Healthy Food Access for All Americans Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Sykes, Emilia Strong [D-OH-13]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 18, 2025
Bottom line
This bill creates tax credits and grants to attract healthy food providers to low-income, low-access areas, aiming to combat food insecurity and improve public health.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new tax credit and grant program to incentivize the establishment and renovation of grocery stores and the operation of food banks and mobile markets in designated "food deserts." It aims to improve access to healthy food options in underserved areas by providing financial incentives for providers meeting specific criteria.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill directly addresses the critical issue of food deserts, where residents lack convenient access to nutritious food, leading to poorer health outcomes. They contend that financial incentives are necessary to overcome the economic barriers that deter grocery stores and food banks from operating in these areas, thereby improving community health and economic vitality.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that such tax credits and grants could be inefficient or subject to abuse, potentially subsidizing businesses that would have opened anyway or failing to address the root causes of food insecurity. They might also contend that the definitions of "food desert" or "groceries" could be too broad or too narrow, leading to misallocation of resources, or that the "such sums as may be necessary" appropriation lacks fiscal discipline.
The bill is relatively short and its core mechanisms are understandable, making it accessible for a reader to evaluate within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a)(1), adding new Section 45BB(a) to the IRC.
Tax Credit for Grocery Stores in Food Deserts
This provision creates a new business tax credit for certified "special access food providers" that open new grocery stores or renovate existing ones in designated food deserts. The credit is 15% of the basis for new qualified grocery stores and 10% of renovation expenditures for qualified renovation areas. This incentivizes private investment in underserved communities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this credit is essential to make grocery store development in food deserts economically viable, overcoming the higher costs and lower profit margins often associated with these areas. It directly stimulates private sector investment where it's most needed.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that tax credits can be an inefficient way to achieve policy goals, potentially leading to "deadweight loss" where businesses receive credits for investments they would have made anyway. They may also argue that the benefits primarily accrue to corporations rather than directly to communities.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between providing sufficient incentive to attract businesses to high-need areas and ensuring the tax expenditure is cost-effective and doesn't merely subsidize existing or inevitable development.
Section 2(a)(1), adding new Section 45BB(b) to the IRC.
Grants for Food Banks and Mobile/Farmers Markets
This provision establishes a grant program, administered by the Secretaries of Treasury and Agriculture, for certified non-profit food banks and "temporary access merchants" (like mobile markets or farmers markets) operating in food deserts. Permanent food banks can receive a grant of 15% of qualified construction expenses, while temporary access merchants can receive 10% of annual operational costs for up to 10 years. Grants are not considered taxable income.
Section 2(a)(1), adding new Section 45BB(c) to the IRC.
Eligibility and Certification Criteria
This section outlines the detailed requirements for entities to be certified as "special access food providers" and thus qualify for the tax credit or grant. Criteria include being located in a "food desert," satisfying Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) eligibility criteria, and for temporary access merchants, operating for a minimum number of hours/days per week. Farmers markets receiving other USDA grants (except Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive) are ineligible.
Section 2(a)(1), adding new Section 45BB(h)(1) to the IRC.
Defining "Food Desert"
This provision defines a "food desert" as a population census tract where a significant portion of the population (500 people or 33%) lives more than 1 mile (metropolitan) or 10 miles (non-metropolitan) from a grocery store, AND the poverty rate is at least 20%, OR the median family income is 80% or less of statewide/metropolitan median. Determinations are made using the USDA's Food Access Research Atlas.
This section authorizes the appropriation of "such sums as may be necessary" to carry out the purposes of the entire section, which includes both the tax credit and the grant program.
Section 2(d) "Authorization of Appropriations."
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for authorizing funding without specifying a fixed dollar amount, allowing for flexibility in future appropriations.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides the necessary flexibility for the program to scale according to demand and actual need, without being constrained by an arbitrary upfront cap that might prove insufficient.
Case against: Critics contend that this open-ended authorization lacks fiscal discipline and makes it difficult to project the true cost of the program, potentially leading to significant, unforeseen federal expenditures.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it places no upper limit on the federal financial commitment to the program.
A farmers market is not eligible for certification as a special access food provider (and thus not eligible for grants under this bill) if it receives funding from any other grant program administered by the Department of Agriculture, with the sole exception of the Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive (FINI) program.
Section 2(a)(1), adding new Section 45BB(c)(3) to the IRC.
Why it matters:This is likely intended to prevent "double-dipping" or to ensure that the funds from this specific program are additive rather than duplicative of existing USDA support for farmers markets.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures efficient use of federal funds by preventing the same entity from receiving multiple grants for similar activities, thereby maximizing the reach of different programs.
Case against: Critics might argue that this restriction could limit the overall support available to farmers markets, especially those that are highly effective and could leverage multiple funding streams to expand their impact in food deserts.
Estimated impact: Limits the pool of eligible farmers markets, potentially reducing the number of temporary access merchants receiving grants under this bill.