The $1.3 trillion Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026 (Farm Bill) advanced out of the House Committee on Agriculture early yesterday morning, passing on a 34-17 vote. Seven Democrats joined all Republicans in support, moving the legislation one step closer to a full House floor vote.
The bill, which oversees critical food and nutrition programs like SNAP and SNAP-Ed, must still pass both the House and Senate before becoming law.
The committee markup earlier this week featured partisan tension, with many Democrats arguing the bill does not support nutrition programs, while Republicans highlighted its benefits for agriculture and farmers.
Support from agriculture groups
Proponents of the bill range from industry trade groups in agriculture to food, including the International Dairy Foods Association, American Frozen Foods Institute and National Grocers Association, among others.
FMI - The Food Industry Association highlighted the bill’s provisions on making SNAP online purchases permanent, expanding GusNIP produce incentives to cover frozen, canned and dried fruits and vegetables, extending the restriction on SNAP EBT retailer fees and supporting SNAP EBT chip card migrations to improve the program’s security.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association praised the committee’s action, citing that this “crucial legislation for rural America” supports producers with “operational tools and programmatic investments they need,” NCBA SVP of Government Affairs Ethan Lane.
The National Sorghum Producers also applauded the committee’s approval, noting that the bill includes provisions critical for sorghum growers. These provisions includes updates to agricultural credit programs, ongoing research and market development and permanently transferring the emergency food assistance program Food For Peace under USDA.
“Sorghum growers are facing rising input costs and continued market uncertainty,” said NSP Chair Amy France, a farmer from Scott City, Kan. “Moving a strong, bipartisan farm bill forward will help ensure producers have the certainty and tools they need to remain competitive.”
The Plant Based Products Council highlighted the bill’s investment US biomanufacturing with PBRC’s Executive Director James Glueck calling it “meaningful progress.”
Glueck said the bill’s provisions around domestic biomanufacturing, market expansion for biobased programs and bolstering “key USDA programs” will drive innovation, create new job opportunities and boos income streams for American farmers.
Glueck is referring to the Farm Bill’s bipartisan, bicameral provisions from the Biomanufacturing and Jobs Act and the Agricultural Biorefinery Innovation and Opportunity Act – both endorsed by PBRC.
Opposition from consumer and environmental groups
A coalition of grassroots groups, including Compassion in World Farming and Friends of the Earth argue that the bill, particularly Section 12006, prohibits states from protecting consumers from harmful chemicals in the food supply.
The group is petitioning to remove Section 12006, which they say “would prevent states from taking action to protect the public from drugs, pesticide residues, and pathogens in the nation’s meat, poultry and dairy supply.”
The petition has gathered over 17,000 signatures.
The provision “would silence local communities and leave citizens defenseless against drugs and pathogens in our food supply,” adding that the move is a “blatant power grab by Big Ag, Big Pharma and Big Chemical, who know that states are finally holding them accountable, said Allie Molinaor, senior public policy manager at Compassion in World Farming.
“When federal regulators fail to act due to lack of resources, willpower, or both, states have both the right and the responsibility to protect public health,” Molinaro said.
State-led legislations to “address the risks posed by food and food contact chemicals” must remain in tact, said Geoff Horsfield, legislative director at the Environmental Working Group.
“For too long, the federal government has let chemical companies decide which food chemicals are safe to eat. States have taken action on a bipartisan basis to protect consumers, and that must be protected.”
The petition comes at a time when state-led legislations are growing across the country – most notably with California’s tightened oversight on food chemicals in the state and its proposal to remove the self-affirmed GRAS pathway.
Patchwork state legislations have grown over the last several years as proponents of state-led food policies argue federal involvement often begets a slow safety protocol process which is partially attributed to mass layoffs across FDA, HHS and other federal agencies.
Conversely, some industry experts warn about the implications of state-by-state legislation that conflicts with existing federal food safety laws. They argue that these measures could drive up food costs, confuse consumers, and impact manufacturers’ bottom lines due to differing reformulation requirements across states.
