If you are following the legislative battles in Washington DC over the Farm Bill, the you know one of the most hotly contested issues is the Title IV – Nutrition, dealing with food aid programs, the most famous being “food stamps”. The current name is SNAP – Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
We’re talking big money – In fiscal year 2012, the federal government spent about $81 billion on SNAP. About 92% went directly to benefits for 47 million Americans that were eligible. That’s about $140 per week per family of 4. SNAP beneficiaries receive what looks like a debit card, with which they pay in supermarkets.
There are arguments for substantial cuts of SNAP, and for increases as well, because as we all know, the economy hasn’t exactly taken off, especially for the poor.
Another area of contention is what the funds can be used for. Today, recipients can purchase soda, candy, and potato chips with SNAP money, alongside more nutritious fare such as produce, eggs, milk, etc…
Should limitations be placed on SNAP purchases?
Arguments against limitations:
- Limiting the food choices is paternalistic nanny state oversight.
- Eliminating food choice would create a stigma and shame SNAP beneficiaries.
- The diets of SNAP participants are generally comparable to the diets of Americans of similar economic means, so why single poor people out?
- The cost of reprogramming computers and retraining grocery store staff for the hundreds of thousands of food items in stores is prohibitive.
- Where will the line be drawn between healthy / non-healthy foods? Is a cereal with 12 grams of sugar nutritious? 8 grams? 4 grams? What if it has added fiber?
Arguments for limitations :
- The intent of SNAP, when it started in 1933, was to match poor folks with surplus commodities, not packaged foods. (Of course back then, almost everyone knew how to cook). Why not go back to the basics and make sure that SNAP is used for fruits, vegetables, and basic foodstuff?
- SNAP already limits what people can buy: No non-food items. No alcohol. No tobacco. No supplements. No pet food. No food to be eaten in store. No hot foods. That’s quite a lot of programming of a supermarket database to keep it current if you ask us.
- WIC (Woman, Infant, Child) assistance programs also limit what people can buy. In fact, there are specific lists of what mothers can buy. That list can be the base for SNAP beneficiaries.
- Reminder: SNAP is taxpayer money that is being allocated for nutrition (the N in SNAP), not junk food company profits. When SNAP recipients use funds to purchase nutrition void food, their health deteriorates. Taxpayer money is then once again allocated when the healthcare system treats obesity related diseases (many SNAP recipients are uninsured or lack good coverage).
What do you think? Should SNAP funds come with nutrition strings attached?