Tighter restrictions on the SNAP program should not be put into place

Tighter restrictions on the SNAP program should not be put into place 

By: Madison Richwine

April 26, 2021

Affording groceries and other basic household items is a constant worry for millions of families across the nation. Fortunately, there are many programs available to families in need.  These include but are not limited to: The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), State Food Purchase Program (SFPP), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Within each of these programs, there are obviously issues but at the end of the day, they meet their goal. The goal of providing food to low-income families and attempting to end hunger. However, a question people have started to ask within the last five to 10 years is: should tighter restrictions be placed on the SNAP program? Arguments and solutions are still being tossed around. The SNAP program is the most common, and a lot of people would argue, the most important, government assisted food program. In 2019, this program helped 38 million people. 

The number one reason why policymakers believe tighter restrictions should be put into place is because they feel as though with tighter restrictions, participants of the program will be forced to buy healthier foods. Policymakers want to dramatically restrict what consumers can and cannot buy. 

However, this should not be the case. Putting these tighter restrictions on the SNAP program would not be feasible because shoppers can still use their own money to buy the unhealthy food, it is difficult to eat healthy on a tight budget and restricting certain unhealthy foods will be hard to actually put into practice. 

If buying groceries is already a struggle for families receiving SNAP benefits, why should it be made harder to acquire their groceries? 

Unhealthy eating and obesity are definitely issues among our nation, but restricting SNAP participants to only being allowed to purchase healthy food, without any sort of motivation, would not necessarily solve anything. 

People who receive SNAP benefits must work at leave 20 hours a week or if they are unable to get a paying job, they must volunteer somewhere for a certain number of hours a week. These people have their own money aside from SNAP and how they choose to spend that is entirely up to them. 

According to Lindsey Wahowiak’s study on the effect of restrictions placed on the SNAP program in the journal of  the American Public Health Association, “about 70 percent of SNAP benefit recipients use their own resources to purchase food” (2015, SNAP restrictions can hinder ability to purchase healthy food).  There is nothing stopping them from buying sugary drinks, candy bars, or any other food that is considered unhealthy. 

Something that should be put into place is an incentive program. People are more likely to do something if there is something in it for them. If policymakers want consumers to start purchasing healthier items, there has to be something to motivate them to do so. 

A clinical trial was done where people were divided into four groups. One of the groups received a, “30% financial incentive for fruits and vegetables purchased using food benefits."  Another group was prohibited from buying anything sugary, the third group had restrictions and received the incentive, and the last group was the control group. 

The results showed that the group that had restrictions and incentive had a “reduced intake of discretionary calories, reduced intake of sugar sweetened beverages… increased intake of solid fruit."  The group that had only restrictions with no incentive had the most amount of people not follow up with their results and/or they “discontinued or dropped out of the trial.” This goes to show that positive results come out of having some sort of incentive.  People are more likely to react in a more positive to SNAP restrictions if there is an incentive behind it. 

Eating healthy is a financial burden for just about everyone. People who receive SNAP benefits are already on a really tight budget, so of course it is hard for them to maintain a healthy diet. According to Center on Budget and Policy Priorties, the average household receives about $127 per household member and lower income families receive more. This is broken down to “about $4.17 a day, $1.39 per meal” (2019). At first glance this may seem like enough to sustain a family, but in reality, it is not- especially if policymakers want participants to purchase only healthy foods. 

The cost of fruits, vegetables, organic foods, and everything else that falls under the category of “healthy” adds up quick. Not to mention that a lot of people who get SNAP benefits have growing kids that they need to feed. Kids, especially teenagers, eat a lot and with that budget, it is nearly impossible to afford only healthy foods. Healthier foods also tend to spoil faster than boxed or processed food, meaning families would have to make more trips to the store each month. 

Restricting the purchase of anything but foods that are considered healthy, especially without any sort of incentive, would make it extremely difficult for families.

In general, executing this plan to only allowing SNAP participants to purchase healthy foods would be difficult, if not impossible. 

Lindsey Wahowiak interviewed Sherrie Tussler, an executive director of the Hunger Task Force. She stated that, “”no one could define what healthy foods are… Why would we take (dried) beans off the list? Probably because we don’t grow them here. Wisconsin grows potatoes so suddenly potatoes are a healthy food… it has nothing to do with healthy dignity…’” (2015, SNAP restrictions can hinder ability to purchase healthy food). 

Researchers have argued that placing restrictions has become more political, rather worrying more about the personal health of the consumers. 

That same journal states that the National Institute of Health discovered, “that SNAP benefit recipients often live in neighborhoods with a shortage of supermarkets” (2015, SNAP restrictions can hinder ability to purchase healthy food). 

People in these areas will often go to farmer’s markets but some markets do not accept the SNAP benefits, or they will go to convenience stores, which obviously do not carry nutrient-rich foods. All in all, it would be difficult to follow through with such strict restrictions. Not only do policymakers have to think about how hard it would be on the individuals, on businesses and stores as well. 

Although not placing tighter restrictions on the SNAP program is the better route to take, some believe the opposite. A lot of policymakers think it would be a better option to only allow SNAP participants to purchase healthy foods. They want to prohibit the purchase of sugary drinks, food, and any other unhealthy products. New York specifically wants to ban the purchase of sodas with food stamps. 

In a public health article written by Scott Hensley, he states that in NY, “fifty-seven percent of adults and 40 percent of school kids are overweight or obese." Obviously, obesity is an issue within our nation, but there are better solutions. 

The same article written by Hensley mentions that sodas and other sugary drinks made up around 6% of food stamp use in the United States.  Restricting these drinks may decrease obesity but it also means restricting consumer’s choices, which would lead to plenty of unhappy SNAP benefit receivers.

Marion Nestle, a food blogger, was interviewed for that article and she said, “’Why not make food stamps "worth twice as much when spent for fresh (or single-ingredient frozen) fruits and vegetables" rather than banning sodas?’” That is what the policymakers need to be thinking about. 

However, that is not the only thing policymakers need to be thinking about. Another big issue with the SNAP program is that the benefits are not distributed evenly among certain groups of people. The LGBTQ community being one of them. According to UCLA: School of Law, "more than 1 in 4 LGBT adults... about 22 million people, experienced a time in the last year when they did not have enough money to feed themselves or their families." 

That more than 1 in 4 is about 27%. In the same article, that 27% is compared to the "17% of non-LGBT adults."  Policymakers have to be thinking of more than just one group of people when they are making cuts to the SNAP program. 

Government assisted food programs is something that the United States takes very seriously to ensure people do not go hungry. However, with recent issues arising, it’s important to think of the consequences of the changes that are wanted to be made. The SNAP program does not need any additional restrictions, especially without any sort of incentive. Placing additional restrictions simply would not solve the issues that policymakers want solved and prohibiting the purchase of unhealthy foods would just be too difficult to manage.