Where Trump administration cut local food support, Colorado should step in

Impacts from the Trump administration’s funding and program cuts are trickling — or gushing — down to Coloradans.

Local food purchasing programs are some of the latest government programs summarily guillotined by the administration. These programs, managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture via the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement and the Local Food for Schools & Child Care Agreement Program, would have appropriated $13.1 million to provide local food to food banks, students and food insecure populations. By supporting Colorado farmers and ranchers, local food procurement programs also promised to strengthen regional food systems.

The local food purchasing programs were true win-win initiatives for Colorado’s consumers and producers. From Pueblo to the Western Slope, food banks, schools, day cares, churches and veteran service centers used USDA dollars to buy local produce, beef, dairy, grains and other agricultural products from Colorado farms, ranches, dairies and more. Between May 2022 and June 2024, 220 food producers earned $6.7 million from local food purchasing programs. More than a million dollars funneled into the pockets of Western Slope farmers.

For producers participating in the programs, the short-term outcomes were financial stability, new partnerships with large institutions, and the expansion of business operations. For the entire state, the long-term outcome could have been a thriving regional food system — so that in time, Coloradans could purchase local, sustainable, and highly nutritious food not just at farmer’s markets, but from grocery stores and restaurants.

Most of the food in Colorado grocery stores is produced and processed out of state or internationally then shipped to various warehouses across North America before being shelved in King Soopers, Trader Joe’s or elsewhere. This globalized and opaque system obscures food production from consumers, facilitating the concealment of environmental and humanitarian issues in American food supply chains (such as excessive pesticide use, child labor, deforestation). Regional food systems, or systems in which food is produced, processed and consumed all within the same region, offer an alternative paradigm for feeding Coloradans. Regional food systems reduce food waste, increase farmers’ profit margins, generate local jobs, and strengthen local economies. And by supporting small- and mid-sized farmers growing diverse crops, regional food systems protect biodiversity, improve soil quality, and reduce energy use.

The local food purchasing programs accomplished the non-controversial goals of stimulating local economies and feeding people in need — so what instigated the Trump administration’s ire?

Because the administration offered no explanation, the answer may only be conjectured: perhaps because these programs emphasize supporting socially disadvantaged food producers, and almost certainly because the Trump administration is determined to dismantle Biden-era initiatives, regardless of their merit. And on the surface, cutting local food purchasing programs aligns with the Trump administration’s efforts to rein in unnecessary spending (a subjective assessment) in the name of government efficiency.

Yet, these claims of government efficiency ring especially hollow and hypocritical considering that ongoing inefficient government spending is the reason these programs are necessary in the first place — $478 billion of subsidies benefitted the nation’s largest and wealthiest farms between 2015 and 2022, creating an uneven playing field for the country’s small- and mid-sized food producers. The approximately $1 billion budget for local food purchasing programs is a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies lavished on farmers that don’t even grow food for people. Instead they farm corn, soy and other commodity crops to create ethanol, livestock feed, and other products.

Regardless of the justification and injustice driving the termination of the USDA’s local food purchasing programs, they leave a void that needs filling. The benefits of strong regional food systems are too great to neglect, and the programs were too successful to abandon. The state of Colorado must step up to support farmers, ranchers and food insecure people. And because the state is currently struggling with a $1 billion budget deficit, additional government spending requires more state income. To support regional food systems and food security, state legislators should look into creating an enterprise, or otherwise refer a small excise tax on soft drinks to the ballot for Coloradans to vote on.

Boulder, which adopted a soft drink excise tax in 2016, demonstrates the profitably of such taxes — so far, it has generated $29 million for health-related programs. If expanded throughout the entire state, an excise tax on soft drinks could provide a huge sum to fund regional food systems and other state priorities, like healthy meals for all public schools. According to an online calculator developed by the University of Connecticut Center for Food Policy and Health, a $0.02/ounce excise tax on soft drinks in Colorado would have generated between $227 million and $287 million in 2023 (depending on the tax pass through rate).

Colorado leaders face a difficult task: maintaining Coloradan’s quality of life and rights, as well as the state’s environmental and social prerogatives despite opposition at the federal level. An arsenal of state policies is necessary to combat perverse federal policy decisions, and policies to resuscitate local food purchasing programs should be a top priority — for the sake of food insecure Coloradans, local food producers, and the state’s regional food systems.