Food fight: The case for and against nutrition-based SNAP restrictions

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a critical component of the U.S. social safety net, providing food assistance to millions of low-income Americans. As the farm bill comes up for renewal, the proposal for nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP purchases is again taking center stage. Several states are taking the lead in proposing and implementing such changes, but the effectiveness and practicality of these restrictions remain hotly debated. This issue intersects public health, social policy and individual rights, making it a complex and newsworthy topic.

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 influence consumer behavior, potentially affecting food retailers and producers. The policies also touch on broader issues of 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, 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 that was set to expire at the end of September 2023 was extended to September 2024. For now, the program continues to operate under the extended 2018 farm bill provisions. The Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2025 would authorize some states to pilot restrictions on the types of food eligible for purchase, and several states are now proposing and implementing such changes.

SNAP typically receives the largest funding share 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. This spending, however, 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).

The case for SNAP nutrition-based restrictions

Proponents of SNAP restrictions argue that the program should more closely align with its stated goal of improving nutrition among low-income families. Congress renamed the Food Stamp Program to SNAP in 2008, specifically including the word "nutrition" to emphasize this objective. Supporters contend that allowing SNAP benefits to be used for unhealthy foods, particularly sugar-sweetened beverages, contradicts the program's purpose and may contribute to poor health outcomes among participants.

Research suggests that SNAP participants often have lower diet quality and higher rates of diet-related health issues compared to non-participants. While it's unclear whether SNAP directly causes these outcomes or if other factors are at play, some argue that the program, at minimum, sustains unhealthy eating habits by not restricting purchases of nutritionally poor foods.

A recent study published in the Journal of the Public Health Management Practice that examined the legal feasibility of various SNAP reform proposals found that certain restrictions, such as healthy checkout and end cap requirements, could be legally implemented if properly drafted to focus 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 program's effectiveness and efficiency. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Ph.D., a prominent researcher in this field, highlighted several concerns in her 2017 testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Agriculture.. She pointed out the implementation challenges, noting that with over 650,000 food and beverage products 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" foods, making it difficult to create fair and consistent restrictions. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics emphasizes that overall diet patterns, rather than individual foods, should be the focus of healthy eating. Implementing restrictions would require continuous 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 case against imposing nutrition-based restrictions, saying restrictions don't truly address the root issues of food insecurity and health disparities. He cites evidence that suggests benefits provided without restrictions are more likely to improve nutrition than imposing restrictions.

He suggests that instead of restricting food options, the U.S. should consider cash-transfer programs, which have proven to be more effective in improving health outcomes in other countries. These programs allow people the flexibility to use funds as needed, rather than being limited to specific food items, and preserves individual autonomy.

States take charge

Despite these challenges, some policymakers continue to push for changes. The proposed bipartisan SNAP Nutrition Security Act of 2023 seeks to restrict purchases of sugar-sweetened beverages and junk foods through SNAP benefits. This proposal has reignited the debate over 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 nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP purchases leading to contentious state-level debates. 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 for expanding SNAP benefits and focusing on education and incentives to promote healthier eating habits.

Republicans tend to support stricter eligibility requirements and nutrition-based restrictions. They argue that these measures could reduce program costs, encourage 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 value.

This trend reflects a growing recognition of the need to address diet-related health issues at the state level, while also highlighting the challenges of implementing such restrictions uniformly 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 purchasing fruits and vegetables have shown promising results in improving diet quality among SNAP participants.

Here are a few story ideas to consider:

• Investigate how proposed nutrition-based restrictions on SNAP purchases could affect low-income families, food retailers, and overall public health outcomes. Include perspectives from both supporters and critics of the legislation.
• Explore how your state (or even different states, if you are a regional or national reporter) is implementing its own nutrition-based restrictions and what outcomes have emerged from these pilot programs. Consider highlighting successful initiatives that promote healthy eating without imposing strict limitations.
• 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 pricing in low-income areas?
• Investigate alternative approaches to improving nutrition among SNAP participants, such as cash-transfer programs or incentive-based models that encourage healthy food purchases without restricting choices.