HB 1987
In CommitteeHouse
Food security strategy
Developing a statewide food security strategy.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires the Department of Agriculture to create a statewide food security strategy by July 1, 2027, to reduce hunger, improve public health, and strengthen agriculture. The strategy must be developed with input from multiple state agencies, universities, and nonprofit groups, and must include plans for food access, farming resilience, and urban agriculture.
- Requires the Department of Agriculture to develop a statewide food security strategy by July 1, 2027.
- Directs the department to convene a broad group of state agencies, universities, nonprofits, and experts—including the Office of Farmland Preservation, Department of Health, Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Ecology, and University of Washington and Washington State University—to help develop the strategy.
- Requires the strategy to define food security in terms of food access and affordability, and to address agricultural resilience, urban agriculture, nutrition and health integration, and food security research.
- Includes specific areas the strategy must cover: barriers to farming, land access, agricultural adaptability, zoning changes, and empowering consumers to access healthy food.
- Sets an expiration date of July 1, 2028, for the bill’s requirements.
Who is affected
- **Department of Agriculture** — Will be responsible for developing and submitting the statewide food security strategy, coordinating with multiple state agencies and stakeholders.
- **State agencies** (e.g., Department of Health, Department of Social and Health Services, Department of Ecology, Office of Farmland Preservation, State Conservation Commission, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction) — Will be involved in developing the strategy through participation in meetings and providing expertise on food access, nutrition, health, and agriculture.
- **Nonprofit hunger relief organizations and research institutions** (e.g., University of Washington, Washington State University) — Will provide input and expertise on agricultural resilience, food access, and food policy as members of the Food Policy Forum and other stakeholder groups.
- **Washington residents facing food insecurity or diet-related health issues** — May benefit from improved access to affordable, healthy food and increased support for urban agriculture and food education programs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill explicitly targets reduction of diet-related environmental health disparities and links food access to public health outcomes—this framework supports long-term improvements in nutrition and chronic disease prevention, especially for low-income and communities of color disproportionately affected by food insecurity.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 1(2), Sec. 2(1)By requiring the strategy to define food security in terms of affordability and empower consumers to access healthy food, the bill sets a foundation for policies that could reduce household food spending and improve economic security for low- and middle-income families.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a), (c)(iii)The focus on barriers to farming, job creation, and land access supports small-scale and beginning farmers—including many in rural and urban communities—potentially expanding local food economies and creating new employment opportunities in agriculture.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(i), (b)(ii)Promoting urban agriculture in underserved neighborhoods can increase local food access, support community resilience, and create green jobs—particularly beneficial for residents in food deserts who lack nearby grocery stores or fresh produce options.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(c)(i)By framing food security as essential to public safety and linking it to environmental health disparities, the bill supports systemic risk reduction—stable food systems reduce vulnerability to shocks (e.g., supply chain disruptions, climate events) that disproportionately impact marginalized communities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), Sec. 1(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill imposes a new planning and reporting requirement on the Department of Agriculture, which may require additional staff time and coordination across agencies, but does not mandate funding or create new regulatory burdens on local governments; any cost would be absorbed by the state, not local jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(3)The bill includes a sunset date of July 1, 2028, meaning the strategy and associated coordination efforts are temporary and not expected to create long-term institutional or budgetary commitments beyond 2028—limiting persistent administrative burden.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 2(4)While the bill aims to improve food access and nutrition, it does not mandate direct service delivery or funding for food assistance programs—its success depends on future legislative action to implement the strategy, and without binding funding, the impact on diet-related health disparities may be limited.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)The strategy includes land access and zoning for agriculture, but does not directly address housing affordability or displacement risks—urban agriculture initiatives could increase property values in underserved neighborhoods without safeguards, potentially contributing to gentrification.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(b)(ii), (d)The bill encourages nutrition and food security research, but does not specify K–12 or higher education curriculum integration or funding—educational benefits would be indirect and dependent on subsequent appropriation or policy action.
EducationRef: Sec. 2(2)(c)(v)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income households and individuals experiencing food insecurity stand to benefit significantly if the strategy leads to expanded SNAP outreach, community food hubs, or subsidies for fresh produce—though actual impact depends on subsequent funding and implementation.
Urban and small-scale farmers may benefit from improved land access policies and technical assistance, but large agribusinesses are not specifically targeted and may see minimal direct benefit unless they partner with urban initiatives.
State agencies involved (e.g., Health, SDSH, Ecology) will gain new cross-sector coordination responsibilities but may benefit from shared data and interagency planning to address upstream determinants of health.
Nonprofit hunger relief organizations (e.g., food banks, community food councils) will gain a formal seat at the table in shaping policy, potentially increasing their influence and access to state resources—but no new funding is guaranteed.
Local governments (counties, cities) are not mandated to act, but may adopt the strategy’s recommendations—potentially expanding community gardens or zoning flexibility for urban farms, though without funding, adoption will be uneven.