Food is an undeniable key ingredient to political campaigns.
It lent the setting (and sustenance) for Donald Trump’s January Red Arrow Diner stop in Manchester, where he now has a cheeseburger named after him. It gave a fun twist to Hillary Clinton’s 2015 swing by the Moo’s Place dairy bar in Derry, where she ordered a kiddie-sized chocolate peanut butter fudge ice cream.
Where would the tradition of Saint Anselm College’s “Politics and Eggs” have started without, well, the eggs?
On a plate of presidential political mashed potatoes, though, the topic of food policy has been a lonely, green pea.
“There’s been almost no discourse about food, nutrition and health in this election cycle,” Food Revolution Network President John Robbins told the Monitor.
Despite the dearth of discussion, Robbins has done his best to determine where exactly the presidential candidates stand on food issues and the subsequent effects on the health of Americans and the environment. Robbins said this was the first election year he’s felt compelled to do such an analysis.
“I see many in the food movement fed up with the status quo, which when it comes to food, has become quite toxic,” Robbins said, referring to a 2016 study that found about 60 percent of Americans’ calories come from “ultra-processed foods,” stripped of most nutrition and full of chemical additives.
In New Hampshire, for instance, the Department of Health and Human Services has published reports indicating that residents have become more overweight and obese, and more at risk of chronic disease. HHS noted that increased consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables can reduce those risks.
In addition, 1 in 9 residents lack regular access to affordable and nutritious food according to the New Hampshire Food Bank, and just over 111,000 people received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in 2014.
Because Trump has no political experience and therefore no public record on food issues, Robbins added, it created a vacuum.
“And some in the food movement have projected their hopes onto him, hoping that he would bring about the needed changes,” he said.
Between personal statements and his party platform, Robbins noted that Trump’s position on SNAP benefits and the Environmental Protection Agency are to reduce or eliminate them.
News reports also show Trump criticizing Food and Drug Administration safety regulations.
Robbins said that the Republican nominee has selected agricultural advisory committee members “completely hostile to the goals of healthier food and a healthier planet.”
These include Texas Agricultural Commissioner Sid Miller, who granted “cupcake amnesty” and repealed a 2004 state ban on deep-fried and sugar-filled foods from being sold in schools.
As for Clinton, Robbins reports that her party platform supports efforts like SNAP’s access to fresh food and fighting climate change.
Her record isn’t perfect by Robbins’s standards – she has ties to Wall Street and supports the use of genetically modified organisms – but she has a record of doing things like planting a White House organic vegetable garden and speaking against like routine antibiotics in meat production.
Clinton also has current Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack as her primary agriculture adviser, and Robbins termed him as a “centrist” supportive of both alternative food systems and conventional, corporate agriculture.
Clinton’s campaign website mentions supporting family farms as well.
Robbins is fervent in his opposition to Trump’s take on food and gives a measured but definite endorsement to Clinton. Ideally, he notes that a functional, healthy and sustainable food system is an important issue taken up by both parties.
“I’ve always though that health is a common good,” Robbins said, “and that the goal of healthy food, like that of clean air and water, ought to be shared equally by all of us.”