B. Federal Procurement and Food Assistance

Federal procurement policies and food assistance programs can also help increase the availability and accessibility of more healthy and sustainable food. Each year, the federal government provides food to 30 million students through the National School Lunch Program, 703,000 seniors through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, and 84,000 Indian households through the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations Program, in addition to the millions of federally funded meals provided at military facilities, hospitals, prisons, and elsewhere.¹⁶ Few of these programs require meals to adhere to dietary guidelines or to take into consideration the climate impact of food choices, and funding for these programs is insufficient to provide high-quality healthy meals.¹⁷ Changes to these practices and programs

233

can have a significant impact on climate change, the environment, and public health.

For example, expanding federal funding for food assistance programs can lead to changes in consumption patterns, which can, in turn, lead to changes in production practices. The diets of many Americans are largely composed of inexpensive processed and ultra-processed foods,¹⁸ which are associated with a high incidence of preventable, diet-related diseases including heart disease, depression, diabetes, and cancer.¹⁹ However, people tend to choose healthier options when they have more time and money to purchase and prepare food.²⁰ This link between healthy choices and increased resources is further illustrated by a 2016 analysis conducted by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey which found that raising monthly Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits by only $30 per person would increase the consumption of healthy foods, while decreasing the consumption of fast food.²¹ And a 2019 study found that the federal government could eliminate the substantial disparity in nutritional quality between foods consumed by low- and high-income households by increasing SNAP benefits by 15%.²² Ensuring that people have the resources to acquire healthy and sustainable food—which, as discussed above, the dietary guidelines should encourage them to consume—could contribute to substantial reductions in emissions and an improvement in public health.

Requiring federally provided meals to adhere to dietary guidelines and to consider the carbon footprint of the food provided—while increasing funding for the procurement and preparation of healthy and sustainable food by the government—could also have significant climate and health benefits. The federal government has recognized as much, publishing a detailed set of guidelines on health and sustainability for federal food service.²³ The Food Service Guidelines for Federal Facilities “provides specific food, nutrition, facility efficiency, environmental support, community development, food

234

safety, and behavioral design standards” for food services at federal facilities. The intent was to incorporate these guidelines in the federal procurement process, including them in requests for proposals so that agencies would consider these standards when evaluating bids for contracts for food service at federal facilities.²⁴ The guidelines—which were updated in 2017—include food and nutrition standards that align with the 2015 dietary guidelines, as well as with Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade, which directs federal agencies to improve their environmental performance.²⁵ Accordingly, the guidelines aim to “increase the availability of healthier food and beverages in federal food service facilities so that consumers can more readily choose healthier options,” and to “ensure that environmentally responsible practices are conducted in federal food service facilities,” among other goals.²⁶ Ensuring that federal contracts for the procurement of food fully adhere to these guidelines could greatly contribute to improved health and environmental outcomes.

Notably, there is precedent for affording preferential treatment to sustainable products. The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR)—a regulatory system that governs all acquisitions by executive agencies—contains a part on “Environment, Energy” and other matters.²⁷ Included within this part are subparts on “Sustainable Acquisition Policy” and “Contracting for Environmentally Preferable Products and Services,” among others.²⁸ Pursuant to these provisions, the EPA has a program through which it “leverages the significant federal purchasing power to prevent pollution, realize lifecycle costs savings, and increase US industry competitiveness.”²⁹ Agencies should follow suit and leverage their purchasing power to provide healthier and more sustainable food choices throughout federal programs and facilities.

235

agricultural products.³¹ Congress should pass legislation expanding on this concept, explicitly allowing schools participating in child nutrition programs to give a preference to climate-friendly agricultural products. Modeled on Massachusetts’ local preference law, which requires state agencies to give preference to food products grown or produced in Massachusetts, such a law could provide carbon farmers with an enormous new market.³²

Alternatively, the federal government could establish a greenhouse gas reduction target for food purchases, similar to greenhouse gas reduction targets in the procurement of energy supplies and in transportation systems. For example, a bill proposed in Maryland in 2021 requires the state to develop a methodology to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions of food and beverages purchased, establish a 2022 baseline of annual emissions associated with these purchases, and reduce that amount by 25% by 2030.³³

State and local governments can also take action to influence consumers’ food choices. For example, they can participate in the Good Food Purchasing Program (GFPP), a program that works with large institutions such as school districts to encourage them to leverage their purchasing power to advance “five core values: local economies, environmental sustainability, valued workforce, animal welfare and nutrition.”³⁴ Adherence to the GFPP could lead to more climate-friendly and healthier consumption patterns.