The Democratic afterglow from the midterm elections is in full effect. While a few races and results are still being finalized, the broader political direction is becoming clear. What remains less clear is what the incoming leadership intends to do with its new mandate, particularly when it comes to the economy, consumer protection and the cost of living.
There are already indications of where some of that attention may be directed. Reports that Michigan’s incoming leadership, including Abdul El-Sayed, could pursue an investigation into RFK Jr.’s handling of the Cyclospora outbreak are one example. We can expect plenty more announcements, proposals and political soundbites in the months ahead.
But for grocery retailers, the more important question isn’t who is celebrating a political victory. It’s what the resulting policies will mean for the businesses that feed America. There are several areas worth watching.
But before getting into the legislative agenda, there’s a fundamental issue the grocery industry needs to address: its own presence in the political conversation.
Industry Silence Is Hurting Us
I understand the desire to fly under the radar and avoid becoming a political target. Grocery is, after all, a business that serves virtually everyone, regardless of their political affiliation. But staying quiet is becoming an increasingly risky strategy.
An event I attended recently reinforced something I’ve been thinking about for some time: our industry needs to do a better job communicating with its elected representatives. When legislators begin looking for ways to address consumer concerns, grocery retailers and supermarkets are too often portrayed as part of the problem rather than as an essential part of the solution.
The reality is that grocers are dealing with many of the same economic pressures as their customers, while also absorbing costs and complications from virtually every point in the supply chain. Labor, transportation, energy, insurance, tariffs, regulatory compliance and supplier pricing all have an impact on what ultimately shows up on the shelf. Retailers don’t operate outside the economy; they’re directly affected by it.
But if those realities aren’t communicated to legislators, the narrative is left to others. The industry risks being characterized as a collection of businesses using algorithms to manipulate prices, exploit loyalty programs or take advantage of elderly and lower-income shoppers. That caricature is a long way from the day-to-day reality of operating a supermarket.
We are fortunate to have some very capable and proactive industry organizations working on our behalf. In states such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland, trade associations and their representatives (like the PFMA – Pennsylvania Food Merchants Association, MRA – Maryland Retailers Alliance, and the NJFC – New Jersey Food Council) have done important work to protect the industry’s interests and maintain a level playing field.
But they can’t do it all. They need the participation and support of the businesses they represent.
We’ve already seen how quickly well-intentioned proposals can become problematic. The recent push for a DC bottle bill is one example. Across the country, legislators are also considering restrictions on everything from electronic shelf labels and loyalty programs to promotional pricing and customer discounts, often under the broad banner of consumer protection.
The intentions may be understandable – consumers are frustrated by rising costs and increasingly complicated pricing structures. But good intentions don’t necessarily produce good policy. Legislation that fails to account for how grocery retail actually operates can create additional costs, operational challenges and unintended consequences.
These costs rarely disappear… They eventually find their way back to the consumer.
This is precisely why the industry needs to be more engaged. Retailers don’t need to become political activists, endorse candidates or take sides in partisan arguments. They do need to explain their businesses, provide credible information and make sure policymakers understand the practical consequences of the decisions they’re considering.
We generally try to keep politics out of these pages. There are plenty of places and pundits willing to spend all day dissecting every elected official, political speech and partisan talking point. That’s not our purpose. We’re interested in outcomes: what happens in Washington and in state legislatures, what policies are likely to emerge, and how they affect the grocery business.
With that in mind, here are three areas I believe deserve particular legislative attention in the coming year.
Three Things to Watch Next Year
-
Consumer Protection Legislation
The election results suggest that affordability and consumer protection will remain prominent political priorities. We should expect more investigations, oversight and legislative proposals aimed at understanding how food prices are established and what consumers are actually paying.
Electronic shelf labels, loyalty programs, dynamic pricing, online-versus-in-store pricing and promotional discounts are all likely to receive additional scrutiny. Some of that attention is warranted. Consumers deserve transparency, and retailers should be prepared to explain how their pricing practices work.
But transparency and regulation are two different things. A policy that restricts legitimate promotional activity or makes it more difficult for retailers to offer individualized discounts could ultimately reduce choices and increase costs for shoppers.
Retailers should be prepared to demonstrate how their programs work and how they benefit customers. Keep the data, maintain transparency and, most importantly, make sure your legislators understand the difference between a legitimate retail practice and the abuses they’re trying to prevent.
-
FDA Direction and Regulatory Uncertainty
We may not see an immediate reversal of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agenda or wholesale changes in FDA or USDA leadership, but it would be foolish to assume the current direction will go unchallenged.
New congressional oversight could bring renewed scrutiny to existing initiatives, scientific standards and the regulatory process itself. Ideally, that leads to a greater emphasis on transparent, research-supported outcomes rather than policy driven by political momentum.
Some existing guidelines may be reconsidered, while others could gain broader support. For grocery retailers, however, the bigger issue is consistency.
The industry operates across state lines, national distribution networks and increasingly complex supplier relationships. A unified national framework, grounded in sound science, is generally preferable to a patchwork of state-by-state requirements that can create confusion, increase compliance costs and expose retailers to unnecessary legal risk.
Regardless of where individual policymakers stand on food policy, the industry needs clear, consistent and science-based rules that businesses can reasonably implement.
-
SNAP Funding and Program Stability
Here’s where I see a meaningful opportunity.
Tthe Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) remains one of the most important programs supporting food access for millions of Americans, including lower-income families, seniors and people facing temporary economic hardship. Changes to eligibility and benefit levels have created uncertainty for both recipients and the businesses that serve them.
It’s easy to view SNAP through a political lens, but there’s a very practical economic argument for maintaining a stable and adequately funded program. SNAP helps families put food on the table, supports grocery sales and directs billions of dollars into the food distribution system.
Grocers are stronger when more Americans can afford to shop for food. Suppliers, wholesalers, distributors and the broader food industry benefit as well. Rather than treating SNAP as simply another political talking point, policymakers should recognize its role in the broader food economy.
I would encourage any serious discussion about restoring stability to the program and ensuring that the people who depend on it can continue to access nutritious food.
Looking Beyond the 2026 Elections
There are plenty of structural challenges that won’t be resolved by a change in congressional leadership. Geopolitical instability, inflation, tariffs, fuel costs and ongoing supply chain pressures aren’t going away overnight. Even when some of those issues improve, the downstream effects can take quarters, if not years, to work their way through the economy.
The potential for improved SNAP funding could provide a more immediate benefit to consumers and the grocery industry, although any meaningful changes will take time to work through the legislative process and into household budgets.
Ultimately, I think most people in this industry are looking for the same things from Washington and their state capitals: stability, consistency, common sense and a willingness to address problems based on facts rather than political convenience.
It has often felt as though there haven’t been enough adults in the room when it comes to managing ‘USA Inc’. We’d welcome more thoughtful, conscientious leadership from either side of the aisle, particularly when it comes to policies that affect the cost and availability of food.
But there’s a responsibility on our side of the table, too.
The grocery industry cannot expect legislators to understand its challenges if it isn’t willing to explain them. Trade associations can open doors, lobbyists can make the case and industry leaders can provide expertise, but individual retailers and businesses need to be part of that conversation. We are our best advocates – no one else can do it better.
Now, we aren’t suggesting grocery executives spend their days in political fundraising or taking partisan positions. We’re encouraging spending a little more time making sure the people writing the rules, understand the business those rules are intended to govern. It’s time we made our voices heard.
The grocery industry is too important to the economy, too connected to consumers and too essential to everyday life to remain a quiet observer in the legislative process.