USDA cuts $1 billion in school lunch and local food programs: A blow to kids, farmers and communities
By willowt // 2025-03-15
Copy
 
  • The USDA eliminated two key programs — Local Food for Schools (LFS) and Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) — which provided over $1 billion to schools and food banks for purchasing local farm produce. This decision has sparked widespread concern over children’s health, local economies and food security.
  • The programs ensured access to fresh, nutrient-dense meals for vulnerable populations, including 30 million children who rely on school lunches. Critics argue that the cuts undermine efforts to combat childhood obesity, diabetes and malnutrition, with school meals often being the healthiest option for many students.
  • Small-scale farmers, who relied on these programs as a stable market, face significant losses. The programs supported local economies by connecting schools and food banks with local producers, providing additional revenue streams for farmers and fishermen.
  • Testing has revealed alarming levels of heavy metals, pesticides and toxins in school lunches. The elimination of these programs risks exacerbating the reliance on processed, less nutritious meals from large food-service companies, further compromising children’s health and development.
  • Advocacy groups, educators and health experts are urging the government to reinstate the programs, emphasizing their role in promoting food security, health equity and sustainable agriculture. Critics argue that cutting these programs contradicts the USDA’s mission and undermines the future of America’s children and local food systems.
In a move that has sparked outrage among educators, farmers and health advocates, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has axed two critical programs that provided over $1 billion to schools and food banks to purchase food from local farms and ranchers. The decision, announced last week, has left states scrambling to fill the gap and raised concerns about the long-term impact on children’s health, local economies and food security. The Local Food for Schools (LFS) program, which allocated $660 million to schools and childcare facilities, and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) program, which supported food banks, were both eliminated. These programs were designed to strengthen local food systems, provide fresh, nutrient-dense meals to vulnerable populations and support small-scale farmers. “This is 100% not in line with the MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] agenda and must be reinstated,” said pediatrician Michelle Perro of GMO Science. “Access to healthy, nutrient-dense meals is essential for proper growth and cognitive development, especially for vulnerable students who rely on school meals.”

A lifeline for schools and farmers

The cuts come at a time when food prices have risen 31% since 2019, making it increasingly difficult for schools and families to afford healthy meals. Nearly 30 million U.S. children eat school lunch every day, according to the School Nutrition Association (SNA). For many, these meals are the most nutritious they receive. In Minnesota, the Farm to School program used LFS funds to add fresh, locally sourced food to school lunches. State lawmakers called the cuts “catastrophic,” noting that the program also provided “additional revenue streams” for farmers. Similarly, in Maine, the RSU 23 school district used the funds to purchase food directly from local fishermen, dairy producers and farmers. “I think everyone can say that they want kids at school to receive the healthiest meals possible,” said Caroline Trinder, the district’s food and nutrition services director. “It’s the least processed, and we’re helping our local economy, we’re helping farmers that may be the parents of our students.” For small farmers, the loss of these programs is devastating. Berenika Byszewski, who runs a small organic farm in Albuquerque, New Mexico, explained that programs like these provide a reliable market for small-scale producers. “A lot of small farmers depend on farmers markets to sell their produce, but farmers markets are mostly only accessible to more affluent people,” she said. “There are a lot of great programs that let people use SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] money at farmers markets, some even doubling the value of the credits, but it is still hard.”

A step backward for food security

The Biden administration had expanded funding for these programs to build a more resilient food supply chain that didn’t rely solely on major food companies. Last year, the USDA announced more than $1 billion in additional funding for the initiatives. However, the Trump administration has now reversed course, citing the programs as “pandemic-era” measures that “no longer effectuate the goals of the agency.” A USDA spokesperson stated, “With 16 robust nutrition programs in place, USDA remains focused on its core mission: strengthening food security, supporting agricultural markets and ensuring access to nutritious food.” But critics argue that the cuts undermine these very goals. “Our children’s health and access to whole, non-toxic, local foods should be a priority for any administration,” said Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America. “Diabetes and obesity are not Democratic or Republican. Cancer is not choosy. Poison is not partisan.” Honeycutt’s organization has tested school lunches across the country and found alarming levels of heavy metals, pesticides and other toxins. “We call on this administration to re-fund the USDA program for local, organic food in schools and food banks, supporting our local farmers, children and the future of America,” she said.

The ripple effect on health and education

The quality of school meals has far-reaching implications for children’s health and academic performance. Research has shown that school meals are often the healthiest meals many children eat, yet current guidelines allow for ultraprocessed foods as long as they meet certain nutritional criteria. Testing commissioned by Spotlight on America in 2024 found that school lunches in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., contained heavy metals, including lead, and roughly 50 pesticides. Among the detected chemicals was carbendazim, a fungicide banned in most European countries that can cause infertility and endocrine disruption. John Fagan, co-founder of the Health Research Institute (HRI), emphasized the importance of nutrient-dense meals for children’s development. “School lunch is probably the best meal many of those kids have during the day,” he said. “And yet it doesn’t give them the essential nutrients they need for their brain to grow and be healthy and strong.” The cuts also threaten to exacerbate existing inequalities. Many school districts rely on large food-service companies like Aramark and Chartwells, which often supply processed, less nutritious meals. In contrast, programs like LFS and LFPA provided an opportunity to source fresh, local ingredients that benefit both students and farmers.

A call to action

As states and advocacy groups push back against the cuts, the broader question remains: What kind of future do we want for our children and our food systems? The elimination of these programs represents a step backward in the fight for food security, health equity and sustainable agriculture. “Congress needs to invest in underfunded school meal programs rather than cut services critical to student achievement and health,” said SNA President Shannon Gleave. “These proposals would cause millions of children to lose access to free school meals at a time when working families are struggling with rising food costs.” For now, the fight continues. But one thing is clear: The health of your children, the livelihoods of farmers and the resilience of communities depend on programs like these. As Honeycutt aptly put it, “Supporting our local farmers, children and the future of America is not a partisan issue—it’s a moral imperative.” Sources include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org Politco.com NewsNationNow.com
Copy