KANSAS CITY — With Inauguration Day approaching, media attention has focused principally on President-elect Donald Trump’s selections for cabinet posts and questions over whether his more controversial choices will secure Senate confirmation. Less attention has been directed to the question of whether the incoming administration’s proposed agenda for aggressive change will be adopted.Josh Sosland, editor of Milling & Baking News.
Source: Sosland Publishing Co. 

From trade and immigration to food safety and public health, the grain, milling and baking industries are situated squarely in the crosshairs of many of the major policy changes that have been promised. The issues are not of passing concern to the industry sectors involved but in several instances represent one of the top issues on the industry groups’ policy agendas. Here’s a brief look at four:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: The food industry’s vulnerability to SNAP cuts was exposed with the abrupt end of about $36 billion in emergency COVID benefits in early 2023. In the nearly two years since, the cuts have been repeatedly cited by food industry executives as a cause, together with inflationary pressures, for food sales weakness. The trend has endured considerably longer than expected. Will new cuts be made by a second Trump administration? With the bar set by Elon Musk at $2 trillion in annual federal spending cuts, food assistance programs appear at risk. Musk, designated by the president-elect to head the Department of Government Efficiency, is surely to encounter pushback when he attempts to cut social security, Medicare and defense spending, which collectively represent about 63% of the $6.8 trillion federal budget. While SNAP accounts for less than 2% of the budget, Republican lawmakers, who will control Congress, repeatedly in the past have shown an inclination to either cut SNAP benefits or add provisions to limit those who qualify. Vivek Ramaswamy, Musk’s partner in leading DOGE, has spoken about the need to address SNAP waste and fraud. The lingering effects of the end of the emergency funding underscore the risk facing baking and the food industry in the event further SNAP cuts are made.

Tariffs: “When tariffs are levied by the United States, foreign governments often target American agricultural exports for retaliation,” Sam Kieffer, vice president of public policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation, said recently in response to President-elect Trump’s planned tariffs.  Given the targets identified so far, Kieffer is right to be sounding the alarm. In announcing his intention to impose tariffs on Mexico and Canada and increased tariffs on China, President-elect Trump is imperiling the first, second and third largest export markets for US agricultural products, accounting for about half of US farm exports. The three markets are very distinct as outlets of US products, with Canada taking mostly consumer goods, including baked and other grain-based foods; Mexico importing grains and oilseeds, as well as meat; and China’s imports dominated by soybeans. On his Truth Social platform, President-elect Trump promised a 25% across-the-board tariff on goods imported from Mexico and Canada and an additional 10% tariff on all Chinese imports. Economic analysis from the American Soybean Association estimates that if China were to restore tariffs from the last trade war, soybean prices would fall by about 60¢ a bu, further pressuring grower incomes following the steepest two-year drop in soybean grower farm income ever. Data published by the non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that trade actions in the first Trump presidency — US tariffs against China, retaliatory tariffs and subsidies granted to US farmers — were neutral to “mildly negative” to the US economy. Milling & Baking News maintains its longstanding opposition to protectionism because of powerful evidence free trade delivers economic growth and higher living standards, lower prices and greater efficiency while also helping promote innovation and investment.

Immigration/deportations: Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, the challenge of finding enough workers ranked atop issues of concern to the US baking industry. The problem of finding and retaining a reliable workforce is as critical as ever, and last year, one baking executive described immigration as “the crux of the issue.” Over the past two years, industry leaders have discussed the importance of finding ways for certain immigrants without legal standing at present to gain work permits. Trump’s positions on this issue have not always been consistent but in no way tilt in the direction baking and so many other economic sectors urgently need — adopting a degree of flexibility regarding undocumented immigrants already here. Instead, in recent weeks Trump said of mass deportations, “I think you have to do it. It’s a very tough thing to do. You know, you have rules, regulations, laws. They came in illegally.” In the same interview, he said he was open to targeting immigrants with criminal histories, a position more consistent with policy of previous administrations of both parties. While securing the border is a political imperative, ensuring an adequate workforce with the benefit of legal immigration is an economic necessity for baking and the entire US economy.

Ultra-processed foods: The risk that ultra-processed foods will be targeted in different ways by the federal government has been heightened abruptly by the nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. By way of background, many in grain-based foods breathed a sigh of relief following the publication this fall of a research study in The Lancet showing different health outcomes for subjects depending on which ultra-processed foods (UPFs) they consumed. The researchers cautioned “ultra-processed foods is a diverse category, with many items that are considered healthy.” The study seemed to diminish the risk that the Scientific Advisory Committee for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans would succumb to pressure to include UPF discussions in the 2025 guidelines. Kennedy is an outspoken critic of UPFs, a moniker that covers products ranging from sweetened beverages to whole wheat bread. If confirmed, he may seek to use his position to change the guidelines in numerous ways, including castigating UPFs. His agenda is far reaching and in certain cases is at odds with established science. For instance, he has taken an antagonistic stance toward canola oil and sunflowerseed oil, contending they are worsening health problems. He is advocating the immediate removal of processed foods from school cafeterias. Kennedy is likely to have to find bipartisan support for many of his positions, but the expense of jettisoning processed foods in school meals together with pushback from congressional leaders from agricultural areas likely will create obstacles for this crusade. The food industry must redouble efforts to ensure sound science is brought to the fore in upcoming nutrition policy deliberations.

The grain-based foods industry is right to look forward to an administration and Congress committed to lessening the regulatory burden on business while also promising to reduce taxes. Still, the industry should actively voice its opposition to ill-considered policies that appear increasingly likely to become reality.