It also will be a busy time for the agency as legislators – whether or not their term is ending – push their agendas before they leave their offices or a shift in political control potentially upends current committee hierarchies, Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy and federal affairs at the Consumer Brands Association, said to FoodNavigator-USA.
She added FDA has also promised a slew of high-impact deliverables by the end of the year – including a finalized updated definition of ‘healthy’ and a proposed rule for front-of-pack nutrition labeling – that will keep the agency and stakeholders engaged and active in the coming weeks.
“We will wait and see what happens there … but we are gearing up for a somewhat busy November and December,” Gallo said.
What could change during the transition period?
During the two-and-a-half months between the Nov. 5 election and the Jan. 20 inauguration nearly all political appointees from the current Biden Administration will “voluntarily resign” from their positions and be replaced temporarily with senior career officials until the new administration can fill non-confirmable posts with political appointees who often double as “acting” placeholders for confirmable positions, Grossman explained in a recent blog post.
“The transition is likely to be dramatic if there is a second Trump Administration. All but a handful (if that) of political appointees will vacate their posts by noon on Jan. 20 (when the swearing in takes place)," Grossman wrote.
To rebuild the top government as quickly as possible, both candidates have extensive transition teams made of a “mix of campaign advisors, think tanks” and experts who help shape the administration’s approach, explains Grossman.
Their mandate is massive and, while often high level, can have dramatic impact on the everyday lives of industry stakeholders in the short and long-term.
FDA’s science-based approach to food safety could be in crosshairs during transition
Food safety, including an ongoing assessment of FDA’s post-market chemical review process and clear nutrition labeling, are two issues that could shift during the transition and dramatically impact the packaged food and groceries industries, said Gallo.
Pressure from current legislators at the state and national level has pushed FDA to reconsider how it reviews the safety of food additives and chemicals – including the ongoing development of a proposed post-market chemical safety review process.
Industry and FDA have pushed back against state efforts to ban within their borders the sale of ingredients that legislators consider unsafe. This includes continuously drumming a message that FDA needs to be the leader on food safety issues and it needs to make science-based and data-driven decisions.
“We are really concerned with making sure that regulatory systems that either continue or that get a refresh or reload in a new administration continue to be based on science and risk,” Gallo said.
She explained that the “Make America Healthy Again” movement championed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and presumptive President-elect Donald Trump “is not one that is based in science and risk. It is one that is really based in an ideology that from [CBA’s] perspective threatens to remove that science and risk-based lens of the regulatory system.”
CBA is meeting with members of Congress who are in position to oversee FDA and USDA post-transition to ensure they understand industry’s concern and desire for a science- and risk-based approach to food safety and nutrition.
“There is a really long history of Congress being able to direct resources and provide authorities to make sure we are really shoring those things up. Obviously, the administration is going to be part of it, but in the meantime, it is also really important that we are going out and talking to lawmakers that are questioning their own priorities around health and nutrition and food safety,” Gallo said.
Front-of-pack labeling remains front and center for HELP committee
Front-of-pack nutrition labeling also could become a flashpoint during the transition.
Even though FDA has promised a proposed rule by the end of the year, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who was up for reelection this year, is leveraging his current position as chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pension, to push FDA to, as he said recently, “do more to ensure that Americans, especially children, teens and their parents, understand the health risks associated with the consumption of … unhealthy and ultra-processed foods.”
He invited FDA Commissioner Robert Califf and Deputy Commissioner of the FDA Human Foods Program Jim Jones to testify before the HELP committee on Dec. 5 about the agency’s efforts to design front-of-package labels, which he said in a release “would help consumers understand which products are harmful to their health."
The hearing could double as an opportunity for political leaders to assess FDA’s progress addressing cultural challenges that partly led to its reorganization, including the formation of the Human Foods Program.
“Regardless of the election, we still have a pretty full plate when it comes to FDA and the administration in Congress,” Gallo reiterated.
Other issues important to the CPG industry that could shift during the transition include the current focus on grocery prices and various “-flations,” including shrinkflation, the intensity of anti-competitive oversight, the availability of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, and the extent to which potential changes in tariffs and taxes could impact supply chains and COGs.
A ‘wait and see’ approach to the transition may not behoove industry players
The transition could also be tumultuous for industry players of all sizes if a winner is not quickly identified and accepted and consumers or employees turn their anxiety and political unrest on brands that they perceive as maligned with their values or desired outcomes, warns Edelman Global Advisory.
“Against the backdrop of elections and conflicts around the globe, 60% of respondents across 14 countries surveyed [by EGA] say they are buying, choosing or avoiding brands based on the politics,” EGA explained in a recent blog post.
A similar percentage – 62% – of employees expect CEOs and company leaders to “manage change occurring in society,” including those from a new presidential administration, EGA explains.
“Employees are paying close attention to how their company communicates, advocates and shows up at key political moments this year. Leaders should be mindful of the role their governance plays, understand where employees stand and plan for potential scenarios that could occur … during and after November – including civil unrest/protest, reactions to public statements, public callouts from politicians/candidates or dramatic policy and regulatory shifts,” EGA writes.
EGA advises industry players to consider which issues consumers and employees expect corporate engagement, what values guide the brand’s decisions on if or how to engage on political and regulatory issues, who in the company or broader team should or should not become politically engaged, among other issues.
Given the stakes of this election and how high feelings are running, EGA acknowledges it may be tempting for brands and businesses to nope-out of politics, but it argues, “today, culture is politics and many everyday brand actions can be seen as political. In a world where silence is a stance, the question is not ‘Should I get involved in politics?’ but rather ‘How do I navigate politics?’”
