By Imelda Rodriguez Benavides, ASU sustainable food systems graduate student
Even though it was a simulation, it was still exciting to announce my concluding summary of the Model USDA scenario to my colleagues and classmates: Breaking now from Fox News — after three days of intense deliberation, the latest Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs) have been finalized. The decision? Broad sustainability measures will not be included in the guidelines. Instead, the focus remains on clear, science-based health recommendations, with some stakeholders advocating for a shift in terminology from "sustainability" to "climate-friendly." The final verdict underscores a more profound debate about the role of environmental concerns in nutrition policy and the balancing act between public health, economic viability, and food security.
At the end of January 2025, ASU virtually hosted the inaugural Model USDA simulated policymaking event in partnership with three other universities and FoodCorps. Leading this policy discussion were graduate students, undergraduate students, and interns who were enrolled in the USDA NextGen program. They filled out the roles of industry leaders, policymakers, and health experts, voicing strong opinions throughout the event about whether the DGAs should incorporate sustainability principles. In our scenario we also had two simulation journalists. My colleague represented NPR while I took on the role of Fox News. We both had a front-row seat to the negotiations, tensions, and compromises that defined the discussion. The main takeaway? Words matter, and how we define concepts can profoundly shape policy decisions.
One significant development was the terminology shift from "sustainability" to "climate-friendly" guidelines. This change reflected a strategic compromise between stakeholders who support environmental considerations in dietary recommendations and those who argue that sustainability is too broad, lacks standardized metrics, and may create political friction.
Joseph Brinkley, ASU student acting as the House Agriculture Committee Majority Staff Director, emphasized this: "We are not against sustainability; however, we should refrain from using the term ‘sustainability’ as it may negatively impact our partners and bipartisan support.” Instead, federal purchasing power, estimated at $40 billion, will be leveraged to support climate-smart agricultural practices while ensuring farm viability. The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and House Agriculture Committee agreed that federal dietary guidelines should prioritize domestic farm support for climate initiatives. Aaron Poplack, ASU graduate student acting as the USDA Secretary, reinforced this stance: "USDA believes part of its mission is to support our domestic producers and explore a variety of ways the dietary guidelines could do so.”
While some advocates pushed for sustainability measures, the prevailing view was that the DGAs should focus on science-based health recommendations rather than broad environmental policies. This position was strongly supported by representatives from the beef industry, who argued that there is insufficient scientific data to link sustainability metrics directly to dietary guidelines. Sarah Bosse, ASU student acting as the Chair of the Agriculture and Food Policy Committee, stated, “Sustainability is very important to the beef industry, and offsets are consistently made. However, the DGAs are not the right platform to move the needle on this issue.” One of my biggest takeaways from Model USDA was witnessing firsthand how language shapes policy decisions. The decision to replace "sustainability" with "climate-friendly" is more than just semantics — it’s a strategic move to build consensus and avoid political roadblocks.
Aside from language, one of the most surprising developments was the proposal to shift milk from a required drink in school nutrition programs to a protein category. This change aimed to provide children with more options while reducing food waste. According to Samantha Sink, UAF student acting as the Vice President of U.S. Government Relations for the United Fresh Produce Association, “If milk were categorized as a protein rather than a required beverage, children would have more flexibility, which would address waste concerns.” This proposal also gained traction among tribal representatives, as Jade Winkler-Barden, HPU student acting as the Director of the Office of Tribal Relations, pointed out that lactose intolerance is prevalent in Indigenous communities. However, representatives from the beef and dairy industries expressed concerns about this change's financial and logistical implications. The students debated, parrying arguments with counterpoints, and saw firsthand the challenges of crafting policy.
As a journalist covering this debate, I found the milk discussion particularly interesting. Having worked in school environments, I know that access to clean, high-quality water is a significant concern for many communities. While providing water as an alternative to milk is a seemingly simple solution, actually implementing this change is a structural and budgetary challenge.
This experience highlighted two key insights: First, the complexity of policy-making, where stakeholders must balance their priorities while seeking compromise. Second, journalists face challenges managing multiple conversations, identifying key details, and deciding which points deserve more profound investigation. The contrast of having one journalist from NPR and another from Fox News added an extra layer of engagement as we both approached the discussions through different editorial lenses. I found it fascinating to see how narratives could shift depending on the framing and follow-up questions — or lack thereof. The exercise demonstrated the media's influence on public discourse and how stakeholders strategically use journalists to advance their agendas.
Additionally, this overall experience deepened my appreciation for how food policies intersect with economic, social, and environmental concerns. As Model USDA Secretary Poplack put it, “This is not just about the environment. It’s about keeping farmers prosperous and strengthening America’s food security.”
On the final day of Model USDA, we heard from Danielle Nierenberg, co-founder of Food Tank. As a world-renowned researcher and advocate for food system transformation, Nierenberg emphasized the importance of building resilient and equitable food systems. She highlighted how sustainable agriculture can support both planetary health and economic stability. Her insights reinforced that while the DGAs may not explicitly include sustainability, the conversation around food, climate, and public health will persist in other policy avenues.
Ultimately, the Model USDA exercise provided valuable insights into the policymaking process, the role of journalism in shaping narratives, and the ongoing debates around food, health, and sustainability. As the nation continues to evolve its approach to nutrition and agriculture, one thing is clear — this conversation is far from over.
This blog is part of a series written by ASU graduate students who role-played as journalists in the Swette Center's inaugural Model USDA, held virtually from January 31 to February 2, 2025.