strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

We can shift nutrition programs to support healthy food access

We can shift food service to support healthy food access

We can shift credit to support healthy food production

We can shift insurance to support sustainable agriculture

We can shift R&D to support healthy and sustainable food production

We can shift support to farm transitions that promote conservation

We can shift regulations to stop enabling hazardous commodity crop production

A national community infrastructure strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

We can shift federal lending programs for social impact

We can shift food service programs and procurement

We can shift federal assistance programs for equitable food access

We can shift R&D programs to advance equitable food infrastructure

We can combat consolidation and support anti-trust regulations

A national food, climate, and environment strategy for healthy families, farmers, and communities

We can bolster the safety net for low-emission farms

We can shift credit programs to bolster sustainable practices

We can shift agricultural conservation and sustainability programs

Prioritize high tunnels

We can shift agricultural R&D programs to reduce emissions

We can shift food service to lower its carbon footprint

We can shift nutrition and public land usage regulations

Part V: Conclusion