As US hunger rises, Trump administration’s ‘efficiency’ goals cause massive food waste – The Conversation

Report on U.S. Government Policies and Their Impact on Food Waste and Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

• An analysis of U.S. government policies reveals significant adverse impacts on food security and sustainability.
• Policies related to immigration, foreign aid, and trade have exacerbated food waste, directly contravening several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
• This report details the mechanisms through which these policies have contributed to food loss and waste and outlines the corresponding implications for national and global sustainability targets.

Food Waste in the United States: A Contradiction to SDG 2 and SDG 12

Scale of the Problem

• An estimated 40% of the U.S. food supply is wasted, which is equivalent to 120 billion meals annually.
• This level of waste occurs while over 47 million people in the U.S. experience food insecurity, a direct challenge to achieving SDG 2 (Zero Hunger).
• The waste represents a failure in responsible production and consumption patterns, undermining SDG 12.

Environmental and Economic Consequences

• Economic Impact: Significant financial losses are incurred from wasted food and the resources used in its production.
• Resource Depletion: The waste of food renders useless the water and land resources used in its production, conflicting with the sustainable resource management principles of SDG 12.
• Climate Impact: Decomposing food waste in the U.S. emits over 4 million metric tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which exacerbates climate change and hinders progress on SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Policy Analysis and SDG Implications

Immigration Policy: Undermining SDG 2, SDG 8, and SDG 10

1. Labor Shortages: Widespread immigration enforcement actions in agricultural sectors have created severe labor shortages, with reports indicating up to a 70% reduction in the workforce in some areas.
2. Food Loss at Source: The lack of workers has led to crops rotting unharvested in fields. This is a direct form of food loss that impacts the food supply chain and contradicts SDG Target 12.3, which aims to reduce food losses.
3. Impact on Decent Work (SDG 8): The policies have created a climate of fear for farmworkers, who already face low wages and difficult working conditions, undermining the goal of decent work for all.
4. Increased Inequality (SDG 10): These actions disproportionately affect vulnerable migrant populations, exacerbating social and economic inequalities.

Foreign Aid and International Cooperation: A Setback for SDG 2 and SDG 17

• Destruction of Food Aid: The shutdown of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) resulted in the expiration and destruction of vast quantities of emergency food aid.
• Specific Incidents:
  • 500 tons of high-energy biscuits, valued at $800,000 and intended for global crisis zones, were incinerated at an additional cost of $125,000.
  • An additional 70,000 tons of USAID food aid may have also been destroyed.
• Violation of Global Partnerships (SDG 17): These actions represent a retreat from international cooperation and humanitarian commitments, directly undermining the partnerships essential for achieving global goals, particularly SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) on a global scale.

Trade and Economic Policies: Jeopardizing SDG 12

• Tariff Impacts: Tariffs imposed in early 2025 disrupted the U.S. soybean trade with China, a major export market.
• Storage and Spoilage Risks: The disruption led to a lack of storage for harvested soybeans, creating a significant risk of spoilage and waste. This challenges the principles of responsible production and supply chain management central to SDG 12.
• Land Use Inefficiency: The potential waste of soybeans also represents an inefficient use of agricultural land that could have been used for direct human food production, further conflicting with sustainable production goals.

Domestic Administrative Actions and Their Impact on Food Systems

1. Reduced Food Safety Oversight: Firings of food safety personnel increase the risk of foodborne disease outbreaks, which can necessitate the mass destruction of food products, undermining food security (SDG 2) and public health (SDG 3).
2. Cancellation of Local Food Programs: The termination of a program connecting local farmers with schools and food banks disrupted established supply chains, risking the waste of already-planted crops and destabilizing farm revenues. This works against SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 12.
3. Cuts to Emergency Funding: Reductions in FEMA funding compromise the ability of the food system to recover from disasters, particularly regarding refrigerated food storage, leading to increased post-disaster food waste.
4. Restrictions on Food Assistance (SNAP): During a government shutdown, the administration blocked grocers from offering discounts to SNAP recipients, hindering efforts to move perishable food and support food-insecure households, directly impacting SDG 2 and SDG 10.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights several interconnected issues such as food waste, hunger, labor rights, environmental degradation, and ineffective policies. These issues directly relate to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The article explicitly discusses hunger and food insecurity in the U.S., mentioning that “more than 47 million people in America don’t have enough food to eat.” It also covers disruptions to the food supply chain and cuts to food assistance programs, which directly impact the goal of ending hunger and ensuring access to food.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article addresses the working conditions and rights of farmworkers, who are essential to the food supply chain. It describes them as working “physically hard jobs for low wages” and facing “legitimate fear for their lives and liberty” due to immigration raids. This connects to the goal of promoting decent work for all.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The focus on immigrant farmworkers, a vulnerable population, and the violation of their “human rights” through arrests and deportations directly relates to reducing inequalities within and among countries.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: This is a central theme of the article. It quantifies the scale of food waste, stating that “as much as 40% of it – rots before being eaten.” The discussion on food rotting in fields, warehouses, and the destruction of food aid all point to unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article establishes a direct link between food waste and climate change. It notes that as food rots, “the wasted food emits in the U.S. alone over 4 million metric tons of methane – a heat-trapping greenhouse gas,” highlighting the environmental consequences of this waste.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article critiques government policies and institutional actions that exacerbate the problems of food waste and hunger. It points to “immigration raids, tariff changes and… cuts to food assistance programs” as examples of ineffective governance that undermines sustainable development. The shutdown of USAID and the cancellation of programs that support local farmers also reflect institutional failures.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 2.1: By 2030, end hunger and ensure access by all people, in particular the poor and people in vulnerable situations, including infants, to safe, nutritious and sufficient food all year round.
   • Explanation: The article directly addresses this target by stating that “more than 47 million people in America don’t have enough food to eat” and highlighting how cuts to food assistance programs like SNAP have derailed communities’ ability to meet basic needs.
2. Target 8.8: Protect labour rights and promote safe and secure working environments for all workers, including migrant workers, in particular women migrants, and those in precarious employment.
   • Explanation: The article describes how immigration raids create a climate of fear for farmworkers, jeopardizing their safety and liberty. The mention of “lethal consequences” and workers being too afraid to show up for work underscores the lack of a safe and secure working environment.
3. Target 12.3: By 2030, halve per capita global food waste at the retail and consumer levels and reduce food losses along production and supply chains, including post-harvest losses.
   • Explanation: This is the most prominent target. The article details food loss at various stages of the supply chain, from “crops have been left to rot in abandoned fields” (post-harvest loss) to food expiring in warehouses (storage loss) and the overall statistic that “as much as 40% of it – rots before being eaten.”
4. Target 12.5: By 2030, substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse.
   • Explanation: The article focuses on the failure to prevent and reduce waste. The “actual destruction of edible food,” such as the incineration of 500 tons of high-energy biscuits, is a direct contradiction of this target.
5. Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.
   • Explanation: The article criticizes policies that worsen climate change impacts. By highlighting that food waste emits “over 4 million metric tons of methane,” it implies that the government’s policies are not integrated with climate change mitigation measures and are, in fact, counterproductive.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Yes, the article provides several specific quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure progress (or lack thereof) towards the identified targets.

• For Target 2.1 (End Hunger):
  • Indicator: Prevalence of food insecurity.
  • Data from article: “more than 47 million people in America don’t have enough food to eat.” This number serves as a direct measure of the scale of hunger.
• For Target 12.3 (Reduce Food Waste):
  • Indicator: Food Loss Index/Percentage of food wasted.
  • Data from article: The article provides multiple data points: “as much as 40% of [food] rots before being eaten,” which is “equivalent to 120 billion meals a year.” It also mentions specific instances of waste, such as “500 tons of ready-to-eat, high-energy biscuits” and “70,000 tons of USAID food aid” being destroyed.
• For Target 13.2 (Climate Action):
  • Indicator: Greenhouse gas emissions from waste.
  • Data from article: “the wasted food emits in the U.S. alone over 4 million metric tons of methane.” This quantifies the climate impact of the food waste problem.
• For Target 8.8 (Decent Work):
  • Indicator: Disruption in the labor force due to unsafe conditions.
  • Data from article: “in some places 70% of people harvesting, processing and distributing food stopped showing up to work” due to fear of immigration raids. This percentage indicates a severe disruption and an unsafe environment for workers.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: theconversation.com