Introduction to Federal Cuts
For the Day Eagle Hope Project, federal money has helped volunteers deliver fresh produce and meat to families in need across the remote Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in northern Montana — while putting cash into the hands of farmers, ranchers and meat processors.
The Impact of Federal Funding
The nonprofit generally has less than $300,000 to spend per year. So the $200,000 from a U.S. Department of Agriculture local food buying program drastically raised both the quantity and quality of the food it could distribute.
“ They were a major, major contributor to our food,” said Tescha Hawley, who directs the organization, which aims to improve physical, mental and spiritual health.
The Cuts
The USDA recently nixed more than $1 billion from two programs that helped food banks and school meal programs buy local foods, including $660 million for schoolchildren. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins recently described the programs as “nonessential.”
But the move has left hundreds of school systems and food banks reeling. They already face rising food prices and are struggling to help community members with growing food insecurity.
The Local Food Purchase Assistance and Local Food for Schools Programs
Created in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Local Food Purchase Assistance and the Local Food for Schools programs aimed to build more resilient supply chains of domestic food by connecting schools and food pantries with small ranches, farms and dairies. The program was initially funded by 2021’s American Rescue Plan Act but later expanded by the Biden administration.
The federal programs stimulated the purchase of locally grown fruits, vegetables, dairy and meats — benefiting both the smaller farmers who received fair market pay for their products and the organizations granted funds to buy high quality foods.
Effects on Farmers and Food Banks
The noncompetitive grants sent hundreds of millions of dollars to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and 84 tribal governments, boosting business for more than 8,000 farmers and providing local food to almost as many food banks. The Trump administration is killing the programs, despite Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign against processed food, which he says is “poisoning” Americans.
Without ongoing funding, Hawley said, she would have to rely on cheaper, less nutritious food.
“ It’s simple, right? I can get a truck … in here with all highly processed food, no problem,” she said.
School Lunch Programs
Schools are facing a similar challenge: While officials running breakfast and lunch programs would prefer to buy more local products, those are often expensive. And with underfunding, high food costs and labor struggles, school lunch programs are already stretched thin.
In Milan, Tennessee, the federal funds allowed the local school system to buy minimally processed beef from a local stockyard, and broccoli, purple hull peas, tomatoes and melons from local growers.
Vickie Dunaway, who supervises the school system’s food services, told the Tennessee Lookout the federal cuts mean“going backwards” on purchasing healthier foods.
“ That will obviously have to be cut out, because our budget will not withstand being able to purchase local,” she said. “Purchasing local, minimally processed food is way more expensive than buying from a distributor.”
A ‘devastating’ cut to food banks
Late last year, USDA said the programs had already spent more than $1 billion on local foods, and announced an expansion of the two programs with an additional $1.13 billion. USDA has killed that $1.13 billion expansion; it is still reimbursing the previously committed funds.
The Trump administration, which has sought to dramatically slash the size of the federal government, told recipients earlier this month that the programs “no longer effectuate the goals of the agency.”
In a statement to Stateline, the USDA said the current administration is “prioritizing stable, proven solutions that deliver lasting impact.”
“ The COVID era is over — USDA’s approach to nutrition programs will reflect that reality moving forward,” the statement said.
A boost for school lunches
For years, school meal programs have struggled with tight margins. Not only do they have to meet strict nutritional guidelines, but schools also face lagging reimbursement from the federal government and spend millions covering the cost of students’ unpaid meal debt.
At the 1,600-student Monticello School District in Arkansas, that debt is approaching $60,000.
So $50,000 from USDA’s local food program was a significant boost to the bottom line.
“ That was such a help,” said Amanda West, the district’s child nutrition director.
The southeast Arkansas district used grant money to buy locally grown ground beef. The beef went into dishes including taco salad, meatloaf and spaghetti.
Conclusion
The cuts to the Local Food Purchase Assistance and Local Food for Schools programs will have a significant impact on food banks and school lunch programs across the country. The programs provided essential funding for these organizations to purchase locally grown foods, which are often more expensive than processed foods. Without this funding, many organizations will be forced to rely on cheaper, less nutritious foods, which can have negative effects on the health and well-being of the individuals they serve.
FAQs
Q: What programs were cut by the USDA?
A: The USDA cut the Local Food Purchase Assistance and Local Food for Schools programs, which provided funding for food banks and school lunch programs to purchase locally grown foods.
Q: How much funding was cut?
A: The USDA cut more than $1 billion from the two programs, including $660 million for schoolchildren.
Q: Why were the programs cut?
A: The Trump administration described the programs as “nonessential” and said they “no longer effectuate the goals of the agency.”
Q: How will the cuts affect food banks and school lunch programs?
A: The cuts will force many organizations to rely on cheaper, less nutritious foods, which can have negative effects on the health and well-being of the individuals they serve.
Q: What can be done to address the issue?
A: Advocates are calling for the federal government to restore funding for the programs and to prioritize supporting local food systems and providing healthy, nutritious food to those in need.
