Breaking through the noise: Federal food policy, local impact
Here’s the big picture: Federal food policy is highly consequential for local people – if not for yourself, then for your neighbors, friends, family members, or colleagues.
Cuts to safety net programs alongside widespread political and economic uncertainty come at a cost both to our emergency food system and the increasing number of people who are ever more reliant on it. Amidst funding cuts and a challenging fundraising landscape, some food programs have even suspended services. Others are turning to organizations like ours to help fill the large gaps created by these big hits to our infrastructure. Food access (and in particular access to healthy food) has become alarmingly more challenging. At the same time, food continues to be the top material in Massachusetts’ waste stream.
Below, you’ll find a deep dive into just some of the federal actions impacting our food system, our neighbors, and our work now. We aim to keep this page current with additional time-stamped updates to help you continue to break through the noise. Feel free to bookmark it so you can come back later.
What’s happened so far?
Listed in roughly reverse-chronological order.
The USDA terminated the Household Food Security Report amidst rising food insecurity
In September, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that, following its next report in fall 2025, it would terminate the Household Food Security Report, among the most cited measures of rates of food insecurity in the United States for the past three decades. An announcement from the USDA called the survey “redundant, costly, politicized, and extraneous,” noting such studies “do nothing more than fear monger.”
Why this matters: Most organizations in the hunger space including Feeding America, its network of food banks, Project Bread in Massachusetts, Spoonfuls, and many of its partners have long relied on this data as a credible gauge of how well current efforts are working (or not working) to address food insecurity in the United States and even closer to home in the Commonwealth. And it’s helped advocates make the case for the importance of our safety net, with rates of food insecurity reflecting investments by the government in programs like SNAP and WIC.
Two months after the announcement of historic cuts to SNAP under the “big” bill (more below), this move will make it harder to assess the impact of those cuts and leave emergency food programs (like pantries) potentially ill prepared for what is expected to be additional volume in step with rising rates of food insecurity.
What’s next: The final Household Food Security Report will be published in October. And while smaller, privately-funded studies may continue to measure the rates and impact of food insecurity (likely creating a confusing patchwork of information about the scope of the problem), eliminating data won’t eliminate a real need for support.
The CDC suspended monitoring for certain foodborne pathogens long a part of its FoodNet surveillance system
In August, it was reported that, as a result of funding cuts, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had scaled back its FoodNet system, which (until July 2025 and for the last three decades) had tracked eight common foodborne pathogens in 10 states, serving 16% of the U.S. population. Now it’s tracking only two of those pathogens: E-coli and Salmonella. And while Massachusetts itself wasn’t among the states most directly impacted by the shift, the program’s findings have traditionally alerted federal and state health departments to trends in foodborne illnesses nationwide. This is one of a number of rollbacks at the CDC, which has led public health officials there to sound the alarm about increasing threats to our health as a result.
Why this matters: Food poisoning already impacts 48 million Americans every year according to the CDC’s own estimates (estimates informed by FoodNet findings). Those numbers are rising and expected to rise still further thanks to the effects of climate change on our food supply. Put simply, more people are going to be less healthy as a result. Less research and information-sharing about the causes and effects of pathogens in our food supply puts us all at increased risk.
What’s next: While it’s anticipated that the Trump administration, under the leadership of Health and Human Services (HSS) Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will continue to take aim at conventional, science-based programming at the CDC, protests from within and outside the CDC continue. So what can you do if you’re concerned about the impacts of these cuts on our food system and, by extension, on public health? Reach out to your reps in Congress now and let them know. Consider supporting local, state, and regional organizations working to advance public health. And learn more both about how to keep and store food in an effort to reduce foodborne illness at home. Lots of resources here!
The EPA indicated plans to revoke its own greenhouse gas “endangerment finding”
On July 29, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plans to revoke its own “endangerment finding” for greenhouse gas emissions – a 2009 study that underscores the environmental and health hazards of greenhouse gases. This finding has served as the underpinning for a range of related policies aimed at curbing emissions.
Why this matters: It’s considered to be a setup to scale back related policies taking aim at emissions – and while this story has been making headlines for its obvious environmental consequences, we know the health of our environment, our food system, and people are intrinsically linked. One of the greenhouse gases covered under this finding is methane, the byproduct of decomposing food in landfills considered to be 28 times more potent than CO2 at trapping heat in the atmosphere (this from the EPA itself).
What’s next: The proposal to revoke the finding and subsequentlyroll back greenhouse gas emission regulations was opened for public comment, which the EPA is required to review. Spoonfuls submitted a comment stressing the importance of upholding the EPA’s original findings.
President Trump passed budget bill with historic cuts to food safety net and climate programs
On July 4, President Trump signed the “big” bill into law.
Why this matters: This budget bill constituted historically drastic cuts to the country’s largest hunger-relief program, SNAP. With approximately $65 billion dollars in expenses expected to be passed off to states that simply can’t make up the difference, and the addition of expanded work requirements for SNAP enrollees, upwards of 5 million Americans could lose their benefits in the coming years.
What’s next: Continued advocacy. We encourage you to continue calling your representatives to let them know food access support is a top priority for you. While the SNAP cuts are a done deal for now, we want our representatives to know that we’re eager to find other food access solutions. It’s never a bad time to let your representatives know what you care about.
And check out what the Make Hunger History Coalition and the Governor’s Taskforce on Food Insecurity are up to here in Massachusetts. Spoonfuls’ is represented in both groups, which are focused on collaborative efforts to tackle food insecurity in the Bay State amidst federal cuts.
New and increased taxes on the nonprofit sector not passed
The 2025 proposed House budget included nearly $50 billion in new and increased taxes on nonprofits (like Spoonfuls and many of our community-based partners) and foundations that financially support those same nonprofits to pay for their proposed tax cuts. These provisions did not pass as they were pulled from the final federal budget.
Why this matters: This is a win for the nonprofits – and an example of what advocacy can do. If this budget had passed as drafted, money currently supporting public health and safety, housing, food security, and more would have instead been redirected to the U.S. Treasury at a time when more people are more reliant on these programs. In addition, with uncertain economic forecasting, fundraising has taken a hit across the sector. All of this would have compounded challenges for our industry and, more than that, for people who benefit from various social services.
USDA funding cuts impacting food banks and food bank-supported programs
In late March, the administration ordered the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to significantly reduce funding for emergency food resources, including $3.3 million for Massachusetts food banks alone, a full 17% of the Greater Boston Food Bank’s food budget.
Why this matters: Absent private philanthropy to fill the gap, there will be less food reaching local pantries and meal programs. These cuts make it more challenging for our emergency food system to be responsive, which is particularly problematic amidst rising rates of food insecurity and threats to federal safety net programs like SNAP. More here.
USDA funding cuts impacting farms and schools
In March 2025, the Trump administration cancelled funding, totalling $1 billion nationwide, for the Local Food Purchasing Program (LFP) and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement (LFS). In July 2025, the USDA announced they were also cancelling their program that runs the country’s Regional Food Business Centers, which supports small farms and food businesses. In September, it announced an $18 million investment in the Patrick Leahy Farm to School Grants program, which connects locally grown food to school nutrition programs.
Why this matters: Before LFP and LFS were cancelled, Massachusetts alone was expected to receive $18 million to purchase local food in 2025. Over the past few years, over $11 million from these programs supported the purchase of local food from 500 farmers in our state. Through food banks and other organizations, this food reached 700 community sites (many of them schools and afterschool programs) in underserved communities. The net is still that while schools are losing access to affordable, local food, farmers (many of them already disenfranchised) are losing business and scrambling for new buyers. When they don’t find them, food waste results. For more, check out this story about Massachusetts farmers.
The Northeast had one Regional Food Business Center, which will no longer be supported by USDA funding. This will hurt regional supply chains throughout the Northeast and impact farmers’ and other local producers’ ability to get their food to market.
Shifting immigration policy
The ramifications of executive orders aimed at documented and undocumented immigrants to the United States, and a surge of related enforcement, is having an impact on the labor market – with at least 1.2 million foreign-born people leaving the workforce between January and July. Agricultural employment, in particular, has been hard hit with a 6.5% drop in employment in the sector between March and July alone. This is consequential for our food system and most especially for our neighbors in need. a
Why this matters: More than ¾ of crop workers in the country are immigrants. When they don’t show up to work, supply chain disruptions follow. Studies suggest that resignations inspired by these orders and related deportations at the level anticipated under the Trump administration could cut the agricultural workforce by at least 16%. In addition, emergency food assistance organizations (including some in Spoonfuls’ network) report that immigrant families in need, including legally documented immigrant families, are “hungry at home,” sometimes foregoing visits to the pantry out of fear for themselves and their families. Read more here and here.
The dismantling of USAID
In January 2025, President Trump signed an executive order abolishing the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID food programs serve over 60 million people around the world, including children facing famine. These cuts were immediate and held up food rations – enough for 3.5 million people per month – that had already been allotted in warehouses and ports around the world, including Boston. Spoonfuls’ Founder & CEO, Ashley Stanley, spoke to CBS in February to discuss the impact of this food potentially going to waste.
In July 2025, as a part of the rescission package, the federal government refunded two USAID programs out of dozens that existed before the January cuts.
Why this matters: Backtracking some USAID cuts is good news for the people receiving that food and the farmers who supplied food to these programs. However, these months of changes still leaves USAID a shell of its former self and leaves food at risk of going to waste. As one example, the administration recently discussed destroying 500 tons of high-energy, nutrient dense biscuits (taxpayer-funded biscuits) because funding cuts prevented USAID from distributing them and now they’re reaching their date label. (Note: A food reaching its date label does not automatically mean it is no longer safe to eat. Learn more about what Spoonfuls thinks of “expiration” dates generally.)
Cuts to USAID have impacted global food security in already-vulnerable places, including those responsible for generating more food that parts of the world, including ours, rely on. This disruption comes at a time when more people are in need owing to things like military conflicts and climate change.
Now what?
For urgent calls to action, we recommend following Spoonfuls on social (@spoonfulsfoodrecovery on Instagram, Facebook, and LinkedIn). For some evergreen action items in support of a stronger safety net – and food system! – check out the recommendations below:
Stay informed
We know the news cycle can be a lot to digest. If you struggle to keep pace with the latest or find the news of the day hard to handle, consider subscribing to newsletters or reading blogs from your favorite nonprofits. They’ll give you firsthand insight into what local organizations, their partners, and end-recipients are experiencing now. Sign up for Spoonfuls’ newsletter and bookmark this blog as an easy way to check back for the latest.
Become a storyteller
Reshare what you’re reading. Forward an email. If you feel inclined, post about your own experiences accessing food or supporting others to do the same (be thoughtful about respecting people’s privacy). Have a conversation. Respond to misinformation and disinformation by offering facts and resources.
Talk to your elected officials (which could look like an email, a phone call, or a request for a meeting)
When you have their ear, tell them what you care about and why and how you hope they’ll vote if given the opportunity. It’s actually that simple. If, like here in Massachusetts, your delegation is supportive of a strong safety net, say thank you – and encourage them to do even more to educate and rally their colleagues. Your personal stories are sometimes among the most impactful and influential. For more, check out our Advocacy page and download our Advocacy Toolkit.
Reach out to friends and family in other states where there’s less support for programs like SNAP
Encourage them to reach out to their elected officials, describe the impact and consequences of policy actions on local people facing food insecurity, and encourage them to vote for a stronger food system.
Vote
Don’t miss an opportunity to help decide who gets to represent your interests in your city/town, state, and country.
