[7]: 1–2 Food historian Michelle T. King suggests that cuisine is a natural focus for studies of nationalism, pointing out dozens of such treatments over the first decades of the 21st century.
[9] In 2006 researcher Liora Gvion argued that cuisines of poverty – typically, traditional foods – "reveal the inter-connection between the culinary discourse and the political one" and that the issue was tied up with those of access to land and national identity.
In addition, the demand for meat products worldwide, expected to double by 2020, has accelerated a trend toward raising more animals on fewer acres of land.
[15] More intensive forms of animal farming have largely replaced traditional methods of raising pigs, cattle, poultry and fish for human consumption in the U.S.
While the European Union regulates genetically engineered foods as they would any other new product requiring extensive testing to provide it is safe for human consumption, the U.S. does not.
[1] Numerous studies have backed industry claims that GMO foods appear to be safe for human consumption, including an examination of more than 130 research projects conducted in the European Union prior to 2010 and work published by the American Medical Association's Council on Science and Public Health.
[20][21] In the U.S., the political debate has centered primarily on whether or not to label products with GMO origins to better inform the public about the content of the foods they purchase.
The ballot question's results were closely watched across the country as advocates for the measure hoped that it would pass and spur the federal government to mandate labeling of GMO foods as well.
[22] Among the much-heralded impacts of the Green Revolution was the spread of technological advances in the development of pesticides to ensure higher crop yields.
[25][26] Big food influence is evident in Washington, D.C. where companies spend millions on lobbying each year, many of whom are members of the Consumer Goods Forum.
Lobbying benefits large corporations whose deep pockets and connections get them special access to lawmakers, regulators and other influential officials.
Among those influential in the food movement in the United States are writers, including Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle, and celebrity chefs such as Alice Waters, Mario Batali and Jamie Oliver.
[citation needed] The interests of varied sectors of the agricultural industry are not always in alignment [1] as illustrated by tensions stemming from a drought in 2012 that affected domestic corn production.
Described as the most severe and extensive drought in the U.S. in the last 25 years by the USDA Economic Research Service, thousands of acres of mostly corn and soy fields in the Midwest were damaged or destroyed.
[40] This led to increased pressure on the federal government from some domestic farmers and international anti-hunger organizations to relax the Renewable Fuel Standard that call for a portion of the US-grown corn supply to be set aside for ethanol production.
[41][42][43] Offering government food assistance to the lowest income Americans dates back to the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and has continued into the 21st century.
Largely uncontroversial for most of its history, the SNAP program was targeted for major cuts by members of the House of Representatives in the 2012 Farm Bill re-authorization attempt.
[47] A series of six measures to better understand employment trends developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, three of which are more conservative estimates of unemployment and three of which define it more broadly, all showed correlations with SNAP participation.
The 2008 Farm Bill re-authorization established the Healthy Incentives Pilot, a $20 million effort in five states to learn if offering select SNAP recipients credits on purchases of fresh, frozen, canned, or dried fruits and vegetables with no added sugar, salt, fat, or oil will result in increased purchases of these foods.
[49] In addition to advocacy work in Washington, D.C., on behalf of those in poverty, public awareness campaigns around the constraints faced by families receiving SNAP were launched.
[52] Language barriers, fear of deportation, frequent re-locations, and lack of voting status have contributed to difficulties in organizing farm laborers to advocate for wage, benefit, and working condition reforms.
United States Department of Labor statistics from 2009 indicated that about 50 percent of hired crop workers were not legally authorized to work in the U.S., a figure that remained largely unchanged over the course of the prior decade.
Provisions favored by the farm lobby included: "earned adjustments" that will allow for temporary legal immigration status based on past experience with the possibility of applying for permanent residency by continuing to work in agriculture for a set period of time; and a more flexible guest worker program for agricultural workers.
Although from a political view that approach may be justified due to it helping in stabilizing domestic food prices and deducting vulnerability to international markets and reliance on other countries, it comes at an enormous economic cost.