Agri-food issues have been central to this year’s US presidential election – but how might the policies of Kamala Harris or Donald Trump shape the industry when either enters the Oval Office next year?

Food inflation and industry consolidation (including the proposed Kroger-Albertsons deal and the FTC’s opposition to it) have played out daily in the mainstream press. Amid a tight race, both candidates have put a strong emphasis on swing-state rural voters, further raising the profile of agri-food in this year's US election.

The respective policy positions on food and agriculture of Vice President Harris and former President Trump reveal distinct approaches shaped by their own political philosophies and the fundamental ideological differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, particularly in terms of regulation, environmental sustainability and government intervention in markets.

There are myriad food and agriculture issues on the table in this year’s election. I’ve chosen to take a look at where the two candidates stand on some of the most pressing issues, including inflation, consolidation, climate change, trade, farm subsidies and labour. The differences between the two candidates are many. The similarities are few.

Food inflation and industry consolidation

Harris elevated the campaign importance of the issue of higher food prices earlier this year when she announced that if elected she plans to pass the first federal ban on price gouging, specifically targeting big food companies, the meat and poultry industries and grocery retailers. Numerous US states have price gouging bans but there’s never been a federal law addressing the concept.

According to Harris, addressing higher food prices is central to her overall economic policy. She has been short on details on how her plan to lower food prices will work but did say recently she plans to expand competition throughout the agri-food system, from the farm to the grocery store.

Harris told the American Farm Bureau in a recent presidential questionnaire that she will “crack down on unfair mergers and acquisitions involving big food corporations to help create a level playing field”.

Trump also provided answers to the Farm Bureau’s questionnaire. He has no plans to initiate a price-gouging policy of his own. Rather, he has often pointed to high food prices as a symptom of what he describes as the economic failures of the Biden-Harris administration.

The former President argues the administration's spending policies have contributed to inflation, making everyday goods like groceries more expensive. But Trump has not offered any specific, detailed plans to directly reduce food prices. Instead, he says his broader economic proposals, including reducing energy costs, lowering taxes and deregulating industries will bring down food prices at the grocery store.

Trump says he believes that lower energy costs, in particular, would drive down food prices. He also promises – without offering much in the way of specifics except that he would promote expanded oil drilling like he did in his first term – to lower gas prices, suggesting that cheaper fuel would reduce costs across the board, from groceries to housing. The US is already the leading oil-producing nation in the world.

As Trump says, he will “drill baby drill”, which he argues will reduce the cost of energy and gasoline, leading to lower food prices at the grocery store.

Nevertheless. most economists and analysts don’t think a president can have much influence on the price of food in America.

Climate change and sustainable agriculture

Harris has consistently advocated for addressing climate change through progressive environmental policies and this stance extends into her views on agriculture, according to her campaign. As Vice President and a former US Senator, Harris has supported the Green New Deal and has expressed the need for farmers to transition to more sustainable practices. She sees climate change as a direct threat to food production due to unpredictable weather patterns, droughts, and wildfires that harm crops and livestock.

Additionally, Harris has championed initiatives that incentivise farmers to adopt climate-friendly practices, such as regenerative agriculture, which focuses on soil health and carbon sequestration. These approaches align with her broader environmental policies that prioritise decarbonisation, the promotion of renewable energy and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the agri-food sector.

In contrast, Trump's agricultural policy during his presidency was not primarily concerned with climate change. Instead, Trump took a deregulatory approach, aiming to reduce the burden of environmental regulations on farmers. His administration rolled back several Obama-era policies, including the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which had expanded federal oversight of waterways impacting farms. Trump argued such regulations were overly restrictive and detrimental to farmers' livelihoods, particularly small and medium-sized family farms.

His focus was on increasing agricultural productivity and expanding economic opportunities without necessarily tying these goals to environmental sustainability. The Trump administration also withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, signaling a departure from international efforts to address climate change, which had implications for global agricultural policy coordination.

Farm subsidies and support for farmers

Both Harris and Trump have supported farm subsidies but from different ideological standpoints. Trump, during his presidential term, provided extensive financial support to farmers, particularly during the US-China trade war, which significantly impacted American agriculture. (The trade war was ignited after Trump imposed tariffs on China and other nations, including India and China, retaliated with their tariffs on American agricultural imports).

In response to retaliatory tariffs on US agricultural exports, the Trump administration approved billions of dollars in aid to farmers to mitigate the economic fallout. This direct assistance, administered through programmes like the Market Facilitation Program, was a form of short-term relief intended to support farmers facing declining export revenues. Trump positioned himself as a strong advocate for the farming community, focusing on protecting their economic interests through trade deals and financial relief.

Harris, on the other hand, has supported farm subsidies but emphasises the need to make programmes more equitable and environmentally sustainable. She has pointed out that federal agricultural subsidies disproportionately benefit large, industrial-scale farms over smaller, family-owned operations.

The Vice President supports policies that aim to correct this imbalance by providing more targeted support to small and medium-sized farmers, as well as farmers of colour who she argues have historically been marginalised by federal farm programmes. Additionally, Harris advocates tying farm subsidies to environmental outcomes, such as reducing carbon emissions and promoting sustainable farming practices.

Trade policies and agri-food

Agricultural trade policies under Harris and Trump also show a stark contrast. Trump’s presidency was marked by a protectionist approach to trade, including renegotiating trade deals and imposing tariffs.

One of the most significant actions affecting agriculture was the trade war with China. In response to US tariffs, China placed retaliatory tariffs on key agricultural products like soybeans, corn, and pork, which severely impacted American farmers. Although Trump eventually negotiated a Phase One trade deal with China, which included promises of large-scale agricultural purchases, the uncertainty of the trade war caused significant disruptions in the agricultural sector. Farmers became reliant on government aid during this period, as market conditions remained volatile.

Harris, while not directly responsible for trade policies during her vice presidency, aligns with the Democratic Party’s broader stance of seeking multilateral trade agreements and avoiding the kind of trade wars that defined Trump’s approach.

She has expressed support for trade policies that protect American workers and industries, including agriculture, but she emphasises the need for trade deals that include environmental and labour standards. This is in line with the Biden administration’s efforts to repair relationships with international trading partners and create more stable, predictable market conditions for American farmers. Harris is likely to favour trade policies that focus on building partnerships with allies to create fair and sustainable trade practices in agriculture.

Policies from labour to competition

Labour is another area where the agricultural policies of Harris and Trump diverge. Harris has been a strong proponent of immigration reform, recognising that immigrant labour, particularly from Latin America, is a critical component of the US agricultural workforce. She supports providing pathways to citizenship for undocumented farmworkers and ensuring they have access to labour protections and fair wages.

Harris has also called for strengthening labour rights for all workers in the agricultural sector, advocating for higher wages, safer working conditions, and access to healthcare. Her support for comprehensive immigration reform is rooted in the Democratic Party’s broader commitment to social justice and equitable labor rights.

Trump’s immigration policies, on the other hand, have been much more restrictive, and his administration took a hardline approach to immigration enforcement. This had direct implications for the agricultural sector, which relies heavily on immigrant labour.

During Trump’s presidency, there were significant concerns among farmers about labour shortages due to stricter immigration enforcement and the administration's efforts to limit the H-2A visa programme, which allows foreign workers to come to the US for seasonal agricultural work. While Trump emphasised protecting American jobs, his policies created uncertainty for farmers who depend on immigrant labour for planting, harvesting and processing crops.

Harris’ track record on agri-food issues is sparse so it’s important to pay attention to what she says she’s going to do – her policy statements – to gain an understanding of what her approach to the food and agriculture industries will be if she is elected president. I expect her approach to be more moderate than many expect, although as a career prosecutor and former California Attorney General, I suggest taking her seriously when it comes to her policy focus on anti-competition and antitrust issues.

Trump, on the other hand, has a track record based on his four years as president. I expect his approach if elected president will be very similar to what he did from 2016 to 2020. I also won’t be surprised if he doubles down on tariffs, deregulation (for example, he’ll likely fire FTC chair Lina Khan immediately upon taking office) and immigration enforcement.

This column was first published on 24 October.