The nutrition and agriculture sections of the reconciliation bill under consideration by the U.S. Senate threaten to do more harm than good for Alaska’s food systems. While some provisions may offer benefits for agriculture nationwide, the bill — when applied to Alaska’s unique landscape — projects a net loss for our state.

At a time when prices and uncertainty are at all-time highs, and we have one of the highest percentages of farmers who’ve farmed less than 10 years in the nation, Alaska’s food producers and vulnerable families need meaningful support. This bill instead shifts resources away from small farms, undermines nutrition programs and imposes new costs on a state still recovering from the pandemic. It also risks delaying or derailing the farm bill reauthorization — essential to Alaska’s food security.

Nutrition cuts will deepen hunger in Alaska

Proposed changes to nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will have devastating consequences for food security in Alaska. The bill mandates a “cost-neutral” approach to the Thrifty Food Plan — limiting SNAP benefit levels to inflation. This ignores the state’s exceptionally high food costs.

In 2023, Alaska’s food retailers—including grocery stores and farmers markets—brought in $281 million in SNAP dollars, directly supporting local economies and families. Undermining this support puts both at risk.

Work requirements are another red flag. Lowering the age exemption for dependent children to 10 years old is not just tone-deaf — it’s dangerous. With limited child care options across the state, these rules force impossible choices, especially for single parents.

Additionally, requiring a 10% unemployment rate to waive work mandates ignores rural job scarcity; only a few regions in Alaska meet that threshold, yet many face equally dire employment prospects. The bill also removes bipartisan exemptions for veterans, homeless individuals, and former foster youth — groups for whom SNAP is a lifeline.

The bill penalizes SNAP recipients for receiving energy or internet assistance. In rural Alaska, where basic utilities are costly and connectivity is essential, this change effectively asks families to choose between food, heat and access to opportunity.

A proposed 15% cost shift to states for SNAP benefits would saddle Alaska with an estimated $37 million in additional costs — on top of new administrative burdens. These costs will worsen cost-shifting to municipalities, and reduce services for families.

Eliminating the SNAP-Ed program further undermines health equity. In 2024 alone, Alaska’s SNAP-Ed program reached nearly 14,000 residents with proven success in promoting healthier diets. Cutting it directly contradicts the administration’s health goals.

Hunger doesn’t go away because we turn our backs.

Agricultural provisions leave Alaska behind

Despite headlines touting support for agriculture, the bill’s farm programs prioritize large-scale commodity producers. Alaska’s small and independent farmers are left with crumbs. Expanded subsidies for commodity crops like corn and soy offer little to a state where fewer than 3% of farms qualify, and where not a single Agriculture Risk Coverage or Price Loss Coverage payment was issued in 2023. These programs provide funding to farmers whose income falls below certain levels, but only for a limited set of commodities.

Crop insurance, too, largely bypasses Alaska, serving fewer than 10 producers annually. While we appreciate provisions to expand beginning farmer support and Whole Farm Revenue Protection — an insurance program that helps farms manage risk — they don’t offset the broader imbalance.

The bill cancels funds from conservation programs through the Natural Resource Conservation Service, which have been critical in Alaska for high tunnels, soil management, crop studies, and so much more. Proposed investments in agricultural research are welcome, but match requirements and competitive processes disadvantage Alaska’s relatively small institutions like the University of Alaska Fairbanks Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. Without reforms, these funds will continue to bypass our research institutions.

We need policy that reflects Alaska’s reality

From Nome to the Mat-Su to Ketchikan, Alaskans are building vibrant, resilient food systems — but we need federal partners and policy that reflects our state’s realities. Alaska’s producers operate on small plots of land, in extreme climates, with vulnerable supply chains and limited infrastructure. Our food assistance programs are lifelines, not luxuries. Food pantries and food banks across Alaska are already stretched beyond their limits.

We believe Congress should listen to the lived experience of Alaskans and amend this reconciliation bill to protect nutrition programs, preserve state flexibility, invest equitably in small farms, and defend the critical groundwork laid by the farm bill. The wide scope of potential impacts across Alaska’s food systems makes clear the reconciliation bill must reflect the realities on the ground here. If not, our communities, food producers, businesses, and families will bear the consequences.

Rachel Lord is the policy and advocacy director for the Alaska Food Policy Council and a farmer. She is involved in local government and lives in Homer. Robbi Mixon is the executive director for the Alaska Food Policy Council and a previous director of the Homer Farmers Market. She helped implement one of the state’s first farmers market SNAP redemption programs. She lives in Homer.

This article originally appeared online at alaskabeacon.com. Alaska Beacon, an affiliate of States Newsroom, is an independent, nonpartisan news organization focused on connecting Alaskans to their state government.