The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a critical component of the U.S. social safety net and provides food assistance to millions of low-income Americans. As the farm bill comes up for renewal, proposals for nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP receipts are again at the forefront. Many states are leading the way in proposing and implementing such changes, but the effectiveness and feasibility of these restrictions are hotly debated. This issue intersects with public health, social policy, and individual rights, making it a complex and newsworthy issue.
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 impact consumer behavior and potentially impact food retailers and manufacturers. The policies also address broader issues such as health disparities and access to nutritious food in low-income communities. This also raises questions about the appropriate level of government intervention into personal food preferences.
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 Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and set to expire at the end of September 2023, has been extended through September 2024. For now, the program continues to operate under the provisions of the extended 2018 farm bill. The Farm Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2025 would authorize some states to pilot restrictions on the types of food that can be purchased, and some states are currently proposing and implementing such changes.
SNAP generally 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. But this spending is minuscule compared to other social safety net programs like 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 involves broader issues such as work requirements. These federally mandated requirements apply to “healthy adults without dependents” who must work at least 80 hours per month to qualify for food benefits. Recent negotiations on the debt ceiling have extended these requirements to participants aged 18 to 54. While proponents argue that work requirements encourage self-sufficiency, critics emphasize that only a small percentage of SNAP participants are subject to these rules and they may not be able to effectively. increase employment.
Research on the effectiveness of these requirements has yielded mixed results. A working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that work requirements in Virginia led to a 37% decrease in SNAP participation but did not necessarily lead to increased employment. More than a quarter of SNAP households report at least one income stream, while 81% of SNAP households live at or below the poverty line, according to a 2022 USDA report.
Although SNAP is federally funded, state agencies are responsible for administering the relevant programs. Kentucky, for example, has passed legislation that would further tighten income eligibility requirements. Arizona is considering two bills that would impose education or employment requirements and prevent the Arizona Department of Economic Security from applying for work requirement exemptions on behalf of “able-bodied” adults.
SNAP nutrition-based restrictions status
Advocates of SNAP restrictions argue that the program should be closer to its stated goal of improving nutrition among low-income families. In 2008, Congress renamed the Food Stamp Program SNAP, specifically adding the word “nutrition” to emphasize this goal. Supporters argue that allowing SNAP benefits to be used for unhealthy foods, especially sugar-sweetened beverages, defeats the purpose of the program and could contribute to poor health outcomes among participants.
Research shows that SNAP participants generally have lower diet quality and higher rates of diet-related health problems than nonparticipants. Although it is unclear whether SNAP directly led to these results or whether other factors were at play, some argue that the program, at the very least, perpetuated unhealthy eating habits by not restricting the purchase of nutrient-poor foods.
A new study published in the Journal of Public Health Management Practice examining the legal feasibility of various SNAP reform proposals found that certain restrictions, such as healthy pay and cap requirements, could be legally enforced if properly designed to focus on nutrition quality. But the study also noted that attempts to restrict or ban advertising would likely face significant legal challenges.
Lawsuit against SNAP restrictions
Critics of SNAP restrictions argue that such measures can undermine the program’s effectiveness and efficiency. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Ph.D., a leading researcher in this field, noted many concerns in her testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Agriculture Committee in 2017. He noted practical difficulties and noted that there are more than 650,000 food and beverage products on the market. With 20,000 new products being introduced on the market every year, classifying foods as “healthy” or “unhealthy” would be a complex and costly administrative task.
The lack of a universally accepted definition of “healthy” or “unhealthy” foods makes it difficult to establish fair and consistent restrictions. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics emphasizes that the focus of healthy nutrition should be general dietary patterns rather than individual foods. Implementing restrictions would require that lists of eligible foods be continually updated and communicated to retailers and consumers, potentially increasing program costs.
D., Ph.D., assistant professor of community health at Tuft University. In an editorial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Benjamin Chrisinger makes a compelling case against imposing diet-based restrictions, arguing that the restrictions do not actually address the root of the disease. Food insecurity and health disparities issues. He cites evidence showing that benefits without restrictions are more likely to improve nutrition than imposing restrictions.
Rather than restricting food options, he suggests, the U.S. should consider cash transfer programs that have proven more effective at improving health outcomes in other countries. These programs provide people with the flexibility to use funds as needed rather than being limited to certain food items and preserve individual autonomy.
States take responsibility
Despite these challenges, some policymakers continue to press for change. The proposed bipartisan SNAP Nutrition Security Act of 2023 aims to restrict the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages and junk foods through SNAP benefits. This proposal reignited 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 enforcing nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP receipts, 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 generally advocate expanding SNAP benefits and focusing on education and incentives to encourage healthier eating habits.
Republicans tend to support stricter eligibility requirements and diet-based restrictions. They argue that these measures could reduce program costs, promote self-sufficiency, and encourage healthier food choices among SNAP recipients.
Republican representatives in states such as Louisiana and Maryland have introduced legislation that would limit the products SNAP recipients can purchase based on nutritional value.
While this trend reflects a growing recognition of the need to address diet-related health issues at the state level, it also highlights the difficulties of enforcing such restrictions uniformly across the country.
Rather than imposing restrictions, some experts recommend focusing on positive incentives to encourage healthier food choices. For example, programs that add benefits to 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 nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP receipts could impact low-income families, food retailers, and overall public health outcomes. Include the perspectives of both supporters and critics of the legislation.
- Discover how your state (or different states, if you’re a regional or national reporter) is implementing its own nutrition-based restrictions and what results are emerging from these pilot programs. Consider highlighting 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 local food markets and producers. How might changes in consumer behavior affect food availability and prices in low-income areas?
- Explore alternative approaches to improve nutrition among SNAP participants, such as cash transfer programs or incentive-based models that encourage healthy food purchases without restricting options.