SNAP Debate

Most SNAP recipients purchase food from authorized SNAP retailers. In this scenario, beneficiaries can purchase any food or food product intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages and hot foods prepared for immediate consumption.^[1] This does not include food-type products labeled as dietary supplements, such as energy drinks, but does include energy drinks labeled as beverages. Several policymakers have suggested that SNAP benefits should be better aligned with food that has positive nutritional benefits, while those who oppose restructuring benefits argue that SNAP recipients should be able to make their own food choices. The debate centers around the latent conflict between a federally funded program intended to provide nutrition assistance and the lax requirements for foods that qualify for purchase. Although

SNAP is run through a federal-state partnership, states cannot veer from the federal program requirements. Congress is the only entity that can make substantive changes to the program; however, the USDA is permitted to conduct pilot projects.

In 2004, Minnesota requested a waiver from the USDA to allow the state to prohibit the use of food stamps for the purchase of most types of candy and soft drinks. The USDA denied this request, stating that it would stigmatize food stamp recipients.^[2] In 2010, New York City and New York State requested authorization from the USDA to conduct a two-year demonstration program to remove sugar-sweetened beverages from the list of allowable SNAP purchases in the city.^[3] New York City argued that SNAP was created to further the health and nutritional quality of low-income households, but sugary beverages are a unique contributor to obesity and diabetes, and the burden of these diseases was very high among income-eligible residents of the city.^[3] The city argued that the “federal government spends hundreds of millions of dollars to prevent obesity and diabetes. It shouldn’t simultaneously subsidize the largest single contributor to those conditions.” ^[3] Generally, public health groups support this viewpoint,^[6] and likewise support research that would provide data to inform such policy decisions.^[7]

The Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) is a food insecurity advocacy organization that represents the viewpoint of many antihunger groups nationwide. It responded to the suggestion that food choice be more restricted under SNAP by arguing (1) that such a move would unfairly single-out low-income people by restricting their food choices; (2) no clear standards exist to define foods as healthy or unhealthy; (3) it is unfair to implement restrictions when many recipients lack reasonable access to eligible foods at affordable prices; and (4) revised requirements would increase program complexity and cost.^[8] Both

FRAC and the USDA have argued that limiting product choice among SNAP recipients could be stigmatizing.^101,102

It is worth noting that the processed food industry also benefits from SNAP recipients’ ability to use benefits to purchase manufactured food products.^{[8] [10] [11]} Food companies and trade organizations have lobbied against program reforms. In response to the New York City request, a representative from the American Beverage Association objected, arguing that the government should not tell people what they can drink and that singling out sugary beverages is “discriminatory and unfair.”^[7]

The USDA denied New York City’s request for a waiver in August 2011.^[13] The USDA rested its decision on the following concerns: the scale and scope of the proposal was too large and complex, there would be operational challenges to enacting the demonstration project that would need to be resolved, there could be retailer confusion over which products qualify, there could be stigma for SNAP participants at the point of sale, and the proposed evaluation design did not ensure an effect on obesity and health.^{[13] [15] [16] [17]} States continue to debate this issue.^107,108,109 Legislators across the country have proposed a range of bills that would permit their state to seek a waiver from the USDA, seek to conduct a pilot program, or pass a resolution urging Congress to remove certain foods from SNAP eligibility.^{[18] [19] [20] [21]} Some of the bills specify which foods the legislators believe should be removed from SNAP coverage; this list often includes sugar-sweetened beverages and candy.^111,112,113

Certain groups seek to cut the amount of SNAP benefits in order to reduce government spending.^[22] Both public health and food insecurity groups oppose this position, and some argue that the amount of benefits should be increased in order to provide recipients with enough funding to provide food throughout the month.^[8] Research by the USDA’s Economic Research Service suggests that an increase in benefits is associated with a greater percentage of redemptions at superstores where prices tend to be lower, but which may be farther away or require greater travel costs.^[24] The authors theorize that the increase in resources are used to accommodate transportation costs.

Access to SNAP approved retailers is an issue for some people. Box 4.2 discusses an alternative program for American Indians living on or near Indian reservations and Oklahoma Tribal Jurisdictions who lack access to SNAP approved retailers. Box 4.2 also provides a history of issues related to the United States government supplying commodity foods to American Indians.

• [1] 7 CFR 271.2
• [2] John Skorburg. Feds Deny Minnesota Request for Ban on Junk Food Purchases with Food Stamps. August 1, 2004. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2004/08/01/feds-deny- minnesota-request-ban-junk-food-purchases-food-stamps
• [3] New York City. Removing SNAP Subsidy for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages. October 2010.http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/cdp/cdp-snap-faq.pdf
• [4] New York City. Removing SNAP Subsidy for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages. October 2010.http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/cdp/cdp-snap-faq.pdf
• [5] New York City. Removing SNAP Subsidy for Sugar-Sweetened Beverages. October 2010.http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/cdp/cdp-snap-faq.pdf
• [6] David S. Ludwig, Susan J. Blumenthal, Walter C. Willett. Opportunities to ReduceChildhood Hunger and Obesity Restructuring the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (theFood Stamp Program). JAMA. 2012;308(24):2567-2568.
• [7] K. D. Brownell, D. S. Ludwig. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Soda, andUSDA Policy Who Benefits? JAMA. 2011;306(12):1370-1371.
• [8] Food Research and Action Center. A Review of Strategies to Bolster SNAP’s Role inImproving Nutrition as well as Food Security. January 2013. frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SNAPstrategies.pdf
• [9] Food Research and Action Center. A Review of Strategies to Bolster SNAP’s Role inImproving Nutrition as well as Food Security. January 2013. frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SNAPstrategies.pdf
• [10] United States Department of Agriculture. Food and Nutrition Service. SupplementalNutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Implications of Restricting the use of Food Stamp Benefits—ASummary. Available at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/arra/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf
• [11] M. Simon. Food Stamps: Follow the Money Are Corporations Profiting from HungryAmericans? Eat Drink Politics, June 2012.
• [12] K. D. Brownell, D. S. Ludwig. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Soda, andUSDA Policy Who Benefits? JAMA. 2011;306(12):1370-1371.
• [13] www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/SNAP-Waiver-Request-Decision.pdf
• [14] www.foodpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/SNAP-Waiver-Request-Decision.pdf
• [15] IL HB 5626 (2014) SNAP waiver requested to specify certain ineligible foods.
• [16] IN HB 1105 (2014) Pilot Program for SNAP Benefit Restrictions.
• [17] MO HB 1283 (2014) Prohibiting SNAP Benefits for Purchase of Energy Drinks.
• [18] J. L. Pomeranz, J. F. Chriqui. The supplemental nutrition assistance program: Analysis ofprogram administration and food law definitions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. (published online ahead of print June 16, 2015).
• [19] IL SB 1742 (2013).
• [20] SC HB 4651 (2014).
• [21] WV SB 262 (2014).
• [22] Ron Nixon. House Republicans Pass Deep Cuts in Food Stamps. September 19, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/us/politics/house-passes-bill-cutting-40-billion-from-food-stamps.html
• [23] Food Research and Action Center. A Review of Strategies to Bolster SNAP’s Role inImproving Nutrition as well as Food Security. January 2013. frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/SNAPstrategies.pdf
• [24] Margaret Andrews, Rhea Bhatta, Michele Ver Ploeg. An alternative to developing stores infood deserts: Can changes in SNAP benefits make a difference? Applied Economic Perspectives andPolicy. 2013;35(1):150-170.