The most significant food system failure since the pandemic was not a natural disaster: in October, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap) was temporarily suspended for the month of November due to the government shutdown

More than 40 million people had to ration food, skip meals and make sacrifices we might associate with the Great Depression, not 21st-century America. Churches, community groups and neighbors sprang into action. They checked on single moms juggling multiple jobs, elderly friends living alone, people with disabilities and large families with children too young for school lunch programs. And though food stamps were restored, the Trump administration is now threatening to pull Snap funds from Democratic-led states.

During the shutdown and this continuing uncertainty, many people scrambling for food have turned to local farmers, expecting them to give away fresh produce, meat, milk and eggs. Their logic was simple: farmers grow food and care about the community. Shouldn’t they be able to help us?** **But small farmers and local food advocates say it’s not simple at all.

Frederick Griffin of the Evans, Georgia-based Ebony Tree Farms** **said: “In moments of natural disasters or crises, such as the Snap suspension, it’s natural for people to look to small farms for stability. We’re close to the ground, we know the families we serve and our work is woven into the fabric of the community.

“What many don’t see,” he continued, “is that small farms feel the shock of a crisis just as quickly as households do. Sales channels dry up, costs continue and the margin for error disappears almost overnight. Giving food away without a structure in place isn’t just unsustainable. It can jeopardize the farms people rely on.”

In the immediate panic of what I call “Snap-ocalypse”, many advocates sounded the alarm about what would happen to those millions of Americans who get food aid from the government through the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), which administers Snap.

But what few of us know or consider: many of those USDA programs are structured in ways that hinder the profitability and survival of small farmers.

Alesha Gonzales of La Huerta de Alesha farm in Hephzibah, Georgia, put it into context: “We are feeling the squeeze. So many [small family] farms will not make it to see 2026.” Small family farms, like Gonzales’s, are majority-owned by families and generate gross cash farm income (GCFI) of less than $350,000 annually, according to a USDA definition. Data from 2022 suggests that between half to 79% of those farms are at deep financial risk.

Why? Small farmers point out that the system puts them at an automatic disadvantage.** **The USDA designed subsidies and relief programs for large-scale operations with a GFCI of $1m or more. The vast majority of subsidies are tied to the production of five major commodity crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton and rice) and are paid out based on acreage and volume, primarily benefiting industrial farming operations. “Policies and small margins are working against us … If you’re a small farm, you’re effectively shut out,” said Gonzales.

USDA forecasts for 2024-2025** **quantify this structural funding disparity: the USDA earmarked an average of $40bn in direct payments and emergency subsidies, primarily benefiting large-scale industrial farms. This stands in stark contrast to the $33.5m in competitive grants offered to small farmers.

Oriana J Bolden of Sierra Saffron Herb & Herb Co in Grass Valley, California, emphasized that recent changes have worsened the resource gap and increased small farmers’ precarity.

“I want people to be aware that small farms are impacted by cuts to USDA programs earlier this year. That’s happening both through the end of grants that went directly to farmers and through the loss of community and low-income food programs that bought food from small farms,” Bolden said.

Bolden was referring to the recentlycanceled Local Food for Schools (LFS) and the Local Food Purchase Assistance (LFPA) programs, which provided more than $1bn to schools and other institutions to purchase from local farmers. The loss of these programs means that small farmers are losing a significant portion of their income, making it even more difficult for them to survive in an already challenging industry.

She added: “The end of so-called ‘DEI’ programs aimed at supporting women, Bipoc, queer and young farmers doesn’t level the playing field; it mainly benefits massive, mostly white commercial operations. And now even those guys are all over the media crying about their mega soybean farms and beef ranches.”

Small farmers are not just food producers; they are also significant contributors to the local economy. USDA and Farmers Market Coalition studies show that selling through local channels allows producers to keep a larger share of the food dollar, boosts local job creation and positively affects state economies.

When farmers don’t sell inventory, they don’t just lose potential income. They’ve also spent money on market booth rental fees, seeds, soil improvements, water, and the time required to grow and process the food. Without federal subsidies, the small farmer often pays out of pocket for expenses.

While direct sales outlets, such as farmers’ markets, on-farm markets (farm stands) and community supported agriculture (CSA, food subscriptions or boxes), account for less than 1% (about 0.5%) of all Snap dollars redeemed, the impact is significant for small producers. “People do not realize how many farmers rely on direct sales and how much of that income comes from Snap. For me, about 50% of my sales are Snap purchases,” said Gonzales.

And there are even fewer places to go for advice on navigating this new normal. In July, the USDA terminated the Regional Food Business Centers program, a vital support network for small agricultural businesses.

The crisis in the US food system and the USDA’s big-farm preferences demand a policy reversal to restore the agency’s original commitment to family-owned operations, derailed by its post-1970s push toward rewarding industrial scale. The funding disparity illustrated by the USDA’s investment of only approximately $1 in local farms for every $1,054 invested in industrial farms must be corrected. The most critical steps are to permanently fund local food procurement (such as the discontinued LFS and LFPA programs) and aggressively expand Snap incentive models (such as Georgia’s “Fresh for Less” and South Carolina’s “Healthy Bucks”), which encourage small farmers to sell to the program and its recipients. Farm businesses get a boost, and people get food.

The political debate over “free food” – often centered around Snap and who “deserves” benefits and who pays for them – ignores a fundamental reality: someone always pays. For large corporations, the cost is covered by federal subsidies. For the smallest producers, it is a personal financial risk.

The irony is that Snap-ocalypse began 24 October, the same day the United Nations celebrated its 80th anniversary and renewed its focus on its sustainable development goals, including the elimination of hunger by 2030. Meanwhile, the USDA, which administers the food safety net of the world’s wealthiest nation, keeps widening the holes in that very net. And the most vulnerable consumers and growers slip right through.