What Can Government Do to Improve Americans' Diets?
Former acting USDA Under Secretary Beth Johnson on unsettled nutrition science, shifting politics, and what evolving food policy means for farmers, food companies and families.
For the vast majority of Americans, the diet earns about a C, according to dietitian Beth Johnson. It is "probably getting better," she said, and the grade is "not necessarily by choice." Busy people have less time to cook, food is expensive, households are watching what they spend, and it is often more convenient to pick up something already made.
The health effects show up in rising obesity, particularly among children and not only in the United States, and in rising rates of type 2 diabetes and prediabetes in kids. Heart disease and stroke follow as people age. Chronic disease rates are climbing every year, and so are the health care costs that come with them.
In Johnson's view, that trend is shifting the politics of food. "There is one thing that I don't think anybody can debate," Johnson said, "and that is that chronic disease is getting worse." She sees a big switch in Republicans, long wary of a nanny state, now saying something needs to be done, and more people on both sides of the aisle saying the same. The open question, in her words, is "how far we go, how we do it." That question runs through what government can do to improve Americans' diets, and what evolving food policy means for agriculture.
Johnson has worked on these issues for more than 25 years, inside and outside government. She served as acting USDA Under Secretary for Food Safety, led public affairs for the National Restaurant Association, and worked at the Food and Drug Administration, USDA and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. She helped lead USDA's work on Codex and the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and in 2010 she founded Food Directions LLC, which helps companies, trade associations and nonprofits work with federal regulators.
She joined Clearing the Air on Agricultural Policy, a monthly collaboration between the Flinchbaugh Center and Smoke and Mirrors (#SmokeAndMirrorsPod), Jennifer Ifft's podcast on agricultural policy, after speaking on food policy at the 2026 Flinchbaugh Forum. The conversation also included the series' regular panel: Jennifer Ifft, professor, extension specialist and Flinchbaugh Agricultural Policy Chair at Kansas State University; Brad Lubben, associate extension professor and agricultural and public policy specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Mark Edelman, professor emeritus at Iowa State University; and moderator Eric Atkinson of Kansas State University.
The Tools Government Already Has
The best-known federal role is the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which USDA and the Department of Health and Human Services issue every five years under current law. A provision in the farm bill under discussion would move that schedule to every ten years if it passes. The guidelines are recommendations rather than mandates, with one exception: by law, school breakfast and lunch must follow the most recent edition. USDA translates the guidelines into standards schools can follow, so the meal rules are usually not word for word. The 2025 guidelines recommend more protein, and Johnson expects USDA's next proposed school meal rule to reflect that, along with guidance on added sugars. No proposed rule had been released when the episode was recorded.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, has not carried specific nutrition guidance. Most foods have historically been eligible, with long-running debate over hot foods. The question now is whether certain foods should be limited. About 23 states have submitted waivers to USDA to restrict SNAP purchases of foods such as candy, sugar-sweetened beverages and prepared desserts. A lawsuit has put those restrictions on hold in five states on the argument that USDA lacks authority to decide which foods are eligible, and USDA is appealing.
Add programs for older Americans such as Meals on Wheels, food programs on Indian reservations, and the Women, Infants, and Children program, and USDA typically says its nutrition programs touch about one in four or one in five Americans. Federal involvement is also expanding into areas such as military food purchasing and nutrition education in medical schools.
Is Government's Influence on Diets Growing?
As recently as a few years ago, Johnson said, most people in nutrition would have said it is very hard for government to significantly change the typical American diet. Programs such as Double Up Bucks, which aim to encourage more fruit, vegetable and dairy consumption among SNAP participants, have had some effect, but not a large one.
That answer may be changing. Johnson cited a report that candy sales are way down, and the administration suggests more unprocessed foods are being bought in place of ultra-processed ones, a category that has no definition. She cautioned that data can be manipulated, but manufacturers are also reporting anecdotally that sales of some more processed foods are down.
It is hard to say whether that influence comes from government or from activists and social media influencers, particularly since, with the Make America Healthy Again movement, activists and influencers are working very closely with the government. Commercials featuring Mike Tyson on the dangers of ultra-processed foods are one example. They are not paid for by the government, but Johnson described a very close connection. "Sometimes encouragement, sometimes demonization of foods," she said, "it is seemingly having an effect on the American diet."
Ultra-Processed Food: Where Policy Is Getting Ahead of The Research
Ultra-processed food is in the headlines, and how to define it, whether by what it is or what it is not, remains unsettled. The legal backdrop matters. Food companies face lawsuits over ultra-processed foods, both personal injury claims and cases like San Francisco's over costs to government. For companies involved in that litigation, any federal definition is a serious concern.
On the science, Johnson argues that much is still unknown. "We don't know a lot," Johnson said, about the mechanism: whether it is the processing, the ingredients, or certain combinations of ingredients and processing that lead to poor health outcomes. Locking in a definition now could prove "completely off base" as more research comes in. The 1990s offer a precedent. The push to remove saturated fat led the industry, with consumer group support, to switch to partially hydrogenated oils that later research found could be more harmful. "Moving forward without the research can do more harm than good," Johnson said, though politicians' timelines rarely match the time good research takes.
Definitions are being developed anyway, by different bodies for different purposes:
California has a law defining ultra-processed food and is working on regulations to define ultra-processed foods of concern and restricted foods. The state also allows foods to be labeled as not ultra-processed, and about three voluntary programs each define the term slightly differently. "It's the wild, wild west," Johnson said.
The World Health Organization is working on a definition and guidance.
At the federal level, there has been talk of a research-only definition, and a draft white paper to define ultra-processed food has been under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget. It has no regulatory authority, but Johnson said it could still play into the lawsuits.
The administration itself is not of one mind. Secretary Kennedy and many of his staff support a federal definition, Johnson said, while others are not convinced that 70, 80 or 90 percent of the food supply should in essence be demonized. She places herself in what she calls the middle camp: more research is needed, consistency would help researchers identify mechanisms, and a research definition should come from a research body such as the National Institutes of Health rather than a regulator. Her summary: "Unfortunately, the policy is getting ahead of the research."
The Research Gaps Reach Back To The Farm
A common idea in agricultural circles is that healthier soils lead to healthier plants and more nutritious food. The research connecting the two ends of that chain is very limited, Johnson said, noting that she is not an expert in the area. From what she has seen, minerals such as selenium are lower in some soils, and that shows up as different nutrient levels in food. She called understanding that link "absolutely critical," while describing it as part of the picture rather than the whole picture.
The concern comes from both ends of the food chain. Food may not carry optimal nutrition from the field, and more may be added to it later, so people may get more of what they don't need and less of what they do. The balance between nutrients may matter as well. Because more potassium lessens some of the effects of sodium, one open question, though not a popular one in parts of the nutrition community, is whether Americans need as much less sodium as is often assumed, if they had more potassium in their diets.
The gut microbiome is another gap. Its importance is recognized, but how to improve it, and whether adding nutrients is enough, is not well understood. "The more we learn," Johnson said, "the more we realize we don't know."
Eating Better When Trust Is Low
For consumers looking for reliable advice, the problem is not only noise but distrust. "There's just so much distrust of the government, of the food manufacturers, public health," Johnson said. Doctors often know little about nutrition, and while dietitians are well trained, few people talk to one, and dietitians have strong biases too. "Everybody eats, so everybody has a strong opinion."
Johnson is open about her own perspective. Having worked for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, she believes research on full-fat animal products was ignored for years and finally was not ignored in the 2025 Dietary Guidelines. Apart from differences of opinion on those products, and on how many carbohydrates people need, she considers the guidelines solid.
Her advice is practical rather than absolute. "I think that eating real foods is right," she said. That means more vegetables, whether fresh, frozen or canned, without a lot added to them; proteins including chicken, beef, pork, fish and turkey as well as beans and other plant-based proteins; and fruits and vegetables generally. People don't have to give up chips or candy completely, she said, and "everything's processed to some degree." Nor does she believe people need to give up all ultra-processed foods. Erring on the side of more whole foods and less of some other foods, she said, means "we are going to be healthier."
She acknowledged that this is hard and expensive. Prepared meals in grocery stores can be pretty healthy, but they cost more, which leaves the question of how to make those foods easier for consumers to eat.
Families, Food Companies and Farmers
Nutrition policy runs up against social realities: people working more than one job, affordability, and gaps in education. Johnson considers those real factors, but she also believes the food industry is creative and innovative. If current shifts in consumer demand continue, manufacturers will have to reinvent themselves. Companies have to follow nutrition policy, she said, "but what they really are focused on is what is the consumer demand." Alongside more innovative nutrition programs, she expects industry to keep offering convenience and foods that fit how people live today.
Affordability, Johnson said, is a big question that goes beyond manufacturers. "Some of that is gonna be outside of nutrition policy, it could be an ag policy." The cost of inputs affects farmers and, in turn, the cost of groceries, which is why she called for a holistic discussion of how those pieces fit together.
That discussion has to account for how farming works. Using the debate over glyphosate as an example, Johnson said farmers can't be told that a practice they have relied on for years is being taken away and still be expected to stay competitive and lead in world markets. "You can't change things on a dime," she said. She favors a pragmatic approach that works over time. The changes will be incremental, but looking back ten years from now, she expects them to add up to bigger change that industry will adapt to.
What Evolving Food Policy Means for Farm Policy
State rules and federal preemption.
Production agriculture has long argued that it is hard to operate under different regulations and labeling requirements in every state. In the House farm bill debate, language on federal preemption of state pesticide regulation was stripped out by a bipartisan amendment, and the bill also included language aimed at California's Proposition 12. Federal preemption of any kind is not drawing much support right now, Johnson said, from either party. State action is spreading in the food space as well: bans so far mostly in school food service, a West Virginia ban on additives and colors in retail food that is on hold in a lawsuit, a Texas labeling law also on hold, and a Louisiana requirement, moving forward, that uses a QR code to point consumers to information on certain ingredients. Food and agriculture groups have pursued a federal approach to additives, but it has moved slowly.
Part of the reason, in Johnson's view, is that advocates behind these state efforts, whether on Proposition 12, glyphosate or additives, have grown stronger, and federal proposals ask them to give up what they have without offering much in return. "They're not gonna take nothing and get rolled," she said. "If they're gonna get rolled, they're gonna get something." The closest precedent is genetically engineered food labeling about a decade ago, when state laws came first and a national standard followed. In that case, Johnson noted, industry agreed to national labeling, so advocates got what they wanted. Industry had to give a lot then, she said, and will have to give more now.
Who represents food in the farm bill coalition.
The food interests most active in farm bill coalitions tend to be groups working in the space between food and agriculture, such as the International Dairy Foods Association, Western Growers, the International Fresh Produce Association and a specialty crop alliance. Individual food companies and their trade associations are more peripheral, Johnson said, and many stepped back from SNAP advocacy years ago so they would not appear self-serving. Nutrition groups are not typically involved in the farm bill, tend to align with anti-hunger groups, and many of them don't like the proposed move to a ten-year dietary guidelines schedule.
Where the next round of food interest may go.
Keith Coble of Mississippi State University, working on the 2014 farm bill, described two camps: "foodies" focused on food assistance and hunger, who see food as too expensive, and "neo-foodies" who see food as too cheap because prices don't reflect production methods, local connections and other attributes. Johnson expects interest in programs such as organic production and fruit and vegetable production to grow as the ultra-processed food debate moves forward. For now, she said, those programs are drowned out by debates over SNAP cuts and food chemicals. She also noted that some issues advocates would often agree on, such as ultra-processed foods, are drawing less agreement because they are coming from Secretary Kennedy and the Trump administration. Consumer tools are adding pressure, too. Yuka, an app with about 117 million subscribers worldwide that rates foods and counts organic as one factor, is encouraging its users to ask companies for more organic options.
Reasons for Optimism
Jennifer Ifft observed that much of the chronic disease discussion looks like broad common ground, even when the political system feels stuck. Johnson agreed there is reason for optimism. A group in the research community, not large yet, wants to approach these questions more pragmatically and is working out how to help policymakers, with more interest in making sure the science is heard and considered.
She also returns to the point no one disputes: chronic disease is getting worse. She calls that "a pessimistic data point to help with my optimism that we need to do something," and more people on both sides of the aisle are now saying so. How far policy goes, and how, is still going to be a question.
Clearing the Air is produced as a monthly collaboration between the Flinchbaugh Center and Smoke and Mirrors: Ag Policy Unfiltered, Jennifer Ifft’s podcast on agricultural policy.
Watch the full conversation with Beth Johnson, Founder and Principal, Food Directions, LLC.
About Clearing the Air
Clearing the Air is a monthly podcast brought to you by The Flinchbaugh Center in partnership with the Smoke and Mirrors podcast. Hosted by Eric Atkinson, the show offers thoughtful, fact‑driven conversations for anyone interested in the intersection of agricultural economics, policy, and real‑world decision‑making. Each episode features insights from Jennifer Ifft, Mark Edelman, and Brad Lubben, along with a rotating monthly guest.
Comments