The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a critical part of America’s social safety net, providing food assistance to millions of low-income Americans. With the farm law up for renewal, the proposal for diet-based restrictions on SNAP purchases is once again front and center. Several states are taking the lead in proposing and implementing such changes, but the effectiveness and feasibility of these restrictions remain hotly debated. This issue touches on public health, social policy and individual rights, making it a complex and newsworthy topic.
Any changes to SNAP could impact millions of Americans and have far-reaching consequences for public health and the food industry. The economic impact of potential restrictions could influence consumer behavior and potentially impact retailers and food manufacturers. The policy also addresses broader issues such as 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, establishes funding and sets priorities for several federal food consumption and production programs, including SNAP. The most recent farm bill, passed as the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, which was set to expire at the end of September 2023, was extended until September 2024. For now, the program continues to operate under the expanded provisions of the 2018 farm bill. The Fiscal Year 2025 Farm Appropriations Bill would give some states the authority to impose restrictions on the types of foods eligible for purchase, and several states are now proposing and implementing such changes.
SNAP typically receives the largest share of funding 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. However, these expenditures are minuscule 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 over SNAP restrictions also includes broader issues such as work requirements. 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. Recent debt ceiling negotiations have expanded these requirements to include participants ages 18 to 54. While advocates argue that work requirements promote self-sufficiency, critics emphasize that only a small percentage of SNAP participants are subject to these rules and they may not be effective. increase employment.
Research into the effectiveness of these requirements has produced mixed results. A working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that work requirements in Virginia led to a 37% reduction in SNAP participation, but did not necessarily lead to increased employment. According to a 2022 USDA report, more than a quarter of SNAP households live on at least one income stream, as many as 81% of SNAP households live at or below the poverty line.
Although SNAP is federally funded, state agencies are responsible for regulating the respective programs. For example, Kentucky has introduced legislation to further tighten income requirements. Arizona is considering two bills that would impose education or work requirements and bar the Arizona Department of Economic Security from requesting waivers from work requirements on behalf of “able-bodied” adults.
The Case for Diet-Based Restrictions on SNAP
Supporters of SNAP restrictions argue that the program should better align with its stated goal of improving the nutrition of low-income families. Congress renamed the Food Stamp Program SNAP in 2008, specifically including the word “nutrition” to emphasize this objective. Supporters argue that allowing the use of SNAP benefits for unhealthy foods, especially sugar-sweetened beverages, contradicts the purpose of the program and could contribute to poor health outcomes among participants.
Research shows that SNAP participants often have lower diet quality and are more likely to have diet-related health problems than non-participants. While it is unclear whether SNAP directly causes these outcomes or whether other factors are at play, some argue that the program at least perpetuates unhealthy eating habits by not restricting the purchase of foods with poor nutritional value.
A recent study published in the Journal of the Public Health Management Practice that examined the legal feasibility of several SNAP reform proposals found that certain restrictions, such as healthy checkout requirements and end caps, could be legally implemented if properly implemented. were designed and focused on nutritional quality. However, the study also noted that attempts to restrict or ban advertising would likely 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 U.S. House Committee on Agriculture. She pointed out the challenges in implementation, noting that with more than 650,000 foods and beverages on the market and 20,000 new items introduced annually, categorizing foods as “healthy” or “unhealthy” would be a complex and costly administrative task.
There is no universally accepted definition of “healthy” or “unhealthy” food, making it difficult to create fair and consistent restrictions. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics emphasizes that overall dietary patterns, rather than individual foods, should be the focus of healthy eating. Implementing restrictions would require continued updating and communication of eligible food lists to retailers and consumers, potentially increasing program costs.
In his editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Benjamin Chrisinger, Ph.D., assistant professor of community health at Tuft University, lays out a compelling argument against imposing diet-based restrictions, saying that restrictions don’t actually carrot addressing issues of food insecurity and health disparities. He cites evidence suggesting that benefits without restrictions are more likely to improve nutrition than imposing restrictions.
He suggests that instead of limiting food options, the U.S. should consider cash transfer programs, which have proven more effective at improving health outcomes in other countries. These programs give people the flexibility to use money when needed, rather than limiting themselves to specific food items, and maintain individual autonomy.
States take the lead
Despite these challenges, some policymakers continue to push for changes. The proposed bipartisan SNAP Nutrition Security Act of 2023 aims to limit the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages and junk food through SNAP benefits. This proposal has reignited the debate about the role of nutrition in SNAP and the best ways to promote healthy eating among program participants.
States are increasingly taking the lead in proposing and implementing diet-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 advocate expanding SNAP benefits and emphasizing education and incentives to promote healthier eating habits.
Republicans generally favor stricter eligibility requirements and diet-based restrictions. They argue that these measures could reduce program costs, promote 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 purchase based on nutritional content.
This trend reflects a growing recognition of the need to address nutrition-related health issues at the state level, while also highlighting the challenges of uniformly implementing such restrictions 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 fruit and vegetable purchases have shown promising results in improving diet quality among SNAP participants.
Here are a few story ideas to consider:
- Explore how proposed diet-based restrictions on SNAP purchases could impact low-income families, food retailers, and overall public health outcomes. Include perspectives from both proponents and critics of the legislation.
- Find out how your state (or even several states, if you’re a regional or national reporter) is implementing its own nutrition-based restrictions and what results have emerged from these pilot programs. Consider highlighting successful initiatives that promote healthy eating without imposing strict restrictions.
- Gauge your local community’s opinions on proposed changes to SNAP, especially regarding diet-based restrictions. What do beneficiaries think of these changes?
- Examine the economic impact of potential SNAP restrictions on local food markets and producers. How might changes in consumer behavior affect food availability and pricing in low-income areas?
- Explore alternative approaches to improving nutrition among SNAP participants, such as cash transfer programs or incentive-based models that encourage the purchase of healthy foods without restricting choice.