ACE

Author: Andrew White

  • Food Security and Local Food Production

    Food Security and Local Food Production

    Background

    Generally, local food production refers to systems in which food is produced, distributed, and consumed within the same area. However, there is debate within the local food movement about this definition. For example, some call for local food systems to expand distribution—to sell food outside of the boundaries of the local community—while others fear that this kind of expansion would dilute local food’s impact. The looseness of the term local food production is perhaps indicative of its relatively new growth in the American food system. 

    Historically, local food (at least in the way that it is generally defined today) was not a major factor in American food production. Even today, it makes up a very small portion of total U.S. agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that in 2012, local food sales produced $6.1 billion, or about 1.5% of total U.S. agricultural production. This is an increase from 2008, where the USDA estimated that these sales accounted for $4.8 billion. However, the U.S. food system remains focused on globally integrated food production, where the places in which food is grown and processed and the places where it is eaten can be thousands of miles apart. 

    There are efforts to use local food production to address issues of food insecurity, which remains a significant issue in the U.S. The USDA reported that 10.5% of households in the United States were affected by food insecurity in 2020. The use of local food production as a means of addressing food insecurity has been contextualized differently in different national contexts. In Cuba, for example, it has been utilized as a means of bolstering the nation’s domestic food supply, particularly during times of crisis. In the context of the U.S., the focus of local food production appears to lie less on increasing the quantity of the food supply than it does on shifting the way in which the food supply is produced in order to improve food access and food system resiliency.

       USDA Estimates of Local Food Sales 2008-2012, Congressional Research Service

    Food Accessibility

    Proponents of local food production argue that it can improve access to food. One of the main arguments is that local food production, by siting food within communities, can make healthy food more accessible to those communities. In neighborhoods where healthy food vendors are scarce, residents may need to travel outside of their neighborhood to reach healthy food; local food production is intended to bring healthy food closer to people. 

    Another main argument made by supporters of local food production is that it can encourage the formation of political practices, within communities, that enable people to have greater agency in their food system, and make decisions about food distribution more equitably. Access-based local food production efforts can be seen through governmental policies in the form of USDA funds that are designed to support farmers markets and urban gardens. On the nongovernmental side, there are efforts to create local food systems that link consumers, producers, processors, and distributors with institutions to support the community through local food production and food-based businesses. 

    There are also efforts to form local food retail sites such as farmers markets. The evidence surrounding each of these elements of accessibility is conflicting. There is some evidence that local food production can have some impact on the diets of communities. For instance, there is research suggesting that proximity to farmers markets improves diet and exercise. Additionally, there is research showing that, in general, convenient access to healthy food causes incidences of overweight and obesity to decrease, and diets to improve. As farmers markets are designed to bring food (especially produce) from local farmers directly to consumers in a community, it has been argued that farmers markets can fulfill this role of providing convenient food access. However, it has also been argued that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that increasing access to local food improves either diets or food security. 

    A study of 24 farmers markets in Los Angeles found that the amount of fresh produce offered in farmers markets differs based on the racial and economic composition of the communities in which they operate, which raises issues about equity. In addition, local food is often as, or more expensive than, non-local food, which casts doubt on its potential to improve access through affordability. 

    At the same time, there is evidence showing that expanding local food production increases employment, among a number of other positive economic outcomes. For example, a study from Iowa State University found that re-localizing the production of staple food items (such as chicken or eggs) would add 50-75 jobs in Southeast Iowa. 

    Evidence of local food systems fostering more equitable food distribution and increased community agency is similarly conflicting. Research suggests that while local food production can increase equity and agency, it does not always do so, and some have argued that localized food systems may actually produce issues of inclusion. However, others argue that this criticism of local food systems makes generalizations that are too broad, and call for more research on different local food initiatives.

    Food Resiliency

    Advocates for expanding local food production allege that it can improve food security by strengthening the resiliency of the American food system. One of the main arguments is that expansion of local food production makes production sites more geographically dispersed, and introduces diversity in production and distribution, making the system less vulnerable to shocks. It is also argued that it shortens supply chains, thereby saving on energy costs and protecting the environment. 

    The USDA has invested some money into the resiliency aspect of local food production, including loans specifically intended to encourage private investment into local food processing. Additionally, in an endeavor that combines both the private and governmental sectors, there is a partnership between the Southeast regional supermarket chain Lowes Foods and the Center for Environmental Farming Systems that used U.S. government funding to engage in a partnership to increase the amount of local food available at Lowes Foods. 

    There is some debate about whether local food systems improve food system resiliency. While local food systems shorten supply chains, because they are generally meant to keep the distribution of food within a certain area, the claim that they reduce energy costs has been challenged. For example, some research suggests that the local deliveries made by trucks performing regional food distribution are relatively less efficient than the large-scale transportation used in the mainstream food system. Some have also argued that local food production may not be the most efficient use of agricultural resources, arguing that non-local producers make better use of them. 

    Additionally, an article from the American Enterprise Institute argues that, though local food production has its uses, a food system that makes use of international food trade is less vulnerable to disruption than a purely local one, because the shocks to global food systems that are the most important are weather-based issues affecting yields, and usually impact individual countries more severely than they do the world system as a whole. 

    There is evidence supporting the use of local food production as a means of strengthening food security, and actions are being taken within the federal government, as well as  outside of it, to expand it. However, an existing body of contradictory research suggests a potential need for further research on this topic, if local food production’s potential to impact food security is to be fully understood. 

  • Food Security and Local Food Production

    Food Security and Local Food Production

    Background

    Generally, local food production refers to systems in which food is produced, distributed, and consumed within the same area. However, there is debate within the local food movement about this definition. For example, some call for local food systems to expand distribution—to sell food outside of the boundaries of the local community—while others fear that this kind of expansion would dilute local food’s impact. The looseness of the term local food production is perhaps indicative of its relatively new growth in the American food system. 

    Historically, local food (at least in the way that it is generally defined today) was not a major factor in American food production. Even today, it makes up a very small portion of total U.S. agriculture. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) found that in 2012, local food sales produced $6.1 billion, or about 1.5% of total U.S. agricultural production. This is an increase from 2008, where the USDA estimated that these sales accounted for $4.8 billion. However, the U.S. food system remains focused on globally integrated food production, where the places in which food is grown and processed and the places where it is eaten can be thousands of miles apart. 

    There are efforts to use local food production to address issues of food insecurity, which remains a significant issue in the U.S. The USDA reported that 10.5% of households in the United States were affected by food insecurity in 2020. The use of local food production as a means of addressing food insecurity has been contextualized differently in different national contexts. In Cuba, for example, it has been utilized as a means of bolstering the nation’s domestic food supply, particularly during times of crisis. In the context of the U.S., the focus of local food production appears to lie less on increasing the quantity of the food supply than it does on shifting the way in which the food supply is produced in order to improve food access and food system resiliency.

       USDA Estimates of Local Food Sales 2008-2012, Congressional Research Service

    Food Accessibility

    Proponents of local food production argue that it can improve access to food. One of the main arguments is that local food production, by siting food within communities, can make healthy food more accessible to those communities. In neighborhoods where healthy food vendors are scarce, residents may need to travel outside of their neighborhood to reach healthy food; local food production is intended to bring healthy food closer to people. 

    Another main argument made by supporters of local food production is that it can encourage the formation of political practices, within communities, that enable people to have greater agency in their food system, and make decisions about food distribution more equitably. Access-based local food production efforts can be seen through governmental policies in the form of USDA funds that are designed to support farmers markets and urban gardens. On the nongovernmental side, there are efforts to create local food systems that link consumers, producers, processors, and distributors with institutions to support the community through local food production and food-based businesses. 

    There are also efforts to form local food retail sites such as farmers markets. The evidence surrounding each of these elements of accessibility is conflicting. There is some evidence that local food production can have some impact on the diets of communities. For instance, there is research suggesting that proximity to farmers markets improves diet and exercise. Additionally, there is research showing that, in general, convenient access to healthy food causes incidences of overweight and obesity to decrease, and diets to improve. As farmers markets are designed to bring food (especially produce) from local farmers directly to consumers in a community, it has been argued that farmers markets can fulfill this role of providing convenient food access. However, it has also been argued that there is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that increasing access to local food improves either diets or food security. 

    A study of 24 farmers markets in Los Angeles found that the amount of fresh produce offered in farmers markets differs based on the racial and economic composition of the communities in which they operate, which raises issues about equity. In addition, local food is often as, or more expensive than, non-local food, which casts doubt on its potential to improve access through affordability. 

    At the same time, there is evidence showing that expanding local food production increases employment, among a number of other positive economic outcomes. For example, a study from Iowa State University found that re-localizing the production of staple food items (such as chicken or eggs) would add 50-75 jobs in Southeast Iowa. 

    Evidence of local food systems fostering more equitable food distribution and increased community agency is similarly conflicting. Research suggests that while local food production can increase equity and agency, it does not always do so, and some have argued that localized food systems may actually produce issues of inclusion. However, others argue that this criticism of local food systems makes generalizations that are too broad, and call for more research on different local food initiatives.

    Food Resiliency

    Advocates for expanding local food production allege that it can improve food security by strengthening the resiliency of the American food system. One of the main arguments is that expansion of local food production makes production sites more geographically dispersed, and introduces diversity in production and distribution, making the system less vulnerable to shocks. It is also argued that it shortens supply chains, thereby saving on energy costs and protecting the environment. 

    The USDA has invested some money into the resiliency aspect of local food production, including loans specifically intended to encourage private investment into local food processing. Additionally, in an endeavor that combines both the private and governmental sectors, there is a partnership between the Southeast regional supermarket chain Lowes Foods and the Center for Environmental Farming Systems that used U.S. government funding to engage in a partnership to increase the amount of local food available at Lowes Foods. 

    There is some debate about whether local food systems improve food system resiliency. While local food systems shorten supply chains, because they are generally meant to keep the distribution of food within a certain area, the claim that they reduce energy costs has been challenged. For example, some research suggests that the local deliveries made by trucks performing regional food distribution are relatively less efficient than the large-scale transportation used in the mainstream food system. Some have also argued that local food production may not be the most efficient use of agricultural resources, arguing that non-local producers make better use of them. 

    Additionally, an article from the American Enterprise Institute argues that, though local food production has its uses, a food system that makes use of international food trade is less vulnerable to disruption than a purely local one, because the shocks to global food systems that are the most important are weather-based issues affecting yields, and usually impact individual countries more severely than they do the world system as a whole. 

    There is evidence supporting the use of local food production as a means of strengthening food security, and actions are being taken within the federal government, as well as  outside of it, to expand it. However, an existing body of contradictory research suggests a potential need for further research on this topic, if local food production’s potential to impact food security is to be fully understood. 

  • American Supply Chains and American Food Security

    American Supply Chains and American Food Security

    Background

    American grocery stores offer customers a variety of foods, allowing for significant options year-round, and in 2020, the average American spent only 11.9% of their disposable income on food. This sort of reliable and affordable food supply contributes to a robust food system and increases food security. However, these advantages are not felt evenly across incomes. Those in the lowest income quintile spent, on average, over 25% of their income on food in 2020 and according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 10.5% of households in the U.S. were affected by food insecurity. Additionally, recent increases in food inflation (alongside inflation in the larger economy) have created issues for American consumers, especially low-income consumers, though this inflation has been caused by a number of outside factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. The American food system is thus characterized both by generally affordable, accessible and varied food options, and food insecurity rooted in inequality. 

    This juxtaposition between positive and negative aspects in the food system is reflected in the supply chains that make up the U.S. food system. The U.S. infant formula and meat supply chains are useful examples. The latter is not a solitary system, but a number of different chains that make up the meat-product elements of the U.S. food system (and contribute to the global food network in which that system is embedded). Beef, poultry, and pork, for example, each have their own supply chain, though there is some overlap between the companies that operate in each industry. Both the infant formula and meat supply chains are characterized by significant concentration in market share and concentration in production facilities, meaning there are a relatively small number of large firms that are responsible for a very large amount of production, in addition to there being a relatively small number of factories that are responsible for a very large amount of production. Both must strike a balance between the useful aspects of this concentration, and the drawbacks it produces.

    Infant Formula Supply Chain

    Around 98% of infant formula consumption in the U.S. comes from domestic production, with a very small imported portion. Domestic production is done mainly by four large firms: Abbott Laboratory, Nestlé, Mead-Johnson, and Perrigo. In August of 2020, market concentration in these firms was very high, with Abbott Laboratories holding 48.1%, Mead-Johnson 20%, Perrigo 11.6%, and Nestlé 7.7%. The remaining 12.6% of U.S. production comes from small, independent operators. The industry’s high concentration creates some serious vulnerabilities to the food security of those who use infant formula—though there are other sources of vulnerability in the system as well, such as issues with bacterial infections in infant formula—, as seen in the baby formula shortage that occurred in 2022. 

    The crisis began when Abbott Nutrition Facility in Michigan was temporarily shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), because of formula contamination and unsanitary conditions. It was reopened under strict oversight in early June 2022, but had to be closed again soon after due to serious flooding in the area. The facility was responsible for an estimated 43% of domestic infant formula consumption. The industry’s concentration has a number of different causes, including tariffs and quotas on infant formula imports, and the process by which the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) obtains the baby formula that it offers WIC recipients. WIC is a nutrition support program that provides services to almost 8 million women, children and infants. About 50% of the United States’ formula consumption comes from purchases of infant formula through the program, and as such, the program plays a massive role in the industry. 

    In order to facilitate this large expenditure, WIC utilizes an extremely competitive bidding process. Each state (in addition to a number of American territories and Tribal organizations) operates its own WIC agency to administer the program and utilize the funds given to it by the federal government. In addition, each state WIC program allows different infant formula companies to compete to become the sole-source provider of infant formula to WIC recipients in that state. This means the brand that wins the bid becomes the only brand that can be purchased through that state’s WIC program. The companies compete to offer the lowest wholesale price and largest rebate to the state’s agency. The rebates are sums of money that companies give to state WIC agencies, essentially allowing the state WIC agencies to acquire infant formula at a significantly reduced cost. The rebates are very large, accounting for up to $2 billion in savings each year for the WIC program overall (meaning every state WIC program combined). Without them, the program would either need to receive far more government funding, or serve 2 million fewer people.

    The winning formula brand, in turn, receives significant rewards. Because the company that wins in a state’s bidding process becomes that state WIC agency’s sole-source provider, retailers recognize that there will be a guaranteed volume of product sales. As such, retail outlets (e.g. stores in which infant formula is sold, such as Walmart) give the brands that win state WIC contracts eye-catching product placement and large amounts of shelf space. Additionally, winning a state WIC contract may lead physicians to be more likely to refer patients to the corresponding brand. These market impacts appear to make it more difficult for new companies to enter the infant formula industry.  

    President Biden has used the Defense Production Act to give infant formula companies preferential access to resources vital to formula production, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a decision to exercise case-by-case discretion on enforcing certain infant formula production requirements, which could increase the amount of formula the U.S. receives from foreign manufacturers. The Access to Baby Formula Act – which gives WIC recipients greater flexibility in using WIC to purchase infant formula – was also enacted in an effort to address the infant formula shortage. These actions were designed to both bolster domestic production, and potentially increase imports (temporarily at least), while increasing WIC recipients’ options without significantly changing the WIC competitive bidding process. 

    Meat Supply Chains

    Much like the infant formula industry, meat supply chains each experience significant market concentration. In the beef supply chain, the top 10 largest processing facilities are responsible for 47% of average daily beef slaughter. Because firms can own multiple facilities, the concentration among firms is higher than concentration among facilities, and the four largest cattle processing firms are responsible for 85% of annual slaughters in the U.S. 

    Figures for the pork industry are similar to that of the beef industry, although concentration among firms is lower: the four largest firms are responsible for only 67% of total annual hog slaughter in the U.S. The poultry sector is less concentrated in terms of facilities, with the ten largest poultry processors responsible for only 13% of total annual chicken slaughter in the U.S., but its firm concentration rate is more in line with that of beef and pork, with the four largest processing firms responsible for 53% of total annual slaughter. Additionally, the way in which livestock are grown has moved towards an increase in the size of farms and a decrease in the number of farms. 

    There are sources of vulnerability in U.S. meat supply chains that are not directly tied to concentration, including a lack of a steady labor force in processing facilities and the threat posed by diseases that target farm animals. Additionally, some of the meat supply chains’ characteristics may improve food supply issues overall by allowing for highly efficient food production, but also have some negative impacts on specific groups, such as small farmers. For example, it has been argued that vertical integration in meat processing increases efficiency by allowing the owners of processing facilities to have greater control over the characteristics of the livestock they are processing and the rate at which those animals are processed. But it has also been argued that these increases in efficiency come at a cost to family farms.

    Understanding the Tradeoffs

    In the meat industry, as in the infant formula industry, there is a tradeoff between the benefits offered by concentration, and the challenges that it creates. Because people need to eat every day, any disruption in a food supply chain will have an immediate impact on American consumers, making vulnerabilities in supply particularly important. The concentration in meat supply chains appears to make them more vulnerable to these sorts of disruptions, thereby exposing consumers to food insecurity. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, several big meat processing facilities were closed due to illness among workers, which caused temporary, but major, disruptions in the supply chain and led to price volatility (meaning the prices of meat products became less stable). Some have also expressed concerns that facility concentration will result in increases in food prices for consumers (and lower prices for meat-producing farmers). USDA funds have been used to support local, regional, and diversified processing facilities through loans, grants, and technical assistance; in addition, there are measures designed to encourage competition in the meat industry, such as passing new rules under the Packers and Stockyards Act in order to improve its antitrust enforcement. These measures reflect the federal government’s intention of addressing market concentration in meat supply chains. 

    On the other hand, it has been argued that the level of concentration in food supply chains in general has, overall, not resulted in higher prices for consumers, and that concentration is at least partially responsible for the affordability of food for the average American, as well as for the range of year-round food options that American consumers are able to access. It has also been argued that the practices of large food retailers like Walmart have driven down the food prices of competitors, and their participation in global supply chains allows for access to a wide variety of foods. In addition, large food retailers have complex disaster alert infrastructures that can be a useful tool in managing environmental threats to the food supply. As such, the meat supply chain, like the infant formula supply chain, faces the challenge of balancing the gains it receives from concentration against the vulnerabilities concentration can create.

  • Policy Debates Surrounding Changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

    Policy Debates Surrounding Changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

    Background Information

    The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (formerly labeled food stamps, and often still referred to as such), is an American federal food assistance program that provides credits to people that may be used to purchase food items. Funding for the program is covered fully by the federal government, though states are responsible for administering the program, and for some of the administration costs. The program was expanded, starting in the spring of 2020, in order to address increased food insecurity brought on by COVID-19. These pandemic-era expansions of the program have illuminated significant debate about the future direction of the program. 

    Some have placed emphasis on maximizing SNAP’s ability to combat food insecurity, while others have expressed concerns about ensuring that the program does not overly disincentivize work or contribute to a lack of self-sufficiency. Pandemic-era expansions of SNAP in 2020 and 2021 have added fuel to these questions on both sides of the policy discussion, although these debates have been around for decades. 

    At the program’s inception in 1939, and its second iteration in the early 1960s, food stamp recipients were required to purchase stamps equaling their normal food expenditure, and would receive, in the form of the stamps, the ability to purchase more food than they would normally have been able to purchase with that sum. Some criticized the requirement, arguing that it placed limits on participation, and it was removed by the Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, leading to an increase in participation.The act also established more regulation on the availability of food stamps. For example, it included a penalty for stamp recipients who voluntarily quit their jobs without good cause. This penalty has persisted in SNAP’s general work requirement. Those who do not meet the work requirements can be suspended from the SNAP program for a month or more.

    COVID-19 Pandemic Era Expansions

    The pandemic-era relief packages passed by Congress included the following changes:

    While all of these measures have technically been temporary, there was also a permanent increase in SNAP’s maximum allotment in 2021 through a program called the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP). The re-evaluation of the TFP was mandated by the 2018 Farm Bill, which required that the TFP be reassessed to be better representative of the cost of a healthy diet. The TFP re-evaluation raised the maximum allotment by 21%, though other publications have pegged the increase at over 25%, perhaps due to differences in calculation.

    Concerns about SNAP’s impact on employment and self-sufficiency

    The employment-incentive-focused side of the SNAP debate is most contentious when discussing the TFP permanent increase in the maximum allotment, and the temporary and partial suspension of the ABAWD work requirement. One element of controversy are discretionary exemptions, which allow states to exempt one ABAWD from the ABAWD work requirements for a month. States receive a limited number of exemptions, and these can be carried over into subsequent fiscal years. It has been argued that as the current suspension of the ABAWD work requirement makes the use of these discretionary exemptions redundant, states will store up their discretionary exemptions and, once the national public health emergency declaration has ended, use them to exempt a high number of ABAWDs.

    SNAP work disincentives have been alleged to contribute to a host of negative outcomes, including interfering with economic recovery, and contributing to a shortage of labor. One study published in Labour Economics found that access to SNAP decreased the rate at which single women were employed by 6%, and caused married men to reduce the hours they worked by 5%. 

    Concerns about increasing food security

    However, other studies report contrary results. Another study from the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management found that SNAP increased the labor participation of participants by around 5%, and increased their yearly hours worked by 47 hours per year. They attributed this mostly to the ABAWD work requirement and reason that it increases workforce participation.

    Additionally, it has been argued that SNAP’s benefits structure is designed to reduce the work disincentives that some allege emerge when recipients of welfare benefits lose those benefits as a result of increases in income. Because SNAP is designed to gradually reduce benefits with rises in income, and includes an income deduction that further reduces the amount of benefits that are lost with increases in income, there is less risk of SNAP participants being dissuaded from working for fear of an abrupt loss of benefits. There is an income threshold, past which SNAP recipients will lose SNAP benefits, but because of this gradual reduction in benefits, the loss is not a large one.

    A vocal group of supporters of SNAP are calling for extended or permanent expansions of the SNAP benefits that were implemented in the early months of the pandemic. This perspective praises the TFP permanent increase in the maximum allotment, as well as the temporary suspension of the ABAWD work requirement, as providing a necessary increase in the program’s ability to improve the food security of recipients. The program has been shown to have a significant impact on food insecurity—it brings down overall food insecurity by as much as 30%—but the Urban Institute, an economic and social policy-research think-tank, found that before the TFP increase, the average maximum SNAP allotment (which varies based on household size), covered the cost of a modestly priced meal in 4% of the counties in the contiguous United States. The study found that after the increase, the average maximum SNAP allotment covered the cost of a modestly priced meal in 79% of US counties. Some posit that this is still insufficient, and that more should be done to combat food insecurity. 

    Others suggest making the suspension of the ABAWD work requirement permanent. They believe it causes significant harm by taking benefits away from ABAWD SNAP recipients who may be working part time with irregular hours, or facing significant barriers to work and therefore cannot meet the requirement. 

    It has also been argued that available research shows the requirements do not have a meaningful impact on employment. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) analyzed nine states and found that the ABAWD work requirement reduced SNAP enrollment. The amount of reduction varied based on the state, from a 5% decrease in some Colorado counties to a 41% decrease in Vermont. However, the study found that a large portion of those subject to the ABAWD work requirement were found to be unemployed four quarters after the requirement was implemented. This contradicts the findings of previously mentioned studies and demonstrates a large potential for future research on the subject. 

    The pandemic era expansions of SNAP have illuminated one of the policy debates that has guided the program since its beginning: differing ideas about what recipients should have to do in order to receive SNAP, and how much they should receive. The core of the debate is grounded in differing ideas about the role that government should play in providing resources to citizens to help people better support themselves. This debate will continue to drive the development of future discussions around SNAP.

  • Andrew White, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign

    Andrew White, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign

    Andrew White is a graduate of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, with bachelor’s degrees in Global Studies and Political Science. He is interested in public policies in general, but primarily those relating to food systems, land use, government funding, and sustainability. Pursuant to these, he has been involved in a range of different policy work. His undergraduate studies included a course that was built around an analysis of social science research, in which he analyzed the impact that COVID-19 has had on Cuba’s food security and produced a paper. He completed this project by examining both academic literature and news sources to produce an overview of the research on the subject; and later gave a presentation on the research in the University of Illinois’ Undergraduate Research Symposium. Outside of his classes, he served as the Vice President of Chicago Area Peace Action’s student chapter at UIUC (CAPA UIUC), where he advocated for public policies like the Justice for Black Farmers Act and Clean Energy Jobs Act. Additionally, he worked as a student worker for Engaging Youth for Positive Change (EYPC), an organization that provides high school students with civic education through a policy-based approach to understanding local governance. In this role, he wrote several policy documents, focusing mainly on food system based health policies.

    LinkedIn