EDITORIAL: Perez banana bill peels back stifling regulation
May 5-Congressional legislation can be complex, with omnibus bills bringing together conflicting interests to ensure their passage. In cliché terms, politics can make for strange bedfellows.
Such is the case with the recent House passage of what is known as the farm bill. The legislation is a combination of more than one dozen bills addressing agricultural, environmental, nutritional and safety-net issues. In the case of the Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2026, it also includes what Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, D-Skamania, refers to as "the banana bill."
Last year, Perez introduced the Cutting Red Tape on Child Care Providers Act (House Resolution 1889). The legislation would prevent states that receive grants under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act from regulating childcare providers' ability to prepare and serve fresh fruits and vegetables.
"I heard from daycare providers that the state told them they couldn't peel a banana because that was considered food prep," Perez explained last year. "So they could open a bag of chips but couldn't peel a banana."
Perez added: "And then they found this thing where they would need six more sinks before they could actually peel a banana legally for a toddler. That makes no kind of sense. So, I introduced a bill, and this is one of the ways that we can use federal policy to shape a more reasonable landscape for small businesses."
The bill reads, in part: "Access to minimally processed fruits, vegetables, nuts and seeds is crucial for the development and well-being of children. Licensed childcare providers often face restrictions on food."
That qualifies as what critics refer to as stifling regulation, and it qualifies as the type of bill that receives little attention as a stand-alone entity. By December, Perez's legislation had eight co-sponsors - four Democrats and four Republicans; and by last month it was folded into the Farm, Food and National Security Act.
When that omnibus legislation arrived on the House floor last week, Perez was one of 14 Democrats - and the only one from Washington - to vote in favor as the bill passed by a 224-200 count. While "the banana bill" demonstrates some the broader legislation's benefits, there also are drawbacks. Among the criticisms:
* It preserves deep cuts in access to the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which will lead to greater food insecurity and increase the safety-net burden on states.
* It includes a projected $1 trillion in federal spending over a 10-year span, adding to the national debt without providing a funding mechanism.
* And it includes no provisions designed to reduce food prices for consumers.
On the opposite side, proponents such as Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., insisted that the bill "is a win for our farmers, ranchers, foresters, rural communities, and all Americans across our country."
The dichotomy is complex, with legislators on both sides of the aisle able to find provisions they support and those they oppose. In other words, it demands nuanced thinking that is typical of sweeping legislation but often overlooked by the public.
Because of that complexity and a dysfunctional Congress, a new farm bill has not been passed since 2018. Each of the past three years, legislators simply renewed the 2018 bill rather than make needed changes.
As this year's effort moves on to the Senate, the legislation includes provisions that demand debate. It also includes at least one commonsense provision regarding toddlers and bananas.
Unlock all stories. Stay informed.
Starting at just $1.99/week
Become a subscriber and get unlimited access to every story, plus our ePaper and app for seamless reading anywhere. Stay informed, support local journalism, and stay connected to your community.
Subscribe today
Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.