Food Tank

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

Food and agriculture systems generate a variety of environmental, health, social, and economic impacts that are not generally reflected in the prices consumers pay for food, referred to as externalities in economics. True Cost Accounting (TCA) is an evolving, holistic framework for measuring and valuing the positive and negative externalities of the food system.

TCA seeks to make the impacts of food production, processing, distribution, and consumption more visible to support improved decision making by policymakers, farmers, and consumers and reduce the true costs of food. Drawing from the four-capitals framework of the TEEBAgriFood Evaluation Framework, TCA assesses four key capitals: natural, human, social, and produced.

The agrifood system generates myriad positive and negative externalities, says Salman Hussain, Coordinator The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Agriculture and Food initiative (TEEBAgriFood).

Common examples of positive externalities include a beekeeper incidentally providing a benefit to neighboring farmers when their bees pollinate the farmers’ crops and community cohesion. Examples of negative externalities include emissions from use of fuel in farm machinery, water pollution from fertilizer runoff, and healthcare costs for workers in unsafe conditions.

Though invisible in market prices, the costs of externalities across agrifood systems are nonetheless borne—just rarely by those who create them. Instead, they are passed on to the environment, workers, consumers, and society more broadly.

Environmental costs show up in the 30 percent of greenhouse gas emissions that agriculture produces, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss. Workers in food and farming systems face risks like pesticide exposure and heat-related illness and death.

Consumers bear rising rates of diet-related diseases and issues that are linked to modern food environments. 2.5 billion adults suffer diet-related illnesses, 733 million people live in hunger, and 2.8 billion people are unable to afford a healthy diet. And these burdens are often disproportionately carried by vulnerable populations who face higher exposure to environmental risks, poor health outcomes, and economic instability.

The hidden environmental, health, and social costs of global agrifood systems amount to roughly US$12 trillion each year, according to a U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that Lauren Baker, the Deputy Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food, calls a “startling call to action.” A Rockefeller Foundation study attributes US$1.1 trillion unaccounted-for costs to human health, US$900 billion to environmental and biodiversity damage, and US$100 billion in unaccounted livelihoods.

TCA evaluates four forms of capital—natural, human, social, and produced—reflecting the environmental, health, social, and economic dimensions of agrifood systems. The eco-agri-food system is like a puzzle, Alexander Müller, Study Leader for TEEBAgriFood, tells Food Tank. One only understands the full picture when all the pieces are considered together unclear.

TEEBAgriFood established the four-capital framework in 2018 with contributions from more than 150 researchers and experts across 30 countries. It now underpins most True Cost Accounting assessments used today.

Natural capital refers to the stock of physical and biological resources and ecosystem functions that sustain life and enable food production. In agriculture, this includes land, water, soil, biodiversity, and atmospheric systems.

Social capital captures the networks, institutions, and shared norms that enable cooperation and collective action within societies. This can include labor conditions, fair wages, worker protections, community well-being, and the broader social impacts of food production, such as rural livelihoods, job creation or loss, and community stability.

Human capital refers to individuals’ knowledge, skills, health, and capabilities. This includes farmers’ expertise, agricultural training and education, food system innovation, and the health outcomes associated with both food production and consumption.

Produced capital includes the manufactured and financial assets that support economic activity. This encompasses physical infrastructure such as buildings, machinery, and irrigation systems, as well as financial and intellectual capital that enable food production, processing, distribution, and retail.

The goal of TCA is not to increase retail prices, according to Adrian de Groot Ruiz, Co-Founder of True Price, a Dutch social enterprise that helps identify and measure products’ social and environmental costs. Rather, TCA seeks to reveal information that can ultimately help improve the way food is made and reduce the true costs of food, De Groot Ruiz tells Food Tank.

When externalities go unmeasured, they remain unaccounted for in policy decisions, private purchases and markets fail to prevent or address them. Failing to put a value or price negative impacts “creates a dishonest pricing scheme and perpetuates farming systems which destroy our planet and cause a catastrophic impact on public health,” says Patrick Holden, Founder and CEO of SFT.

By identifying and valuing externalities, TCA can help governments, businesses, and investors design policies, legislation, incentives, and investments that reduce harmful impacts, reward practices that generate public benefits, and support food systems in which nutritious food is accessible, workers are compensated fairly, and consumers can make informed choices.

As detailed in FAO’s reports, The State of Food and Agriculture 2023 and 2024, identifying and assessing all hidden costs across agrifood systems is resource- and data-intensive, requiring collaboration between political, economic and social actors and prioritization of the most decision-relevant impacts.

To be effective, TCA must be incorporated into national and international policy frameworks, accounting standards, and performance evaluation systems, supported by standardized metrics that allow impacts to be measured consistently across food value chains, according to government bodies and industry experts.

Some organizations and researchers advocate for policies under which governments tax activities that impose environmental or social harm so market prices reflect their full costs, alongside subsidies or incentives for practices that generate positive externalities such as improved soil health or ecosystem protection. Ultimately, according to Nature Food, TCA calls for a fundamental change to the valuation of food.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Ed Wingate, Unsplash

The post Food Tank Explains: True Cost Accounting appeared first on Food Tank.

Walk into a grocery store today and you’re likely to see the word regenerative on cereal boxes, coffee bags, snack foods, even meat and dairy. The word promises a better kind of agriculture—a future beyond the extractive, chemical-intensive system that has dominated American farming for decades.

Many consumers reasonably assume that regenerative food is grown without toxic pesticides. After all, how can a system claim to regenerate soil, biodiversity, and human health while relying on chemicals designed to kill living organisms? 

Yet Friends of the Earth’s new label guide finds that some regenerative labeling programs still allow the use of synthetic pesticides, including substances linked to cancer, hormone disruption, infertility, and neurological harm.

That disconnect matters. For families trying to reduce pesticide exposure—especially those with young children or who are pregnant—labels are not just values statements. They are health decisions.

It also matters for the land itself. Decades of scientific research make it clear that reducing reliance on fossil-fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers is foundational to any credible regenerative system. These chemicals degrade soil biology, decimate pollinators, contribute significantly to climate emissions, and pollute our air and water. A label that ignores this reality risks reinforcing the very system it claims to transform.

The report finds that certifications using the term regenerative vary dramatically in what they require—not just for harmful inputs but also for soil health practices. It also finds that some of the most rigorous standards meeting regenerative principles don’t use the term at all. 

Overall, the analysis shows that the USDA Organic seal, and labels that build on it—Regenerative Organic Certified and Real Organic Project—lead in prohibiting toxic pesticides and synthetic fertilizers as well as in requiring ecological soil health practices like cover cropping, crop rotations, appropriate tillage, and feeding the soil with biological sources of fertility.

A label is only as strong as the verification system behind it. The report also highlights another source of inconsistency: some labels are backed by rigorous, enforceable criteria while others rely on vague requirements and weak verification systems.

For a labeling program to be credible, it needs to do more than make claims—it needs to define clear standards and verify that farmers meet those standards through independent audits. 

Equally important is traceability—the system a labeling program puts in place to track a product through the supply chain. 

This matters in a very practical way for consumers trying to avoid pesticide residues. With no reliable way to trace a product from the field where it’s grown to the labeled product, it’s impossible to know whether it was mixed with conventional supply at some point along the way.

Again, organic stands out: it requires third-party certification, annual inspections, and binding standards with a full audit trail from farm to shelf. And it’s the only food labeling system in the U.S. backed by federal law.

Studies show that just one week on an organic diet can reduce pesticide levels in people’s bodies up to 95 percent. And decades of data show that organic farming systems result in regenerative outcomes for the land. 

More concerning still is how thoroughly the term regenerative can be co-opted when it’s not attached to any standards at all. Pesticide companies now market themselves as leaders in regenerative agriculture, even as they continue to profit from the very products that decimate soil life, biodiversity, and our health. When a single word can be used to describe both pesticide-free farming and farming systems drenched in toxic chemicals, it ceases to function as a meaningful word. 

This kind of greenwashing doesn’t just create confusion—it diverts public energy and attention away from true solutions. For those seeking a genuinely healthier food system, labels grounded in rigorous standards—like organic—offer a clear path.

Labels matter because public policy is failing. The explosion of regenerative labels points to a deeper issue: the failure of U.S. food and farm policy. Farmers operate within a system that heavily subsidizes chemical-intensive monocultures while making it riskier to adopt ecological practices like crop diversification or cover cropping. 

Meanwhile, regulators in the United States continue to allow over 80 pesticides banned in other countries because science shows they threaten our health or the environment.

Meaningful labels are doing important work to bridge the chasm between what farmers, consumers, and the planet need and the toxic food system our public policies are delivering.

But labels alone cannot fix a broken system. Ultimately, the goal should not be a marketplace crowded with competing labels, each asking consumers to decode its meaning. It should be a food system where the highest standards—healthy soil, clean water, thriving biodiversity, safe food, and fair conditions for farmers and workers—are the baseline, not the exception.

Until then, the clarity, transparency, and integrity of food labels matter. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Jan Kopriva, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | Consumers Think Regenerative Means No Pesticides. They’re Often Wrong. appeared first on Food Tank.

To mark the first 100 days of the Trump-Vance Administration, Food Tank documented how their actions have shaped food, agriculture, health, and climate systems. Read that HERE. One year later, we’re taking stock of what has changed since.

May 2025

• May 2, 2025: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests and detains 14 farmworkers from a farm in Western New York.
• May 3, 2025: At least 15,000 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) employees have taken the Trump-Vance Administration’s offers to resign, according to a briefing from the agency.
• May 12, 2025: The USDA rescinds decades-old regulations that required farmers to record their use of pesticides known to pose the highest risk to human health.
• May 14, 2025: The House Agriculture Committee voted 29-25, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as US$300 billion in food aid spending, shifting costs to the states.
• May 14, 2025: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces plans to rescind several key protections intended to keep perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, out of drinking water, about a year after the Biden-Harris administration finalized the first-ever national standards.
• May 15, 2025: EPA approves the first permit allowing an industrial-scale fish farm to begin operating in federal waters.
• May 22, 2025: The Trump-Vance Administration’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission releases a new MAHA report identifying the key contributors to rising rates of chronic disease among American children. According to the report, ultra-processed foods, exposure to environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity, and the overuse of medications and vaccines are among the primary drivers.
• May 27, 2025: U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins announces a plan to increase funding for US$14.5 million in reimbursements to states for meat and poultry inspection programs.
• May 28, 2025: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) cancels funding for a trial testing the safety and efficacy of a vaccine to protect Americans from bird flu, should the virus begin circulating in humans.
• May 29, 2025: The White House acknowledges errors in the MAHA Assessment report, including citations to studies that do not actually exist.

June 2025

• June 2, 2025: The U.S. Department of the Interior proposes reversing an order issued by President Joe Biden in December that banned oil and gas drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
• June 9, 2025: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announces that the agency will get rid of all members sitting on a key U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of vaccine experts and reconstitute the committee.
• June 10, 2025: ICE arrests and detains 70 workers at Glenn Valley Foods, a meat production plant in Omaha, Nebraska.
• June 12, 2025: President Donald Trump acknowledges on social media that his immigration policies are hurting the farming and hotel industries, making a rare concession that his crackdown is having ripple effects on the American workforce. “Changes are coming,” he says.
• June 12, 2025: The Senate Agriculture Committee releases its proposed text for the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” While the House plan proposed cuts of nearly US$300 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) spending, the Senate’s plan would cut US$209 billion from the program. According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, a “vote for this bill is not a vote for farmers – it’s a vote to abandon them.” The Food Research and Action Center says the bill marks “a devastating reversal in the fight against hunger in America.”
• June 13, 2025: The Washington Post reports that there will be no policy changes underway to exempt farm, hotel and other leisure workers from Trump’s immigration crackdown.
• June 12, 2025: Trump pulls the U.S. federal government from an agreement brokered by President Joe Biden with Washington, Oregon, and four Native American tribes to recover the salmon population in the Pacific Northwest, calling the plan “radical environmentalism”.
• June 17, 2025: Rollins announces that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will terminate over 145 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion focused awards, totaling US$148.6 million. Programs that will be terminated include: educating and engaging socially disadvantaged farmers on conservation practices, creating a new model for urban forestry to lead to environmental justice through more equitably distributed green spaces, and expanding equitable access to land, capital, and market opportunities for underserved producers.
• June 20, 2025: Elizabeth MacDonough, the Senate parliamentarian appointed to oversee the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act as it moves through Congress, rules that Republicans can’t use the budget reconciliation process to impose a state cost-share for SNAP, negating a major source of spending cuts for the legislation. She also says Republicans could not include a provision that would bar immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from receiving SNAP benefits.
• June 25, 2025: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) will no longer enforce a 2024 rule that expanded protections for guest workers who come to the U.S. to work on farms through the H-2A program. According to DOL, “The decision provides much-needed clarity for American farmers navigating the H-2A program, while also aligning with President Trump’s ongoing commitment to strictly enforcing U.S. immigration laws.”

July 2025

• July 1, 2025: Senate passes the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act with SNAP cuts intact. The bill is now headed to the House, where it’s still unclear if Republicans have the votes to pass it.
• July 10, 2025: The USDA will no longer employ the race- and sex-based “socially disadvantaged” designation to provide increased benefits in USDA programs. Rollins says: “We are taking this aggressive, unprecedented action to eliminate discrimination in any form at USDA.”
• July 10, 2025: ICE arrests and detains 361 workers during farm raids in Carpinteria and Camarillo, California.
• July 12, 2025: A Mexican farmworker dies from injuries sustained during a federal immigration raid on July 10.
• July 24, 2025: Rollins announces that the USDA will close the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center. The plan could undermine research on pests, blight, and crop genetics crucial to American farms, according to lawmakers, a farm group, and staff of the facility.

August 2025

• August 11, 2025: The U.S. Congressional Budget Office releases a report confirming that reductions to SNAP will significantly shrink access to food assistance, disproportionately harming children, older adults, people with disabilities, and working families. The report projects that millions will see reduced benefits or lose access to SNAP entirely.
• August 12, 2025: The USDA notifies union leaders representing the Food Safety and Inspection Service and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service that the agency plans to end contracts for thousands of employees.
• August 19, 2025: The USDA announces it will no longer fund taxpayer dollars for solar panels on productive farmland or allow solar panels manufactured by foreign adversaries to be used in USDA projects. The announcement describes that prime farmland has been displaced by solar farms and the new investment guardrails are meant to keep farmland affordable, but data from the agency show that a very small amount of rural land is used for solar and wind projects and that most continues in agricultural production even after the projects are installed.
• August 26, 2025: Trump revokes an executive order, issued by President Joe Biden, that tasked the USDA and Federal Trade Commission with curbing consolidation across the food system to improve fairness and competition for farmers and consumers.
• August 28, 2025: Kennedy and Trump fire Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez over disagreements on vaccination policy. Four other officials quit in frustration over vaccine policy and Kennedy’s leadership.
• August 29, 2025: The Trump-Vance Administration suspends an annual charity drive that resulted in federal employees donating about US$70 million a year to nonprofit organizations, including US$5 million to food and agriculture initiatives.

September 2025

• September 2, 2025: EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announces that the agency is abandoning a plan to regulate water pollution from the country’s slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities.
• September 4, 2025: In one of the largest workplace raids in New York, ICE arrests and detains 57 people from Nutrition Bar Confectioners, a nutrition bar manufacturer.
• September 9, 2025: The Trump-Vance Administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission releases its Strategy Report, outlining the federal government’s approach to reducing childhood chronic disease. The 20-page document confirms earlier leaks that the administration will avoid imposing new restrictions on pesticides or ultra-processed foods.
• September 20, 2025: The USDA announces the termination of future Household Food Security Reports, calling the study “redundant, costly, and politicized.”
• September 25, 2025: Rollins announces new efforts to investigate market conditions that have led to high input prices for farmers, shortly after the USDA quietly cancelled partnerships that helped states tackle anticompetitive markets in agriculture.
• September 30, 2025: The Trump-Vance Administration is canceling US$72 million for USAID’s Feed the Future Innovation Labs by using a controversial loophole to cancel federal funding at the end of the fiscal year, which ended on September 30, 2025.

October 2025

• October 1, 2025: The U.S. federal government shuts down, following a failure by Congress to pass appropriations bills for the new fiscal year. Federal agencies will be governed by their respective Lapse of Funding plans until the government reopens.
  • According to the USDA Lapse of Funding Plan, approximately 42,000 agency employees will be furloughed. 67 percent of employees at the Farm Service Agency will be furloughed. The Farm Service Agency will stop processing farm loans and commodity payments, and it will stop implementing disaster assistance programs. 96 percent of the Natural Resources Conservation Service will be furloughed, effectively freezing conservation programs. The National Organic Program will cease operations, leaving certifiers without oversight or support. The Economic Research Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and National Institute for Food and Agriculture are each losing more than 90 percent of their staff and ceasing all program operations. Core operations related to nutrition programs, including SNAP, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and school meals will continue but funding for those programs could start to become an issue depending on how long the shutdown lasts.
  • According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) plan, the agency will retain about 86 percent of staff. Routine inspections will be suspended and the agency will instead focus on “for-cause” inspections, or those tied to foodborne illness outbreaks, recalls, or consumer complaints.
  • According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s shutdown plan, the agency will retain about 11 percent of its total workforce. The agency will stop conducting and publishing research “unless necessary for exempted or excepted activities.”
• October 2, 2025: A news release posted by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security adjusts the H-2A paperwork process to speed up applications with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
• DHS says the changes are part of a larger collaborative effort with the DOL to streamline the program “in light of an urgent demand for an authorized agricultural labor force and requests from the regulated community and members of Congress to make the H-2A program easier to use and more efficient for U.S. agricultural producers.”
• October 2, 2025: The DOL publishes rules altering the way H-2A wage rates are calculated, effectively lowering wages for labor across the board. United Farm Workers calculated that the change will reduce wages by US$5 to US$7 per hour in some states, leading to US$2.46 billion less paid to H-2A workers annually.
• October 2, 2025: The DOL warns in an obscure document that the Trump-Vance Administration’s immigration crackdown is threatening “the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.”
• October 7, 2025: Civil Eats reports on industry ties within Trump’s food and agricultural leadership. Many of the president’s top officials at the USDA, EPA, HHS, and FDA have connections to chemical, agribusiness, or fossil fuel interests.
• October 10, 2025: According to a letter obtained by Politico, SNAP is running out of funds. Ronald Ward, the USDA’s acting associate administrator for the program, instructed regional and state SNAP directors to delay sending next month’s funds to electronic benefit transfer vendors responsible for delivering benefits to participants: “We understand that several States would normally begin sending November benefit issuance files to their electronic benefit transfer (EBT) vendors soon,” Ward writes. “Considering the operational issues and constraints that exist in automated systems, and in the interest of preserving maximum flexibility, we are forced to direct States to hold their November issuance files and delay transmission to State EBT vendors until further notice.”
• October 16, 2025: NPR reports that at least 27 states have turned over data (including their names, dates of birth, home addresses, Social Security numbers, and benefits amounts) about millions of food stamp recipients to the USDA, which framed the data demand as necessary to accomplish the Trump-Vance Administration’s goal of identifying and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.
• October 16, 2025: Rollins says SNAP will run out of funds in two weeks because of the partial government shutdown, potentially leaving nearly 42 million people without monthly benefits.
• October 20, 2025: Politico reports on six food and agriculture programs experiencing delays or funding concerns as a result of the shutdown: SNAP, school meals, WIC, H-2A processing, farm aid, and Farm Service Agency offices.
• October 31, 2025: Two federal judges order the Trump-Vance Administration to use emergency funds to keep SNAP running.

November 2025

• November 1, 2025: Nearly 42 million Americans lose their food stamp benefits as Congress fails to reopen the government. Politico reports that the Trump-Vance Administration says they don’t have the authority to use emergency money for SNAP or have enough funds to support the estimated US$9 billion for November benefits. Even if they comply with the court order to fund benefits, it could still take days or weeks to disburse partial funds.
• November 3, 2025: NPR reports that the Trump-Vance Administration will restart SNAP benefits, but only at 50 percent of normal payments and the payments will be delayed. The Trump-Vance Administration says it will use money from a US$5 billion Agriculture Department contingency fund. Officials say that depleting the fund means “no funds will remain for new SNAP applicants certified in November, disaster assistance, or as a cushion against the potential catastrophic consequences of shutting down SNAP entirely.”
• November 8, 2025: The USDA directs states to “immediately undo” any steps that have been taken to send out full food aid benefits to low-income Americans, following a U.S. Supreme Court order temporarily halting a lower court order requiring those payments.
• November 10, 2025: Retrieved from the USDA website on Nov. 10: “Senate Democrats have voted 14 times against reopening the government. This compromises not only SNAP, but farm programs, food inspection, animal and plant disease protection, rural development, and protecting federal lands. Senate Democrats are withholding services to the American people in exchange for healthcare for illegals, gender mutilation, and other unknown “leverage” points.”
• November 12, 2025: The U.S. federal government shutdown ends after Congress signs a funding package for 2026. Lasting 43 days, the shutdown was the longest in U.S. history. Roughly 670,000 federal employees were furloughed, and 730,000 worked without pay.
• November 13, 2025: The U.S. Department of the Interior reverses an order issued by President Joe Biden in December 2024 that banned oil and gas drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
• November 14, 2025: Trump rolls back tariffs on more than 200 food products, including such staples as coffee, beef, bananas and orange juice, in the face of growing angst among American consumers about the high cost of groceries.
• November 21, 2025: According to an annual FDA report, sales of antibiotics for farm animals climbed 16 percent in 2024, the “biggest increase we’ve ever seen,” according to Steve Roach, director of the Safe and Healthy Food Program at Food Animal Concerns Trust.

December 2025

• December 1, 2025: The FDA announces “the deployment of agentic AI capabilities for all agency employees” for tasks including meeting management, pre-market reviews, review validation, post-market surveillance, inspections, and compliance and administrative functions.
• December 6, 2025: Trump issues an executive order directing the U.S. Attorney General and Federal Trade Commission to investigate food-related industries and determine whether anti-competitive behavior exists in food supply chains.
• December 10, 2025: The USDA announces a US$700 million Regenerative Pilot Program.
• December 10, 2025: Rollins approves SNAP Food Restriction Waivers in six states, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and Hawai’i.
• December 17, 2025: The USDA’s Office of the Inspector General releases a report finding that the agency lost nearly one-fifth of its workforce in the first half of 2025: more than 20,000 employees left the agency out of more than 110,000, including 15,114 who accepted a voluntary resignation program.

January 2026

• January 1, 2026: SNAP waivers go into effect in Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia, bringing the total number of states with approved waivers to 18.
• January 7, 2026: The U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services release the Dietary Guidelines for 2025 to 2030, recommending a reduction in highly processed foods with added sugar and excess sodium and endorsing whole, nutrient-dense foods and products like whole milk, butter, and red meat.
• January 14, 2026: The American Federation of Government Employees announces that the Department of Health and Human Services is reinstating National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) employees laid off in 2025, but does not specify how many will return to their jobs. Almost 900 of NIOSH’s 1,000 employees were laid off last year.
• January 14, 2026: Trump signs the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act into law. The legislation modifies current regulations, which require milk to be fat-free or low-fat, to permit schools to offer students whole, reduced-fat, low-fat, and fat-free organic or nonorganic milk.
• January 15, 2026: Rollins publishes an op-ed in The Hill promoting the new Dietary Guidelines for Americans. She writes, “Eating healthy can cost as little as $3.00 per meal.”
• January 19, 2026: The USDA launches Lender Lens on the Rural Data Gateway, making Rural Development’s entire commercial guaranteed loan portfolio available to the public, guaranteed borrowers, and commercial lending stakeholders.
• January 22, 2026: The USDA launches an online portal for reporting foreign-owned agricultural land transactions. They say the portal is part of a broader effort to “strengthen enforcement and protect American farmland” as the agency continues its implementation of the National Farm Security Action Plan.
• January 30, 2026: Rollins shares that around 1.75 million fewer people are participating in SNAP since the start of the Trump-Vance Administration.

February 2026

• February 2, 2026: Trump announces plans to lower tariffs on goods from India from 25 percent to 18 percent after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi agreed to stop buying oil from Russia.
• February 4, 2026: The USDA announces that it is assuming operation of the foreign food aid program Food for Peace, formerly operated by USAID. Humanitarian aid experts say the program has been used flexibly to respond to different emergency settings, but it may become a way to offload surplus U.S.-grown food commodities.
• February 6, 2026: The FDA publishes a letter to the food industry announcing that the agency will scale back artificial food dye labeling enforcement.
• February 6, 2026: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reapproves dicamba, a pesticide that has raised concern over its tendency to drift and destroy nearby crops, for use on genetically modified soybeans and cotton.
• February 6, 2026: Trump issues a proclamation opening a marine protected area off the northeastern U.S. to commercial fishing. The 4,913-square-mile area was the only U.S. marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean.
• February 11, 2026: The USDA announces the Farmer and Rancher Freedom Framework, a plan to protect, preserve, and partner with American agriculture, while “ending onerous regulations and the weaponization of government against American farmers and ranchers. It formalizes USDA’s ongoing efforts to eliminate systemic agricultural lawfare,” according to the agency.
• February 12, 2026: The FDA publishes final guidance which advises, but does not require, drug companies to set “duration limits” for livestock antibiotics in animal feed.
• February 13, 2026: The USDA issues final Emergency Livestock Relief Program (ELRP) payments totaling more than US$1.89 billion. Eligible applicants who applied for ELRP 2023 and 2024 Flood and Wildfire assistance will receive 100 percent of their eligible payment in a single lump sum.
• February 13, 2026: The USDA announces US$1 billion in assistance for farmers of specialty crops and sugar, commodities not covered through the previously announced Farmer Bridge Assistance program.
• February 13, 2026: Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee release a draft farm bill package. The draft is scheduled to be reviewed and revised the week of February 23, 2026.
• February 13, 2026: USDA Deputy Secretary Stephen Vaden announces on social media that the Department of Justice will stop defending farm programs that benefit socially disadvantaged producers.
• February 17, 2026: The USDA announces proposed updated regulations that would speed up line speeds at poultry and pork production facilities.
• February 18, 2026: Trump issues an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure “a continued and adequate supply of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides.”
• February 20, 2026: Trump announces new tariffs under the Trade Act of 1974, and increases the tariff rate to 15 percent.
• February 20, 2026: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency repeals a 2024 rule that imposed limits on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, the primary source of the mercury that accumulates in fish.

March 2026

• March 3, 2026: Trump-Vance Administration lawyers submit an amicus brief in favor of Monsanto to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that the Court should rule in favor of Bayer in a case that could prevent individuals from suing pesticide companies over claims their products cause cancer and other illnesses.
• March 4, 2026: The USDA approves SNAP waivers in four states: Kansas, Nevada, Ohio, and Wyoming.
• March 4, 2026: The U.S. House Agriculture Committee votes to advance a 2026 Farm Bill. To be adopted, the legislation must still pass a vote in the full House of Representatives before going to the Senate.
• March 6, 2026: U.S. officials release a video of an explosion on social media, capturing the destruction of what they said was a drug trafficker’s training camp in rural Ecuador. A subsequent New York Times investigation indicates that the military strike appears to have destroyed a cattle and dairy farm, not a drug trafficking compound.
• March 10, 2026: During a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, lawmakers and witnesses including American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall, multiple senators from both parties, and farm advocacy group Farm Action warn of how the war in Iran, and its impact on fertilizer markets, could affect farmers.
• March 18, 2026: Rollins and Kennedy publish the joint opinion piece, “We’re bringing families more healthy foods in a SNAP.”
• March 27, 2026: Speaking at a White House event celebrating farmers, Trump promises to bolster small-business loan guarantees for farmers, who have been hit hard by his tariffs and rising prices from the war in Iran, and announces a final EPA rule raising the minimum amount of renewable fuels that must be blended into the U.S. fuel supply. Biofuels like ethanol, biodiesel, and renewable diesel are largely made with corn and soybean oil, meaning this rule could boost demand for those crops.
• March 30, 2026: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services sends a memo to hospitals requesting they align meals with the updated Dietary Guidelines for Americans by phasing out ultra-processed food and high-sugar foods in favor of fruits, vegetables, and minimally processed proteins.
• March 31, 2026: The USDA suspends all grants under the Rural Energy for America Program to comply with an Executive Order issued in July 2025.

April 2026

• April 1, 2026: The FDA approves Foundayo, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist in tablet form. The approval was issued 50 days after filing, marking the fastest new molecular entity approval since 2002.
• April 3, 2026: The Trump-Vance Administration releases its proposed budget for fiscal year 2027, which begins on October 1, 2026. The proposal includes a 19 percent cut in the USDA budget.
• April 7, 2026: The USDA finalizes regulations that overhaul how the National Environmental Policy Act is implemented, including by reducing and removing procedural requirements, removing climate change and environmental justice considerations, and eliminating opportunities for public comment.
• April 8, 2026: The Trump-Vance Administration nominates Luke Lindberg, Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs at the USDA, for Executive Director of the U.N. World Food Programme (WFP). United Nations officials subsequently announce that Secretary-General António Guterres will not appoint a new Executive Director to WFP before he steps down.
• April 10, 2026: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration removes workplace inspection goals related to heat-related hazards, both indoors and outdoors, that may lead to serious illnesses, injuries, or death.
• April 15, 2026: Rollins announces the creation of the new USDA Office of Seafood.
• April 22, 2026: The U.S. House Appropriations Committee releases the Fiscal Year 2027 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Bill. It cuts the overall funding level by US$1.1 billion compared to 2026.
• April 23, 2026: The USDA announces reorganizations of the Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Research, Education, and Economics Mission Area, aiming to streamline functions and improve operational efficiency. As part of the reorganizations, a substantial portion of the agencies’ workforces will be relocated and the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center will be decommissioned.
• April 30, 2026: The House of Representatives votes to pass the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. The Farm Bill now advances to the Senate.

Is there an update you want to see included that isn’t on the list? Email Danielle at danielle@foodtank.com.

The post One Year On: How Trump and Vance Have Changed Food, Agriculture, Health, and Climate appeared first on Food Tank.

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

Green Roofs Can Restore Nature in Cities

A new report from the European Commission (EC) is calling attention to a key opportunity to help cities deliver climate solutions: green rooftops and walls. They confirm that better integration of greenery can improve biodiversity, climate adaptation, stormwater management, energy efficiency, and social well-being in urban environments, all of which can make cities more livable as urban populations continue to grow. 

Green roofs, also called living roofs or eco-roofs, are not new, but in the 1980s, the technology for widespread installations became more readily available. Despite the many benefits, their integration is uneven across Europe. Regulatory challenges, skill gaps, funding shortages, and limited integration in mainstream planning and building practices can hold cities back from scaling these green spaces.

But the report offers a way forward. Targeted incentives and funding schemes, biodiversity-oriented design and monitoring requirements, and stronger planning and building regulations can help cities move in the right direction. 

Although it is an investment upfront, Steven Peck, Founder and President of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, says it’s worth it: “They’re going to be healthier places to live in the face of ongoing climate change impacts. And that’s where the money is going to be. That’s where the creativity is going to be.”

Is the MAHA Movement Becoming Disillusioned with the Trump Administration?

Supporters of Make America Healthy Again seem to be losing faith in the Trump-Vance Administration and members of the Republican Party, the New York Times reports.

Six of MAHA’s most prominent leaders have, in separate videos, announced that they are so disappointed with President Donald Trump that the party risks losing them. Many are upset by contradictory messaging or inaction that they’re seeing. This includes the recent executive order to boost domestic production of the herbicide glyphosate despite Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s earlier promises to ban or restrict agri-chemicals and the failure to secure enough votes for Casey Means to become Surgeon General. 

But this doesn’t mean that MAHA supporters are flipping to the Democrats. Zen Honeycutt, Founder of Moms Across America, says, “The only thing that matters is action. Not a political party.” And some, feeling that their vote is useless, may ultimately sit out of the next election in November.

But this shouldn’t keep Democrats from trying to win them over, according to Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. She has seen independent and undecided voters tip elections in close races. Congressmember Chellie Pingree sees the opening and is telling her colleagues that they’re “missing a big opportunity” if they’re not talking about pesticides and healthy food. “The reason Donald Trump ran on them, the reason he put R.F.K. in office is because people care about them,” Pingree says. “We should be all over this.”

New York Acts to Close GRAS Loophole

New York legislators recently passed the New York Food Safety and Chemical Disclosure Act, banning several food additives from products manufactured, distributed, or sold in the state. 

In March, the bill passed in the Senate with unanimous bipartisan support, and it now heads to Governor Kathy Hochul for her signature. 

The legislation will eliminate three additives—potassium bromate, propyl paraben, and Red Dye No. 3—that have been linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and reproductive toxicity from foods. Red 3 has been banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration since the legislation was first introduced. The law also requires companies to disclose the safety data for all food chemicals in a publicly available database. 

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest, this progress represents “significant strides” toward closing the GRAS loophole, which currently allows companies to decide which chemicals are “generally recognized as safe” for us in food. 

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vowed to close the GRAS loophole nationally, but advocacy groups are still waiting for action at the federal level, prompting Jessica Hernandez, Environmental Working Group’s Legislative Director, to declare, “New York is stepping up where Washington has slowed down.”

Hunger Is Becoming Concentrated in Conflict-Hit Countries

The United Nations finds that of the 266 million people in 47 countries who experienced high levels of acute food insecurity, two-thirds are concentrated in just 10 countries. Conflict is the major driver of this crisis, accounting for more than half of all cases of severe hunger. 

The severity of hunger is also worsening. The number of people experiencing catastrophic hunger has increased ninefold since 2016. Young people are the most vulnerable, with 35.5 million children acutely malnourished, including nearly 10 million suffering from severe acute malnutrition, a life-threatening condition. 

U.N. Secretary General António Guterres says the new report is “a call to action to summon the political will to rapidly scale up investment in lifesaving aid, and work to end the conflicts that inflict so much suffering on so many.”

Aid organizations also warn that unless the world changes its strategies for addressing hunger, the world may become trapped in a cycle of deepening crises. FAO Director-General Qu Dongyu says that we can’t rely solely on food assistance, and must prioritize the protection of local food production that builds long-term resilience over time. 

Bolivia’s Farmers Are Protecting Their Land—And Future

The Guardian reports that cacao producers are pushing back against the gold mining industry to protect their land. 

In 2017, residents in Palos Blancos and Alto Beni, situated in the northwest region of Bolivia that are reliant on organic agriculture, noticed a mining dredge appear on the nearby Boopi River. Gold mining hadn’t touched the municipalities yet, but farmer Roberto Gutierrez says that he and his neighbors saw the environmental destruction it caused in other areas. 

Communities responded quickly, pushing back against the miners, and they left. Four years later, thanks to persistent organizing efforts, the two municipalities passed mining bans. Three years after that, in 2024, a departmental law further legitimized their stance. “We showed people that mining does more harm than good. People have realized that gold is temporary, but agriculture and conservation are for life,” Ulises Ariñez, former environment secretary for Palos Blancos, says. 

In the last five years, the price of gold has skyrocketed, driving miners into new regions. At least 10 other municipalities and Indigenous territories are exploring bans like those in Palos Blancos and Alto Beni even as the national government seeks to loosen regulations for the industry. 

Pablo Solón, an environmental activist, says that the local bans may represent their best hope to protect the Amazon. And there is reason for optimism. Just last year, four new areas in Bolivia were established to keep them free from mining. And on Peru’s side of Lake Titicaca, a court suspended mining outside authorized areas along Bolivia’s Madre de Dios River. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Arlington Country, Wikimedia Commons

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: NY Acts on GRAS Loophole, Green Roofs Offer Climate Solutions, Bolivia’s Farmers Protect their Future appeared first on Food Tank.

On 128 acres in Pennsylvania, Christa Barfield is building something bigger than a farm. She founded FarmerJawn, now the largest Black-owned farm in the state, with a vision of agriculture rooted in equity, access, and care for the land. Today, the farm is a model for regenerative organic food production that is by and for underserved communities.

Barfield returns to her central philosophy often: “Agriculture is the culture.” This means that farming is not separate from daily life. From food to clothing to building materials, agriculture underpins the systems people rely on, even if they rarely see it, she says: “Everything you touch on a daily basis…that is thanks to a farmer somewhere sometime.”

Barfield did not set out to become a farmer. But after spending her early career in a high-volume medical office in Philadelphia, she took a trip to the island of Martinique. There, she encountered a community-based model of food production, where people sourced food directly and regularly from those growing it. The experience shifted her perspective on what food systems could look like.

Barfield describes drinking tea picked fresh from her hosts’ backyard garden and joining community members distributing boxes of fresh fruits, vegetables, and herbs for their neighbors. These were direct, human-to-human transactions paid in cash—something she rarely saw at home.

“The real magic of that moment was that I then was able to see these multicultural people walking in, and they were coming in and taking these boxes,” says Barfield. She remembers thinking, “What is this that I’m seeing?”

She was hooked, deciding shortly after that she would become a farmer. “I was going to start a tea company, and I was going to start a farm,” Barfield says. “And that’s exactly what we did.”

But bringing FarmerJawn to life required a period of intense work and instability. Barfield says she would drive for ride-share companies from 5 to 9 a.m., manage her business all day, then make grocery deliveries from 5 to 9 p.m. to make ends meet. She experienced housing insecurity for years.

“I built it brick by brick,” says Barfield.

Now FarmerJawn is expanding its impact, with the farm now eligible for regenerative organic certification. Barfield is prioritizing stable, well-paying jobs—an approach she sees as essential to building a more just food system.

“The only way that businesses can actually grow the right way is if you’re paying and taking care of your team,” says Barfield.

Her work has earned national recognition, including a James Beard Award in 2024 and a role in state-level agricultural leadership. But Barfield says visibility does not shield her from the challenges facing Black farmers: “Just a few months after winning that James Beard award, there was an eight-foot swastika painted on my barn. It reminded me and my team that our safety was in question.”

For Barfield, these experiences reinforce the urgency of her work. She sees agriculture as a critical front line in addressing interconnected crises, from climate change to public health.

“What I’m getting to do is really just be used as a tool to tell the story that the Earth can’t,” she says. “That it’s literally dying right before our eyes.”

Barfield believes, however,  that agricultural systems can reconnect people to land, food, and each other. She believes that transforming agriculture can help transform broader systems of health and equity.

“When I think about, is it worth it?” Barfield says. “Honestly, the only answer, it is.”

Watch Barfield’s story below and find others from our farmer storytelling events on Food Tank’s YouTube channel.

This article is part of Food Tank’s ongoing Farmer Friday series, produced in partnership with Niman Ranch, a champion for independent U.S. family farmers. The series highlights the stories of farmers working toward a more sustainable, equitable food system. Niman Ranch partners with over 500 small-scale U.S. family farmers and is committed to preserving rural agricultural communities and their way of life. 

Photo courtesy of FarmerJawn

The post ‘Agriculture Is the Culture’ at Pennsylvania’s Largest Black-Owned Farm appeared first on Food Tank.

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

Carbon farming refers to agricultural practices designed to remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it in soils and plants. By increasing carbon sequestration, carbon farming aims to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while improving soil health and adaptability.

Human activities have increased GHG emissions—particularly carbon dioxide, the primary GHG emitted through human activity—intensifying the greenhouse effect and raising global temperatures.

Agriculture and land-use change are major drivers, and global food systems are responsible for about one-third of annual GHG emissions.

One of the agrifood system’s largest contributions to carbon emissions is soil organic carbon (SOC) loss. Soils have a tremendous capacity to store carbon and can function as either carbon sinks or carbon sources. “If soil is a bank account, soil organic carbon is the currency,” Rattan Lal, Distinguished University Professor of Soil Science at the Ohio State University and a Goodwill Ambassador for the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture, tells Food Tank.

But modern agricultural practices have caused soils to emit more carbon than they retain. Soil organic carbon levels hover between 0.05 percent and 0.10 percent, well under the roughly 2 percent threshold that Lal identifies as necessary to sustain healthy, productive soils.

Converting forests or grasslands to farmland, and practices like over tillage, monocropping, heavy machinery use, overgrazing, and removing crop residues disturb soil structure, expose SOC to water and oxygen, and lead to SOC loss. Lower SOC levels weaken soil structure and diminish microbial activity and biodiversity.

Over the past 12,000 years and particularly in the last two centuries, agriculture has released about 133 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from soils, and in some areas, soils have lost up to 70 percent of their original SOC. Soils emit around ten times more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels.

Because of their capacity to store carbon, soils also have significant potential to help mitigate climate change. Research suggests that improved land management could enable croplands to sequester up to 1.85 gigatons of carbon per year, roughly equivalent to the annual emissions of the global transportation sector.

And soils in good condition could capture a meaningful share of the emissions reductions needed to keep global warming below 2°C. What we have taken from the land, Rattan Lal says, we can put back.

By increasing soil carbon storage and reducing the release of carbon into the atmosphere, carbon farming aims to shift soils from carbon sources to carbon solutions.

Carbon farmers earn credits for sequestering carbon, with each credit representing a measurable reduction or removal of GHGs. Carbon credits can be sold in carbon markets to companies or other buyers seeking to offset their emissions and meet climate goals. Companies like Grassroots Carbon are helping operationalize this model, recently delivering 1.9 million tons of verified carbon removals. Ranchers participating in these programs report generating meaningful new income streams and reducing operational costs while also improving soil health.

One common carbon farming approach involves adding organic materials to the soil, such as compost or biochar, increasing soil organic matter which in turn increases soils’ carbon storage capacity.

Planting perennial crops, which remain in the ground year after year, can also help store carbon. Their deeper and longer-lasting root systems allow more carbon to accumulate in the soil compared with annual crops that are replanted each season.

Another widely used practice is cover cropping. Farmers plant crops during periods when, or in areas where, fields would otherwise remain bare. These plants not only protect soils from water and air erosion, but they also capture carbon dioxide and transfer some of that carbon into the soil through their roots and plant residue. Cover crops add additional organic matter to soils when they decompose.

Other carbon farming strategies focus on minimizing the carbon that is released into the atmosphere by reducing soil disturbance, particularly through practices that minimize plowing or tilling.

In addition to mitigating GHG emissions, practices that increase or maintain SOC levels enhance soil structure, fuel microbial activity, and improve fertility. By improving overall soil health, these practices can increase agricultural yields while reducing the need for agricultural inputs.

And carbon-rich soils are generally more resilient to environmental pressures. Higher levels of soil organic carbon improve water holding capacity and infiltration, helping farmland better withstand both drought and flooding. “If your neighbor’s land has twice as much carbon as yours, their land will sequester twice the amount of water as your land,” Peter Byck, Arizona State University Professor and Director, Producer, and Writer of Carbon Nation, tells Food Tank.

They also support more active microbial communities, boosting biomass by 40 to 70 percent, and stronger soil structure, enabling soils to absorb shocks and sustain productivity under stress.

Despite its potential to reduce emissions and nourish soils, carbon farming remains the subject of ongoing debate among scientists and policymakers. There is currently no universally accepted system for measuring, reporting, and verifying soil carbon credits, creating confusion for farmers entering carbon markets.

And significant uncertainty remains about how much carbon agricultural soils can store and how accurately sequestration can be measured. Because soil carbon levels can change quickly in response to management practices or weather, stored carbon may also be released back into the atmosphere, complicating efforts to treat soil carbon as a long-term or permanent climate solution.

Concerns about carbon farming also include rebound effects: if certain practices reduce yields, farmland expansion elsewhere could generate emissions that offset the original climate gains. Evidence also shows that widely used no-till systems often rely on herbicides for weed control, accounting for roughly one-third of U.S. pesticide use in corn and soy production.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Sohail Shaikh

The post Food Tank Explains: Carbon Farming appeared first on Food Tank.

John Deere, an American agricultural, construction, and forestry equipment manufacturer, is opening new facilities in the United States and rehiring some of its laid-off workforce. But these moves, make a modest dent in the thousands of U.S. jobs the company has cut in recent years while Deere’s sizable global presence continues to expand.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump announced that John Deere will open two new U.S. facilities—a distribution center near Hebron, Indiana, and a manufacturing site in Kernersville, North Carolina.

According to a press release from Indiana Governor Mike Braun, the company plans to invest US$125 million to construct and equip a 1.2 million-square-foot warehouse and distribution center on 234 acres near Hebron. In North Carolina, Deere is putting US$70 million toward expanding its Kernersville plant, which will take over excavator production previously based in Japan.

John Deere estimates that each site will generate about 150 jobs, underscoring the company’s intent to continue driving U.S. innovation and jobs, says John May, Chairman and CEO of John Deere.

Deere has also pledged to invest US$20 billion in U.S. manufacturing and is reinstating some previously laid-off employees including 146 employees in Waterloo, 24 in Dubuque, and 75 in Davenport.

But the new facilities and limited callbacks make only a modest dent in the significant losses across Deere’s U.S. operations in recent years. John Deere, an American company with deep midwestern roots, began making substantial lay-offs in October 2023, when the company fired 225 production employees from a plant in East Moline, Illinois.

In 2024, Deere cut 2,167 jobs across key facilities, including nearly 1,000 in Waterloo and hundreds more in Davenport, Dubuque, Ankeny, Ottumwa, Moline, and East Moline. Layoffs continued into 2025, with over 500 workers let go in Iowa alone.

Deere says that about 80 percent of the equipment it sells in the U.S. is manufactured domestically. Nevertheless, its international operations remain integral to its business model and supply chain.

International markets are a major driver of Deere’s revenue, providing nearly half of its consolidated net sales and revenues. The company employs 75,000 people worldwide, but more than half are abroad: only 30,000 employees are located in the U.S.

The company manufactures equipment and components throughout a global network, producing backhoes and planting equipment in Brazil, tractor engines and combines in Argentina, crushers and sprayers in Germany, feederhouses in France, cotton harvesters in China, and tractor screens in India.

And Deere continues to expand internationally, prompting scrutiny over how the company balances U.S. manufacturing with global production. The company recently announced that they’re moving their skid steer and track loader manufacturing from Dubuque, Iowa, to a new facility in Ramos, Mexico, and confirmed plans to build a US$55 million plant in Nuevo León to manufacture mini track loaders and mini wheel loaders.

Trump has said Deere’s new facilities as a win for U.S. manufacturing, announcing the projects at a January rally and on social media. The White House also highlighted Deere’s U.S. projects as part of a list of new investments during Trump’s second term as evidence of the President’s “unwavering commitment to revitalizing American industry.”

However, the groundwork for both projects had been laid in 2024 under the Biden-Harris administration. Deere’s planned expansion in Kernersville was first announced in 2024, according to Reuters.

Plans for the Indiana site trace back to a land acquisition that same year, which details the purchase of a 234-acre undeveloped parcel in northwest Indiana that “will be the future site of a 1.2-million-square-foot John Deere warehouse/distribution.” When asked about the timing, the company noted that some of these plans had been disclosed earlier.

Deere has indicated that its long-term strategy will continue “regardless” of political developments in the U.S.. But policy changes under the Trump-Vance administration are proving expensive. According to The Wall Street Journal, Deere incurred roughly US$600 million in tariff-related costs in its 2025 fiscal year and expects that figure to climb to about US$1.2 billion this year.

The broader equipment manufacturing sector is also facing headwinds: output and employment have declined from 2022 levels, according to the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, prompting concerns about the long-term trajectory of U.S. production. “The path that we are on is leading us to less manufacturing in the United States,” says Kip Eideberg, the Association’s Senior Vice President of Government and Industry Relations.

The workers being called back represent a small but significant reprieve for communities hit hard by recent layoffs. “When those layoffs are announced, it doesn’t just throw the family—it throws an entire town into confusion and chaos and worry,” explains Charlie Wishman, President of the Iowa AFL-CIO.

But for many others, the damage remains: Deere’s sweeping changes to its U.S. workforce have sparked both uncertainty and outrage, leaving hundreds of families questioning how they will pay rent, put food on the table, and find new sources of income.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Chris Robert, Unsplash

The post Can New Deere Jobs and Facilities Offset Years of Layoffs? appeared first on Food Tank.

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

Can Conflict Drive a Transition to Sustainable Packaging?

As the war in Iran continues and oil prices stay high, plastic prices are soaring. That’s becoming a problem in China, Japan, South Korea, and Southeast Asia, which consume roughly a third of the world’s plastics. According to OECD data, their plastic use has increased from 17 million tonnes in 1990 to 152 million tonnes in 2022.

With the material so expensive, countries are worried the material will become far less accessible. In Tokyo, for example, wholesalers are already warning that there may be a shortage of plastic trays and bags. That’s driving a search for alternatives. 

In Malaysia, one dairy producer has temporarily switched from plastic containers to paper-based milk cartons. And in South Korea, packaging firms have seen a spike in demand for paper tubes and pouches. 

As more companies pivot, analysts are wondering if the shift to more sustainable options can be sustained in the long-term, ultimately reducing our reliance on plastics.

2025 Floods May Have Affected 3.3 Million Jobs in Pakistan

New estimates from the International Labor Organisation (ILO) show that around 3.3 million jobs may have been affected by the 2025 floods in Pakistan, which led to more than 1,000 deaths and the displacement of tens of thousands of people. 

Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London says the country is a “hotspot for increases in extreme rainfall” and it’s “undoubtedly on the front line of climate change.”

The ILO finds that the agriculture sector was hit the hardest, with rural communities bearing the brunt of the impacts. 

While provincial compensation measures helped with some of the most immediate needs, the Organization is calling for more comprehensive support to restore livelihoods in affected areas. This includes cash-for-work programs, skill-training, and subsidized credit which can help households restart their farms as well and other income-generating activities.

Women Fishers Challenge Taboos in Kenya

As told by Al Jazeera, women in Kisumul Kenya near Lake Victoria are defying gender norms.

Traditionally, women in the region worked as fishmongers, while fishing was reserved solely for men. These gender roles stem from deep seated beliefs held by members of Lake Victoria communities. But in the early 2000s, Rhoda Ongoche Akech realized that her income was dwindling and selling fish was no longer enough to support her family. Something needed to change.

One day, women from a neighboring county arrived in Akech’s village and she watched, surprised, as they went fishing. Even though it was a novel sight, it pushed Akech to learn how to fish herself. While those around Akech warned her that women didn’t belong on the water, she insisted on continuing because she knew her family depended on the income.

She spent 16 years as the only fisherwoman in her village. Then in 2018, Faith Awuor Ang’awo braved the social stigma and joined Akech on the water. In the years that followed a few more women joined the pair.

According to village elder William Okedo the taboo preventing women from fishing has broken down and attitudes among male fishers have shifted as well. But systemic hurdles still remain. Susan Claire, acting director of fisheries and blue economy for Kisumu County, refuses to officially recognize the work that women fishers are doing even though it’s the same as their male counterparts.

While the climate crisis and declining fish stocks pose additional challenges, Akech and her team are still making enough of a living on the water. And for now, they’re still fishing. 

President Trump Pushes for Cuts to WIC

For the second year in the row, President Trump is pushing to cut benefits for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).

His fiscal year 2027 budget calls for a reduction in the fruit and vegetable component of WIC. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that it could take away US$1.4 billion in benefits from 5.4 million parents and young children. 

Under the proposed plan, monthly benefits for toddlers and preschoolers would drop from US$26 to US$10. Benefits for pregnant and non-breastfeeding postpartum mothers would fall from US$47 to US$13. And benefits for breastfeeding mothers would drop from US$52 to US$13. 

For the last three decades, presidents and members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have fully funded the program to ensure that eligible families receive their full benefits because they understand how critical it is. WIC provides nutritious foods, counseling on healthy eating, breastfeeding support, and health care referrals to almost 7 million low-income expecting and postpartum people, infants, and young children at nutritional risk.

Anti-Immigration Bills Fail to Gain Traction

A new analysis from the Washington Post finds that of the roughly 200 bills targeting immigration communities across the country fewer than two dozen have made it into law so far.

One bill in Utah would have prevented undocumented pregnant mothers from accessing public assistance for food. Another bill in Idaho would have forced employers to use the government’s E-Verify system to keep undocumented people from securing jobs.In Tennessee, a third would have limited undocumented students’ access to education.

More than 80 measures like these have died, some were vetoed, and several have made little progress in states’ legislative spring season. Businesses and religious groups, alongside other advocates, have helped to stop these bills from moving forward, recognizing that the attacks only harm their communities.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Kabiur Rahman Riyad, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Kenyan Women Defy Gender Norms, President Trump Calls for Cuts to WIC, Anti-Immigration Policies Fail appeared first on Food Tank.

The Pentagon has requested more than US$200 billion to expand the war with Iran. Meanwhile, only two in five young Americans meet basic eligibility requirements for service, with poor health, often tied to diet, among the leading disqualifiers. To invest in national security requires investing in universal nutritional security.

Tens of millions of Americans struggle to consistently access healthy food. Diet-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes, and hypertension now drive approximately 85 percent of U.S. healthcare spending. For roughly the same cost as expanding the war with Iran, the United States could make a generational investment in nutrition security—and build the nation’s strength, resilience, and well-being through healthy food.

Policy must move beyond short term food aid and prioritize system design. Providing access to healthy food, integrating it into every aspect of the healthcare system, and building infrastructure to process and deliver healthy food represent a three-pronged strategy to build long-term nutritional security.

First, access. Today’s unhealthy food system results not simply from individual choices but policy choices that limit access. Expanding support to fully cover the cost of a nutritious diet through Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) healthy fruit and vegetable incentives —paired with universal healthy school meals—would reduce food insecurity and create a stable baseline of demand for healthier foods.

The evidence shows clear benefits. A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) pilot program that provided Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) families with a 30-cent-on-the-dollar fruit and vegetable incentive resulted in a 26 percent increase in fruit and vegetable consumption. A study of more than 23,000 SNAP participants found healthy incentives improved key health outcomes.

Second, health care. Medically tailored meals and produce prescriptions reduce hospitalizations and overall costs for patients with chronic disease. Yet these programs remain small and inconsistently funded. Integrating nutrition into standard reimbursements through Medicare, Medicaid and private insurers would shift the system from treating disease to preventing it.

Food as medicine programs, when supporting local farm ecosystems, also drive economic growth. According to The Rockefeller Foundation, supporting local farmers through food is medicine programming would provide more than US$45 billion in annual economic benefits. Underlying all this research is a simple point: food is medicine, and food systems must be better designed to produce and deliver the medicine where it’s needed most. That is not just better care; it is a more efficient use of public dollars.

Third, infrastructure and production. The current food system excels at producing and distributing shelf-stable, highly processed foods. It is far less effective at producing and moving fresh, nutritious food at scale. That is not a failure of farmers. It is the result of policies that support factory farms and feedlots over family farms growing nourishing food. Strategic investment in regional processing, cold storage and distribution, paired with support for farmers transitioning to fruits, vegetables and diversified crops, would make healthy food more available and more affordable.

These three pillars reinforce one another. When families can afford healthy food, demand rises. When health systems and institutions commit to purchasing it, markets stabilize. When infrastructure and farms can meet that demand, accessibility improves. Over time, the system starts to sustain itself.

This is what security looks like when it is built, not just defended. The U.S. faces real threats and military readiness matters. But security is not a single line item in the federal budget. It is the product of a society’s overall resilience: its health, its economic stability, and its capacity to withstand shocks. Our fragile, unhealthy food system supply chains fail each of these priorities. We don’t need to wait for another COVID-19 sized failure to recognize the system fails Americans every day.

Economist Paul Collier once wrote that “war is development in reverse” pointing to the immense poverty and hunger in war-torn regions. The same consequences occur in countries who choose to fund war instead of feeding their people.

Congress will debate whether this war is worth the cost. It should also ask a parallel question: What would it look like to invest at the same scale in preventing the diet-related disease crisis that kills Americans every day and undermines our nation’s health and strength?

The U.S has demonstrated that it can mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars when it decides something is urgent. The challenge now is deciding whether the long-term health and resilience of the American people qualifies.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | We Can Find $200 Billion for War. Why Not for Food Security at Home? appeared first on Food Tank.

Protein is having a moment with good reason. It is a fundamental building block of life, shaping muscle strength, metabolism, and overall health. Beyond its role in muscle synthesis, proteins give rise to bioactive peptides that are being explored for their potential to influence diverse biological pathways, including those related to satiety and metabolic regulation, such as GLP-1 signaling.

At the same time, how we produce protein has profound implications for the planet. From agricultural systems to processing methods, protein sits at the intersection of human and ecosystem health. I walked into the 2nd Protein Summit expecting to hear talks and panels centered exactly on this. While health and sustainability were certainly key drivers of the conversation, it kept circling back to something more experiential—taste. 

Food enterprises have long understood the power of taste. They have cultivated for it in fields and formulas by sometimes sourcing the most delicious ingredients from regenerative farms and sometimes by optimizing for fat, salt, and sugar in ways that drive overconsumption and contribute to poor health outcomes.

The conversation here felt different. We’re amid a value-based and health-based global protein transition, reshaping what we produce, how we produce it, and how we deliver it at scale for the health of people and planet. Tyler Lorenzen, CEO of Puris, stated it clearly: Taste is the on-ramp to healthier habits. As a former NFL player, a target market for performance nutrition, he deeply understands protein foods for muscle synthesis. Yes, leucine may be the key amino acid for muscle growth, but muscles can’t tell where amino acids come from. People, not muscles, choose foods and they choose for taste. More than 80 percent of Americans are estimated to prioritize taste when making food choices. 

Food enterprises across the protein spectrum from regenerative beef ranchers to fermentation, insect, plant-based, and blue food innovators are converging on this realization: We cannot compromise on taste, convenience, or affordability if we want health and sustainability solutions to scale.

Beneath this transition sits a deeper scientific question: How do we ensure protein quality, and can we make it delicious? For decades, protein has been measured through total protein that we see at the back of a nutrition label. More recently the dialogue has expanded to amino acids and digestibility. Yet these measures do not fully capture protein quality, defined by the diversity and interactions of proteins with the food matrix, human physiology, and the environment, including: biomolecular diversity, including bioactive peptides; food matrix interactions that influence digestion and function; functional properties that shape texture, stability, and nutrient release; bioavailability, digestibility, and metabolism; and biological responses across pathways such as muscle synthesis, inflammation, and gut health.

Critically, proteins shape taste. Peptides contribute to flavor including umami. Interactions within the food matrix determine how flavors are released and perceived over time.

The next frontier of protein is moving from crude measures to high-resolution data that drives desirability in our psyches and mouths, and functionality in our bodies. The Periodic Table of Food Initiative (PTFI) maps food molecular diversity, revealing how protein quality, and more broadly how food quality varies across crops, environments, and production methods.

A recent study led by PTFI Center of Excellence Javeriana University and the Future Seeds gene bank makes this clear across bean varieties. Beans are often treated as uniform protein sources, valued for accessibility, soil-enhancing properties, and low ecological footprint. This study reveals that different bean varieties carry distinct protein and enzyme profiles, and links to metabolic pathways that influence ecological resilience, nutrition, health, and taste.

This points toward a new way forward. There is no single best protein. There is a landscape of protein diversity that meets each of our values, desires, and microbiomes. Within this diversity is the potential to design foods that deliver on function and flavor with precision. And this knowledge must translate into food environments where the most desirable protein choice is healthy, affordable, and culturally relevant.

This is where new AI tools bridge the gap upstream, removing the burden from the consumer. Heritable Agriculture uses AI to design and breed healthier, more resilient crops. PTFI’s Swap It Smart tool led by the American Heart Association in collaboration with UC Davis and funded by a Bezos Earth Fund AI Grand Challenges Award uses AI to optimize meal quality across ecological sustainability, nutrition, health, affordability, and taste. In parallel, advances in sensory modeling, including efforts led by NECTAR, are predicting how molecules translate into flavor. Together, these efforts move us toward shaping desirable food systems grounded in data.

We must start with what we want to experience. We can build food systems where place-based biodiversity is celebrated, protein is understood in its complexity, and where the foods that enable us to thrive are the foods we crave and can access. The future of protein is delicious. 

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Shayda Torabi, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | The Future of Protein Is Delicious and Data-Backed appeared first on Food Tank.

On June 25, Food Tank, Google Cloud, and the U.N. Environment Programme are hosting the 3rd annual Food Tank London Climate Action Week Summit at Google London.

Building on the success of our 2024 and 2025 programming, the event will bring together more than 180 CEOs, CSOs, Founders, and Impact Officers from leading food and agriculture brands during London Climate Action Week to discuss the solutions they can advance to shape the future of sustainable food systems. Check back here for more details about the program as they become available!

To request an invitation, suggest a speaker, or explore partnership opportunities, please reach out to Food Tank’s Events Director Kenzie Wade at kenzie@foodtank.com.

The post Join Food Tank at London Climate Action Week appeared first on Food Tank.

The North American Marine Alliance (NAMA) is pushing back against corporate control of fisheries to build vibrant, community-driven blue food systems.

There is a tendency to separate aquatic and terrestrial food systems, but Niaz Dorry, Coordinating Director for NAMA, sees the same trends shaping the two. 

“What has affected the world’s ability to feed itself and communities in a sovereign way to feed themselves, is we’ve taken land away and commodified it,” Dorry says. “We’ve taken fishing rights away and commodified it. We’ve taken seeds away and commodified it. We’ve now taken the water column away and commodified it.”

Increasing consolidation is posing additional challenges, affecting both farmed and wild fisheries. “Our food is being dominated by these industrial operations,” says Dorry, who worries about the companies like Cargill and ConAgra that are moving into the aquaculture sector. 

This results in seafood and land-based agriculture systems that are designed for those “who can produce the most at the lowest cost of production to feed global economies of scale,” Dorry says. And that doesn’t bode well for the health and wellness of communities. “Thos are two completely different priorities,” she states.  

But NAMA believes it doesn’t have to stay this way. “The world was fully capable and is fully capable of feeding itself…Let’s give people their seeds back. Let’s give people their land back, their fishing rights back,” Dorry tells Food Tank. “Let’s recreate that regional food system in order to feed ourselves and not make anything other than feeding ourselves good food inevitable.”

The organization is a steering committee member of the Don’t Cage Our Oceans campaign, which is fighting against the threat of offshore industrial fish farming in the United States. 

They also convene the Catch Share Reform Coalition, which advocates for policies that center the priorities of small fishers. Through the Community-Supported Fisheries model that NAMA helped develop, they are working to empower local fishers to help them receive more for their catch while increasing local and regional access to seafood. 

“We need to really, truly have a democratic system that is creating policies that are…for the people, by the people.”

Listen to the full conversation with Niaz Dorry on Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg to hear more how NAMA is pushing back against corporate control of the world’s fisheries, why diversifying the seafood we eat offers a way to honor the gifts of the ocean, and what is needed to best support the next generation of fishers.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of NOAA, Unsplash

The post Fighting Corporate Control of Fisheries: NAMA’s Vision for Blue Food Systems appeared first on Food Tank.

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples, communities, and countries to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through socially just, ecologically sound, and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own policies, strategies, and systems for food production, distribution, and consumption.

While food security names the destination, food sovereignty defines a democratic path to reach it. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), food security is a condition in which everyone has reliable access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food.

Food sovereignty accepts that objective but shifts the focus to power and governance, arguing that achieving lasting food security requires placing decision-making in the hands of the people who produce, distribute, and consume food, rather than markets or dominant governments.

Food sovereignty emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as a response and challenge to the social, economic, and environmental consequences of globalization and industrialized agriculture. 44 percent of the world’s population was living in extreme poverty in 1981, and the number of hungry people grew by 15 million between 1970 and 1980, even as surplus food flooded global markets.

Mechanization of agricultural tasks like sowing seeds, harvesting crops, milking cows greatly reduced and sometimes eliminated the need for human and animal labor, leaving many without jobs. The share of the U.S. workforce employed in agriculture fell from 41 percent in 1900 to 2 percent by 2000, and between 1950 and 1997 the average farm more than doubled in size while nearly half of farms disappeared.

The 1980s marked a sharp increase in global temperatures and, in 1988, NASA scientist James Hansen told Congress he was “99 percent sure” that global warming was upon us. Indigenous, rural, peasant, and small-scale farming communities were left facing overlapping crises of poverty, environmental degradation, and hunger.

Recognizing urgent necessity for an organized, collective, and internationalist response, La Via Campesina coined the term food sovereignty at the 1996 World Food Summit. A decade later, 700 delegates from five continents gathered at the 2007 International Forum for Food Sovereignty in Nyéléni, Mali to further deepen collective understanding on the topic, developing the six pillars of food sovereignty.

The framework centers food as a human need rather than a commodity, supports sustainable livelihoods for food providers, and localizes food systems and shortens the distance between producers and consumers. It places decision-making power in the hands of local communities, builds on traditional knowledge strengthened by research, and works with nature instead of industrial, energy-intensive models.

During Canada’s subsequent People’s Food Policy process, members of the Indigenous Circle added a seventh pillar, which states that “food is sacred,” asserting that food is a gift of life and must not be reduced to a commodity.

Nearly three decades after La Via Campesina introduced food sovereignty, the hunger, poverty, ecological degradation, and concentrated market power it sought to confront persist. Today’s industrial food system generates record levels of calories, yet nearly one-third of the global population remains food insecure. Food systems contribute up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, and agriculture threatens more than 80 percent of species at risk of extinction.

Corporate consolidation has deepened across the food system, with four firms controlling nearly 70 percent of the global pesticide and seed market. And small-scale and family farmers comprise over 98 percent of farms, but control just 53 percent of agricultural land.

Beyond codifying the right to food and control over food systems, and recognizing the contribution of indigenous peoples, pastoralists, forest dwellers, workers and fishers to the food system, food sovereignty offers a framework to address the harms of industrial agriculture.

By localizing production and prioritizing agroecological methods, food sovereignty can shorten supply chains and reduce emissions while restoring soil health and biodiversity. Research also finds that food sovereignty–based approaches, such as strengthening school food systems, improving soil fertility, advancing gender equity, and confronting structural racism, can support long-term health equity.

Scaling food sovereignty requires structural reforms that confront concentrated power and expand equitable access to land. IPES emphasizes the need to democratize governance and counter corporate control of the food system through stronger conflict-of-interest safeguards, revitalized antitrust enforcement to reduce market concentration, and stricter transparency and lobbying rules.

Others like the National Young Farmers Coalition call for eliminating inequities in land ownership, protecting farmland, securing affordable land tenure, and supporting farm viability and transition.

“If people don’t control the food, they don’t control the power,” Morgan Ody, General Coordinator for La Via Campesina, tells Food Tank.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Evan Rally, Unsplash

The post Food Tank Explains: Food Sovereignty appeared first on Food Tank.

A version of this piece was featured in Food Tank’s newsletter. To make sure it lands straight in your inbox and to be among the first to receive it, subscribe now by clicking here.

Earth Day is this week, on Wednesday, April 22. From my vantage point, two of the most impactful forces shaping the health of our planet are converging—the climate crisis and urbanization—and it’s up to us whether it’ll be a cataclysmic collision or a chance to collaborate on change.

We’ve just lived through the three hottest years ever on record: 2023, ‘24, and ‘25. Ocean temps were higher than ever last year. And the global population is not only growing but getting more dense: According to United Nations data, close to 70 percent of the world’s population will live in cities by 2030.

What does this mean? In my view, this cements the power—and the responsibility!—of local food and ag systems to lead the charge toward more sustainability and climate resilience on a global scale.

“With bold investments and good planning and design, cities offer immense opportunities to slash greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to the effects of climate change, and sustainably support urban populations,” says António Guterres, Secretary-General of the U.N.

Through efforts like the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP)—signed by more than 330 cities worldwide—local leaders can share knowledge and experiences in strengthening equitable food systems. Earlier this year, I had the honor of emceeing a MUFPP Regional Forum, and the collective food system power we have in each of our communities is electric and unbelievably inspiring.

Already, so many municipalities and local governments and advocates are stepping up to the plate, which is amazing to see and learn from. This Earth Day, I want to highlight some success stories that are turning cities into sites of big-picture transformation:

On the subject of procurement: Last year, Seoul, South Korea launched a new Climate-Friendly Meal Service initiative to expand nutrition education for students and improve the sustainability of food grown for the country’s universal school meals.

“Because school meals are universal and publicly funded, they embody social equity, while simultaneously shaping demand for eco-friendly and local agricultural products,” says Seulgi Son, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Yonsei University.

New York City is prioritizing plant-based meals in public institutions such as schools, where students participate in Meatless Mondays and have “plant-powered” options, and hospitals, where vegetarian options are default. In just the first year of this transition, the city reported a 36 percent reduction in carbon emissions!

When it comes to fighting food waste: Milan, Italy, has launched an award-winning food waste hub model to help the country halve food waste by 2030 by facilitating food recovery and distribution, and each of five hubs within the model have recovered the equivalent of over 260,000 meals per year.

Or, take Baltimore, where the Baltimore Zero Waste Coalition is dedicated to promoting waste diversion practices that minimize landfill or incineration use and maximize recovery work through education, collaboration, and advocacy. Meanwhile, the city is also focusing on better managing the waste that does occur. The city’s Department of Public Works adopted a 10-Year Solid Waste Management Plan in 2024, aimed at increasing organics recycling and promoting backyard and community composting.

And cities can also vitally support farmers and food production: In Brazil, São Paulo’s Connect the Dots program brings together urban buyers for organic produce, helps train the family farms growing those crops in more sustainable practices, and safeguards farms and forests from urban development.

In Xochimilco, in Mexico City, researchers, farmers, and government entities have partnered to create a sustainable certification program that has helped to restore 40+ floating farms, protect endangered axolotls, and connect producers to premium markets while improving local livelihoods.

And across the world in Kenya, we’re seeing action on the county level, too. Several Kenyan counties have adopted policies to expand agroecological production and help farmers access markets.

As U.N. Habitat analysts write, “While the overlapping challenges of environmental stress and rapid urbanization are uniquely daunting, it is precisely this intersection that makes urban climate action so opportune.”

If cities or other local governments where you live are taking bold action on food systems and climate, share their stories. And if your city is not doing its part, then it’s time for us as citizen eaters to use Earth Day as an opportunity to push for change! Reach out to your local elected officials and community advocates this week to share these success stories from other cities. And do reach out to me via email too, to let me know how Food Tank can use our resources to help.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The post Earth Day Is Global—But We Know Food and Climate Solutions Start Locally appeared first on Food Tank.

Each week, Food Tank is rounding up a few news stories that inspire excitement, infuriation, or curiosity.

Development Aid Plummeted in 2025

According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), preliminary data show that last year, ODA from member countries and associates of the Development Assistance Committee fell by nearly a quarter compared to 2024.

This is the largest decline in foreign aid in history and it marks the second consecutive year that ODA has fallen. According to the OECD, this means that development assistance is back to where it was when the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was first released.

The United States alone drove the majority of the decline, where ODA fell by nearly 60 percent compared to 2024. Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, and France are also responsible. Together with the U.S. these countries accounted for more than 95 percent of the total decline in ODA. Bilateral aid—financial assistance given from one government to another—and U.N. funding have been hit the hardest.

Carsten Staur, DAC Chair at the OECD says that the world is seeing the exact opposite of what it needs, stating, “We are in a time of increasing humanitarian needs; strong pressures on the poorest and most fragile countries; and facing growing global uncertainties and massive insecurity. In this situation, the world needs more ODA, not less.”

Low Staffing at USDA Slows Progress on Regenerative Agriculture

Politico reports that staffing cuts in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have left farmers with little to no support as they try to transition to more regenerative practices.

The NRCS has lost more than 2,500 workers—over a fifth of its staff across the country. That’s the second-highest number of any branch at the USDA, which has suffered more than many government agencies. According to an analysis from Inside Climate News, the entire federal government saw a 12 percent reduction in its workforce since President Trump took office, but the USDA lost 21 percent of its staff.

The shortage at NRCS means fewer program applicants, fewer approvals, and more payment delays for conservation work. Gabe Averson, a beef and grain producer in Minnesota, described his local NRCS office as “a ghost town.” And when talking about an employee in his region’s NRCS office, he said they are “spread so thin that they can’t even think straight.”

Other farmers say that they have had to wait weeks to receive basic information on farming practices and grant programs, which has impeded their ability to move forward with conservation projects on their land.

At the end of last year, the USDA announced a US$700 million pilot program to scale regenerative agriculture. At the time, advocates such as Sarah Starman of Friends of the Earth expressed concern that the program can only be effective if the USDA reverses their cuts to conservation staff.

Now producers like Averson, who is a member of the pilot, see why. He says that he has been waiting three or four months “just to get the basic information” about it.

Rwanda’s Capital Takes Steps to Protect Farmland, Scale Urban Agriculture

The city of Kigali is taking steps to protect farmland from development, the Associated Press reports.

Land data from the mayor’s office reveal that the city plans to dedicate 22 percent of land to agriculture. In September, the government began mapping agricultural land and they soon plan to deploy drones for real-time monitoring as they track any developments encroaching on farmland and forests.

Authorities say that they understand that housing construction is attractive, but projects show “farming will be even more productive,” especially at a time when demand for food is rising and the country’s population is growing.

To encourage local production, city developers are also requiring that developers seeking building permits, include green spaces and gardens in their designs.

Richard Bucyana, an agronomist, says that he wants to see African governments “start thinking how they can be self-sustainable.” He and other young agronomists are training farmers to embrace technologies like hydroponics to get around limited land access and maximize productivity.

Bangladesh Launches New Scheme to Boost Agricultural Productivity for Small Farmers 

This week, the Banladeshi government launched a “Farmers’ Card” scheme, which is designed to support the country’s farmers and help modernize the agricultural sector. The initiative is focused on small farmers, including sharecroppers who often lack access to banks or other forms of institutional support.

During the official launch event Prime Minister Tarique Rahman said, “If farmers of this country are well-off, if the ​farmers of this country survive, then the whole of Bangladesh will do ​well and the people of entire Bangladesh will live well.”

Developed with guidance from the Ministry of Agriculture and in collaboration with Sonali Bank PLC, the card integrates identification with digital payment capabilities, helping farmers access government services and benefits more efficiently, according to a press release.

Those registered in the program will receive access to subsidized fertilizers and seeds, agricultural machinery, low-interest loans, crop insurance, and advisory services.

Shawkat Ali Khan, Managing Director and CEO of Sonali Bank PLC says that the initiative is “strengthening how financial support is delivered to farmers across Bangladesh.”

The scheme is beginning with a pilot project that includes more than 22,000 farmers. It will then be rolled out in phases over the next five years. By the end, the government hopes to reach all 27.5 million farmers in the country.

U.S. Makes Progress on Food Waste

ReFED’s 2026 U.S. Food Waste Report reveals that in 2024, total surplus food decreased to 70 million tons, representing a 2.2 percent reduction from 2023 levels. That’s equal to a 3.7 percent decrease per capita.

ReFED finds that households are helping to drive this progress. Residential food waste fell by nearly 950,000 tons. This is the first year-to-year reduction in food waste since there was a dip during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the organization calls “a significant milestone in the movement to reduce food waste.”

At a time when eaters are looking for ways to stretch their dollars, Dana Gunders, President of ReFED says, “this is an opportune moment to focus on wasting less food…The wind is at our backs, and it’s time to step on the gas.”

ReFED’s report also digs into the food waste solutions that are working — like centralized composting and smaller portion sizes — and why they’re so impactful. It also outlines opportunities such as legislation and AI that can be unlocked to drive progress even further.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Kabiur Rahman Riyad, Unsplash

The post Food Tank’s Weekly News Roundup: Development Aid Plummets, Rwanda Protects Farmland, Bangladesh Launches New Farmers’ Card appeared first on Food Tank.

A version of this piece was featured in Food Tank’s newsletter, typically released weekly on Thursdays. To make sure it lands straight in your inbox and to be among the first to receive it, subscribe now by clicking here.

I want to share some good news about the state of food waste in the United States: According to a new report from ReFED, total surplus food dropped by 2.2 percent between 2023 and 2024, including a 950,000-ton reduction in residential food waste. For me, this is a clear sign of the power of citizen eaters to help steer the global food system!

But we still have a long way to go. The total value of surplus food in 2024 was about US$380 billion, meaning consumers still spend an average of US$762 per person per year on food they ultimately waste—and reducing food waste remains a key solution to a variety of climate and food equity challenges.

This month, Food Tank is co-hosting the 10th Annual Stop Food Waste Day Celebration, with Compass Group and Envision Charlotte, on April 29th at Innovation Barn in Charlotte, North Carolina. I hope you’ll join us as we reflect on the progress we’ve made and continue to strategize for the future!

You can CLICK HERE to find out more about the event, which will be a wonderful day of live music, important conversations, delicious food, and interactive experiences. And if you’re in Charlotte, just email Food Tank’s Events Director Kenzie Wade at kenzie@foodtank.com to request a ticket.

No matter where you live, though, Stop Food Waste Day is a global day of action—so you can join us via livestream as well HERE.

Speakers for this year’s Stop Food Waste Day include Amy Aussieker, Envision Charlotte; Richard Armenia, Feeding Charlotte; Michiel Bakker, Culinary Institute of America; Eliza Blank, Farmlink; Palmer Brown, Compass Group; Cate Brinley, Youth Changemaker; Chris Ivens-Brown, Compass Group; Chayil Johnson, Community Matters Cafe; Chef Sam Kass, Acre Venture Partners and Trove; Amy Keister, Compass Group; Riley Nelson, NASCAR; Kris Steele, Crown Town Compost; Harry Tannenbaum, Mill; Alyssa Wilen, Alyssa’s Kitchen, and Eleanor Zhang, Youth Changemaker; plus a very special surprise musical guest!

“My grandma would always remind me not to waste food, (but) it wasn’t just about the food itself,” Amy Keister, Global Director of Sustainability for Compass Group, told us at Stop Food Waste Day last year. “It was about respect for resources, respect for the folks who grow the food, and an understanding of how interconnected we all are.”

Throughout the afternoon, we’ll celebrate the people, ideas, and innovations helping to reduce food waste and build a better food system—one that keeps good food in our kitchens and communities, instead of in landfills. We’ll hear from producers and youth storytellers who are shaping the next generation of the movement, and we’ll conclude with a delicious reception to help us connect and keep building momentum.

Once again, you can CLICK HERE to grab your tickets to join us starting at 2PM ET on Wednesday, April 29.

As I mentioned—and as the data proves—citizen eaters at the household level have tremendous power to drive real change when it comes to food waste reduction, and I want to hear stories of how you and your communities are helping to bring value back into all parts of the food system!

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The post On Stop Food Waste Day, We’re Celebrating the Power of Collective Action! appeared first on Food Tank.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently canceled a US$300 million grant program designed to support underserved producers across the United States.

In 2023, the USDA selected grantee projects across 40 states and territories to expand land ownership opportunities for marginalized farmers under the Increasing Land, Capital, and Market Access (ILCMA) Program. Many of these efforts also offered agricultural training, promoted sustainable production practices, and helped farmers connect to markets.

In late March, the agency issued termination letters to 49 of the 50 projects. Farm Service Agency Associate Administrator Steven Peterson called the grants “discriminatory.” And the USDA claimed “most of the awards did little to improve land access” and that there was “excessive spending on outreach and technical assistance.” 

But the projects were hardly allowed to move forward, says Amanda Koehler, Manager of the Land, Capital, and Market Access Network, an independent group that brings together awardees and sub-awardees of the grant program.

“They froze the funding for four months. They cut off communication with awardees,” Koehler tells Food Tank. She says that program officers were trying to purchase land or create mini-grants for producers, but the required pre-approvals from officials never came. “The USDA really undermined this program and made it really challenging for these projects to do what they were designed to do.”

The kind of support that the ILCMA Program offered, however, is crucial to sustaining the agriculture sector, according to the National Young Farmers Coalition. USDA data show that the average age of farmers in the U.S. is on the rise and nearing 60.

The issue isn’t that young people don’t want to farm, Koehler says. It’s that the infrastructure doesn’t exist as they try to enter the sector. “We have a very fragile farm and food system right now, one that young people do want to be a part of, but we have so many barriers against us.”

Land access is the biggest challenges, but consolidation in the agriculture sector, student loan debt, and the rising cost of healthcare and housing are also holding back young and young and beginning farmers. The burden of these obstacles is particularly felt by Black farmers, who make up less than 2 percent of producers today.

But farmers are increasingly speaking out and sharing their stories, helping policmakers see the realities that they face. And Koehler is made optimistic by the solidarity she sees in her own community. The urgency is great, she says, and time is running out, but change is possible.

“Even if we don’t make progress in the next year or two, we will make progress on this in the long run,” Koehler tells Food Tank. “I am hopeful that we can right the ship.”

Listen to or watch the full conversation with Amanda Koehler on “Food Talk with Dani Nierenberg” to hear more about the challenges stacked against new and beginning farmers, the land transition that’s needed to support them, and hopes for the next Farm Bill and future agriculture policies.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of USDA

The post USDA Terminates Land Access Program for New Farmers appeared first on Food Tank.

This article is part of Food Tank’s primer series, “Food Tank Explains.” Each installment unpacks the ideas, innovations, and challenges shaping today’s food and agriculture systems, offering clear insights into complex topics. To explore more articles in the series, click here.

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are products constructed from industrially produced ingredients and substances that are typically not available for home cooking. UPFs are designed to be hyperpalatable, conveniently accessible, and highly profitable, and include a wide range of commonplace items from soft drinks, chips, and packaged bread to jarred sauces, cereals, and ice cream.

Over the past century, traditional dietary patterns centered on minimally processed foods have gradually given way to diets dominated by ultra-processed items. UPFs make up around 75 percent of the U.S. food supply and more than half of the calories consumed by adults in high-income countries. Among children, and households with lower income and education levels, the rates are higher.

The rise of UPFs is displacing unprocessed or minimally processing foods and long-established dietary patterns, driving the rise of multiple diet-related chronic diseases globally.

Food processing has existed throughout human history. Global communities froze foods to prolong storage times, fermented foods with salt to improve nutrition, and preserved foods in honey or sugar to create new tastes and textures. Unlike historically processed foods, ultra-processed products are not simply altered whole ingredients but are manufactured from refined components and additives.

NOVA, the most widely used food classification system, does not define UPFs as food, but as industrial formulations. UPFs are composed primarily of chemically modified and industrially produced ingredients generally unavailable in home kitchens, like protein isolates or concentrates, hydrogenated fat, and modified starches.

They typically contain additives to enhance taste, texture, appearance, and preservatives to extend shelf-lives and undergo processing techniques that leave the final products bearing little resemblance to the original ingredients.

The ingredients and processes used to manufacture ultra-processed foods make them highly convenient and appealing, but often low in nutritional quality and liable to be over-consumed. UPFs are typically high in added sugars, sodium, modified starches, and saturated fat, and low in fiber, micronutrients, and phytochemicals.

UPFs are designed to be exceptionally appealing to the human palate, and their composition can stimulate the brain’s reward system and overrides satiety signals, making it difficult to stop eating. A study published in Cell Metabolism compared the effects of consuming two nutritionally similar diets differing only in their degree of processing. Participants assigned to an ultra-processed diet ate about 500 more calories per day and gained about 2 pounds more than those on the unprocessed diet.

Ultra-processed foods are associated with worse diet quality and a long and growing list of adverse health outcomes. Multiple studies link greater exposure to ultra-processed food with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer, and anxiety and depression, demonstrating adverse outcomes across nearly all organ systems.

Food processing is not inherently dangerous, and certain processing methods offer clear benefits. Pasteurization improves food safety and processes like freezing and canning can reduce food waste. Fortified foods, like milk with added vitamin D to aid calcium absorption or cereal enriched with fiber, can improve nutrition and address deficiencies. And some processed foods like whole-grain brain, yogurt, and baked beans are associated with a reduced risk of chronic disease like diabetes and obesity.

Consumers should limit UPFs in their diets, but also understand that there is nuance, says Dr. David Seres, director of medical nutrition and professor of medicine in the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University Medical Center.

Most global policies aimed at reversing the rise of UPFs worldwide have focused on reducing consumption of foods high in added fats, sugar, and sodium, many of which are UPFs. But public health experts have called for stronger and broader policies that provide clear dietary guidance and health objectives, warning labels, and consumer education.

And Marion Nestle, Professor Emerita at New York University, highlights the need for legal authority to regulate television and social media advertising, retail product placements, sales and service in schools, and other promotions directed toward children. UPF marketing, Nestle says, “must be stopped.”

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Nico Smit

The post Food Tank Explains: Ultra-Processed Foods appeared first on Food Tank.

In 1946, more than half the world’s population faced hunger. Today, this figure has fallen dramatically—to 8 percent—even as the global population has tripled. Progress the past 20 years has been significant with, for example, Cambodia bringing its hunger levels down from 25 percent in 2000 to 5 percent in 2025.

Unfortunately, progress has not only stalled—it has reversed in some regions. At the same time, we are facing colossal health and environmental problems worldwide because of an approach used to end hunger that focused heavily on a few staple crops: wheat, rice and corn. Today, one out of three people in the world suffer from malnutrition with overweight and obesity rates skyrocketing. An estimated 20 percent of global mortality is now attributed to poor-quality diets.

This is further compounded by an affordability crisis. Healthy diets remain economically out of reach for most people living in low- and middle-income countries, estimated to cost US$4.50 per day (global mean) while 45 percent of the global population lives below US$6.85 a day, and 10 percent lives below US$3.00 a day. Poverty and a lack of access to healthy diets go hand in hand.

These results are not accidental. They reflect decades of policy choices that promote the production and marketing of staple and oilseed crops through price incentives, procurement measures and subsidies. These policies have subsidies overwhelmingly favor staple foods and limited incentives for farmers to diversify their production systems.

The problem is not a lack of calories. It is a lack of diverse foods needed for healthy diets, the discrepancies between where food is produced and where it is consumed, and the inability of vulnerable populations to afford healthy food options. This is the hunger problem we face today.

But this problem can be fixed. Agriculture remains the first line of defense against hunger and malnutrition. Investing in nutrition-sensitive agriculture ensures that these systems deliver not just more food, but more healthy food. This needs to be driven by a multi-sector approach with co-investments in health, education, as well as water, sanitation, and hygiene alongside agriculture and food systems.

A new report published by researchers from CABI, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the Shamba Centre for Food & Climate, shows how we can integrate nutrition into current agriculture and food aid programs. It identifies 10 high-impact nutrition-sensitive interventions based on a review of scientific evidence spanning 1,732 individual studies across 83 countries and published in 52 high quality systematic reviews over the past 20 years.

According to the report, we first need to enhance household-level food production to increase the availability of nutrient-dense foods. We do not produce enough fruits, vegetables, and pulses for everyone to be able to access and afford them. And while we produce enough proteins, they remain over-consumed in some places and under-consumed in others. We need to support those that do not produce enough animal source foods to sustainably increase the production of aquaculture and poultry—two animal-source foods that can be relatively cheap, relatively low-emissions, and high in nutrients.

Second, we need to focus on improving access, efficiency, and safety within agriculture and food systems. Infrastructure is lacking—from storage and processing to roads and electricity—to preserve nutritious food for longer, get the missing micronutrients to consumers and ensure that food is safe to eat. This is particularly important when considering fresh fruits and vegetables as well as animal-sourced proteins.

And we need to address consumer choice. As we start to produce and market healthy food options, consumers need to be accompanied and understand the change in their food environment. We need to directly shift and influence diet choices at the household level.

Every intervention brings trade-offs. Poorly designed interventions and policies can reinforce existing inequities. For example, infrastructure investments could uphold the exclusion of marginalized groups. Food safety reforms can unintentionally push small-scale out of formal markets. At the household level, power dynamics can influence who consumes nutrient-dense foods. Environmental sustainability is also key. For this reason, production should focus on agroforestry and diversification towards fruit and vegetables to enhance resilience while improving diets.

The evidence makes clear that single interventions rarely work on their own. We have learned that outcomes and design matter. In practice, this means combining multiple interventions together to reduce costs and enhance effectiveness and being intentional in nutrition objectives. School meals, for example, may be more effective at improving education outcomes than nutrition outcomes. But when designed with nutrition objectives and using local procurement, they can also enhance children’s diet quality and dietary diversity, particularly in low-income countries.

Unfortunately, all too often, agriculture and food security projects omit the integration of nutrition objectives. The report found that 80 percent of agriculture and food security aid projects screened with the OECD nutrition policy marker did not target nutrition—only 20 percent of projects included significant or principal nutrition objectives. Better integration of nutrition objectives in agriculture and food security aid projects is quickly achievable.

We also need to accelerate the nascent blended finance strategies and get better at using aid to catalyze much larger resource flows from the domestic public and private sectors. And let’s make sure that our economies work well so that all producers have the opportunity to thrive.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of Andy Arbiet, Unsplash

The post Op-Ed | The Nutritionists Are Right. We Must End Hunger Differently. appeared first on Food Tank.

In Buffalo, New York, Buffalo Go Green has spent years advancing food equity by linking food access, education, and health outcomes in communities shaped by long-standing disinvestment—and is now building a platform to ensure those services reach people in ways that reflect their real lives.

Founded by Allison DeHonney, the organization operates primarily on Buffalo’s East Side, where limited access to affordable, nutritious food contributes to high rates of diet-related disease including diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. 28.3 percent of Buffalo’s population lives below the poverty line, and 24 percent is food-insecure.

DeHonney launched Buffalo Go Green without formal training in agriculture or healthcare, instead drawing on experience in business and insurance to address structural drivers of poor health.

“The impetus of the organization, after doing research on health disparities, was addressing the lack of access to fresh fruits and vegetables and the lack of knowledge surrounding healthy food choices,” DeHonney tells Food Tank.

DeHonney began by starting a farm, focusing on healthy soil, non-GMO seeds, and growing practices designed to produce nutrient-dense food. To fight health disparities and their effects, Buffalo Go Green developed produce prescription programs, where patients are provided with prescriptions for fruits and vegetables to bolster their health, and prepared meal programs for the underserved.

The organization operates year-round growing facilities that yield hundreds of pounds of organic fruits and vegetables. It also runs mobile produce markets to ensure Buffalo residents can access nutritious food where and when they need it.

As DeHonney spent time engaging with community members at markets and on the farm, education became a focal point. She found that access alone was insufficient, particularly in dense urban neighborhoods with limited growing space. “So much harm has been done in these communities,” DeHonney explains, noting that education helps build lasting skills and confidence around food choices.

Buffalo Go Green’s education programs now span home growing, greenhouse management, nutrition, cooking, and food systems literacy. Participants receive hands-on training, books for guidance, and exposure to the institutions working to improve food access in the area.

As New York expands Food is Medicine through a Medicaid 1115 Waiver, Buffalo Go Green has identified a critical gap between screening patients for food insecurity and delivering effective services. When individuals are deemed eligible under the waiver program, they are directed to a community-based organization, regional non-profits, or health care providers for support.

“Once people are screened as food insecure and navigated to us, life doesn’t stop,” DeHonney says, pointing to changes in housing, caregiving responsibilities, allergies, and weekly needs. Existing systems, she notes, are not designed to track those shifting realities over the months someone receives services. Without that information, providers risk missing opportunities to support the nuances of participants’ lives and sustained behavior change around shopping, cooking, and nutrition.

To address this gap, Buffalo Go Green is launching a new platform designed to strengthen service delivery under the 1115 waiver. Originally developed as a point-of-sale and inventory system for farmers markets, the updated platform will include a new layer focused on individual service delivery. The tool allows staff to capture what a participant needs week to week, while also generating aggregate data to inform program design and policy discussions.

“It’s based on the individual, but we can aggregate all of that,” DeHonney says, citing insights such as housing instability that are often invisible in traditional reporting systems. The platform is expected to launch imminently.

Along with on-the-ground service delivery, Buffalo Go Green participates in food policy coalitions and national networks, lending on-the-ground insight into how policy decisions affect implementation. DeHonney views this role as essential to ensuring Food Is Medicine policies translate into real-world impact.

The organization’s commitment to co-production with universities and partners has shaped both its programming and research collaborations. “These relationships don’t have to be complicated,” DeHonney says, emphasizing trust, responsiveness, and shared problem-solving.

Looking ahead, Buffalo Go Green is expanding through a holistic wellness and agricultural education campus that will include a teaching kitchen, a small market, a juice bar, and indoor hydroponic growing. The goal, DeHonney says, is to grow without losing the community-centered approach that has defined the organization’s work from the beginning.

Articles like the one you just read are made possible through the generosity of Food Tank members. Can we please count on you to be part of our growing movement? Become a member today by clicking here.

Photo courtesy of David Lang, Unsplash 

The post Inside Buffalo Go Green’s Approach to Food, Health, and Care appeared first on Food Tank.