by The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which provides food assistance to millions of low-income Americans, is a vital component of the US social safety net. With the farm bill nearing renewal, the proposal for nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP purchases is back in the spotlight. Many states are leading the way in proposing and implementing such changes, but the effectiveness and practicality of such restrictions is still hotly debated. This issue intersects public health, social policy and individual rights, making it a complex and worthwhile topic to address.
Any changes to SNAP could affect millions of Americans and have far-reaching consequences for public health and the food industry. The economic impact of potential restrictions could influence consumer behaviour, which could affect retailers and food producers. The policies also address broader issues of health disparities and access to nutritious food in low-income communities. It also raises questions about the appropriate level of government intervention in personal food choices.
The farm bill, which is typically debated and renewed every five years, sets funding and directs priorities for various federal food consumption and production programs, including SNAP. The most recent farm bill, passed as the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 that was set to expire at the end of September 2023, was extended to September 2024. To date, the program continues to operate under the expanded provisions of the 2018 farm bill. The Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025 would authorize some states to pilot restrictions on the types of food eligible for purchase, and some states are now planning and implementing such changes.
SNAP typically receives the largest funding share of any program in the farm bill. The federal government spent $112.8 billion on SNAP in 2023, with an average monthly benefit of $211.93 per participant. This spending is smaller, however, compared to other social safety net programs such as Social Security ($1.2 trillion in 2022) and Medicare and Medicaid ($1.3 trillion in 2022).
SNAP and work requirements
The debate about SNAP restrictions such as work requirements also involves broader issues. These federally mandated requirements apply to “able-bodied adults without dependents,” who must work at least 80 hours per month to qualify for food benefits. With the recent debt ceiling negotiations, these requirements have been extended to include participants aged 18 to 54. While proponents argue that work requirements encourage self-sufficiency, critics point out that only a small percentage of SNAP participants are subject to these rules and that they may not be effective. increase employment.
Research on the effectiveness of these requirements has shown mixed results. A working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that work requirements in Virginia led to a 37% drop in SNAP participation, but did not necessarily lead to an increase in employment. According to the USDA 2022 report, while more than a quarter of SNAP households report at least one stream of income, up to 81% of SNAP households are living at or below the poverty line.
Although SNAP is federally funded, state agencies are responsible for regulating the respective programs. Kentucky, for example, has introduced legislation to further tighten income eligibility requirements. Arizona is considering two bills that would impose training or work requirements, and bar the Arizona Department of Economic Security from applying for work requirement waivers for “able-bodied” adults.
The case for SNAP nutrition-based restrictions
Proponents of SNAP restrictions argue that the program should be more closely aligned with its goal of improving nutrition among low-income families. Congress renamed the Food Stamp Program to SNAP in 2008, specifically including the word “nutrition” to emphasize this purpose. Supporters argue that allowing unhealthy foods, especially sugar-sweetened beverages, to use SNAP benefits violates the program’s purpose and could contribute to poor health outcomes among participants.
Research suggests that SNAP participants often have lower diet quality and higher rates of diet-related health issues compared to non-participants. While it is unclear whether these results are directly caused by SNAP or whether other factors are at play, some argue that the program, at the very least, promotes unhealthy eating habits by not restricting the purchase of foods that are poor in nutritional aspect of it.
A recent study published in the Journal of the Public Health Management Practice examining the legal feasibility of various SNAP reform proposals found that certain restrictions, such as health check requirements and an end cap, could be legally implemented if drafted correctly to focus on nutritional quality. However, the study also noted that efforts to restrict or ban advertising are likely to face significant legal challenges.
The case against SNAP restrictions
Critics of SNAP restrictions argue that such measures could undermine the effectiveness and efficiency of the program. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Ph.D., a leading researcher in this field, highlighted several concerns in her 2017 testimony before the United States House Agriculture Committee. with 20,000 new products introduced annually, categorizing foods as “healthy” or “unhealthy” would be a complex and expensive administrative task.
There is no universally accepted definition of “healthy” or “unhealthy” foods, making it difficult to create fair and consistent restrictions. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics emphasizes that whole dietary patterns, rather than individual foods, should be the focus of healthy eating. Implementing restrictions would require continuous updating and communication of eligible food lists to retailers and consumers, potentially increasing program costs.
In an editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Benjamin Chrisinger, Ph.D., assistant professor of public health at Tufts University, lays out a strong case against imposing dietary-based restrictions, saying that restrictions do not address the root. issues related to food insecurity and health disparities. It cites evidence to suggest that benefits provided without restrictions are more likely to improve nutrition than imposing restrictions.
He suggests that instead of restricting food choices, the US should look at cash transfer programs, which have been proven to be more effective in improving health outcomes in other countries. These programs give people the flexibility to use funds as needed, rather than being limited to specific food items, and preserve individual autonomy.
The states take over
Despite these challenges, some policymakers continue to push for change. The bipartisan SNAP Nutrition Security Act of 2023 seeks to limit the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages and junk foods through SNAP benefits. This proposal started a debate about the role of nutrition in SNAP and the best ways to promote healthy eating among program participants.
More and more states are taking the lead in proposing and implementing nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP purchases leading to contentious debates at the state level. Democrats generally oppose restrictions on SNAP purchases and stricter eligibility requirements, arguing that these measures could reduce access to food for vulnerable populations. They often recommend expanding SNAP benefits and focusing on education and incentives to promote healthier eating habits.
Republicans tend to support stricter eligibility requirements and nutrition-based restrictions. They argue that these measures could reduce program costs, encourage self-sufficiency, and promote healthier food choices among SNAP recipients.
Republican representatives in states like Louisiana and Maryland have introduced legislation that would limit what SNAP recipients could buy based on nutritional value.
This trend reflects a growing recognition of the need to address diet-related health issues at the state level, while also highlighting the challenges of applying such restrictions uniformly. across the country.
Instead of imposing restrictions, some experts suggest focusing on positive incentives to encourage healthier food choices. For example, programs that provide additional benefits for purchasing fruits and vegetables have shown promising results in improving diet quality among SNAP participants.
Here are some story ideas to consider:
- Investigate how nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP purchases may affect low-income households, food retailers, and overall public health outcomes. Include perspectives from both supporters and critics of the legislation.
- Explore how your state (or even different states, if you are a regional or national reporter) has implemented its own nutritional restrictions and what results have arisen from these pilot programs. Consider successful initiatives that promote healthy eating without imposing strict restrictions.
- Gauge your local community’s opinion on proposed changes to SNAP, especially regarding nutrition-based restrictions. What do beneficiaries think about these changes?
- Examine the economic impact of potential SNAP restrictions on markets and local food producers. How would changes in consumer behavior affect food availability and food pricing in low-income areas?
- Investigate alternative methods to improve nutrition among SNAP participants, such as cash transfer programs or incentive models that encourage healthy food purchases without limiting choices.
