Project 2025: A Conservative Blueprint for Food and Farming Policy
When Project 2025 began making headlines this summer, it was primarily due to its sweeping conservative agenda aimed at reshaping the federal bureaucracy under a potential future Trump administration. The document, crafted by the Heritage Foundation, outlines a "wish list" of policies that would not only deepen abortion restrictions and eliminate the Department of Education but also propose radical changes to the food and farming landscape in the United States.
A Deregulatory Agenda
At the heart of Project 2025 is a deregulatory agenda that many experts warn could have dire consequences for public health and the environment. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food policy at New York University, describes the initiative as detrimental to consumers, workers, and ecological sustainability. The proposed changes to food assistance programs, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, are seen as efforts to dismantle vital support systems for vulnerable populations.
One of the most alarming proposals is the call to eliminate or reform the U.S. dietary guidelines, which serve as the foundation for federal food policies, including school meals and nutrition assistance programs. The document suggests that dietary advice should be left to individuals, dismissing the role of government in guiding public health.
The Impact on Public Health
The food industry has long propagated the narrative that diet-related health issues, such as obesity and diabetes, stem from individual choices rather than systemic factors. Currently, nearly 42% of adults in the U.S. are classified as obese, and about 12% have diabetes. Nutritionists argue that these conditions are not merely the result of personal failings but are influenced by the aggressive marketing of unhealthy foods and the prevalence of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in the American diet.
Nestle emphasizes that Project 2025’s agricultural provisions prioritize corporate profits over public health. With the food supply offering twice as many calories as the average American needs, the competitive landscape encourages companies to sell more calories, often at the expense of nutritional quality. The deregulatory approach proposed in Project 2025 could exacerbate these issues, allowing food businesses to prioritize profit over health and environmental concerns.
The Rise of Ultra-Processed Foods
Ultra-processed foods currently make up a staggering 73% of the U.S. food supply, providing more than 60% of daily calories for the average adult. Research increasingly links UPFs to various health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, depression, and certain cancers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) are currently working on initiatives to limit the prevalence of these unhealthy foods, including the development of front-of-package labeling to inform consumers about high levels of sugar, fats, sodium, and calories.
However, Project 2025’s proposals could undermine these efforts. While the document does not specifically mention front-of-package labels, experts like Lindsey Smith Taillie, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, warn that eliminating dietary guidelines would have far-reaching implications for federal food policy. "It’s almost like they’re removing scientific evidence from federal food policy," she states, highlighting the potential for a significant shift in how food safety and nutrition are regulated.
Legislative Implications
Even if Trump does not secure the presidency next month, the influence of Project 2025 is already being felt in Congress. Philip Kahn-Pauli, director of legislative affairs at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, notes that recent budgetary discussions have included attempts to fundamentally change the dietary guidelines process. Although a bill aimed at nullifying the current dietary guidelines was ultimately abandoned, Kahn-Pauli emphasizes that the partisan attack on evidence-based policy signals a troubling trend that could continue into the new year.
Conclusion: A Shift Towards Industry Interests
Across the food system, Project 2025 represents a significant shift towards prioritizing industry interests over public health, climate, and welfare concerns. As Nestle succinctly puts it, the underlying principle of this agenda is to "not do anything that’s going to reduce industry profits." The implications of such a deregulatory approach could have lasting effects on the health of Americans and the integrity of the food supply, raising critical questions about the future of nutrition policy in the United States.
As discussions around food policy continue to evolve, it is essential for consumers, policymakers, and health advocates to remain vigilant and engaged in the fight for evidence-based nutrition standards that prioritize public health over corporate interests.
