The narrative being promoted by legacy media outlets paints a picture of poor children starving as a consequent of the undoubtedly illegal suspension of SNAP benefits during the government shutdown. That is not supported by the data.
The graph at the top of the page, derived from USDA and NHNES sources, provides a stark contrast with that narrative. As you can see if anything SNAP is promoting obesity among its beneficiaries. That should not be unexpected. Beneficiaries select calorie-dense foods in preference to nutrient-dense foods. As the researches of the early Neolithic by Robert and Linda Braidwood have demonstrated human being have preferentially sought out the most calorie-dense food in their environments for tens of thousands of year. Unfortunately, in our present circumstances with an overabundance of food that behavior does not serve them well. And it is contrary to the stated intentions of the SNAP program.
The authorizing legislation for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-246, Title IV). In the legislation the purpose of SNAP is stated explicitly:
It is declared to be the policy of Congress, in order to promote the general welfare, to safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation’s population by raising the levels of nutrition among low-income households.
The section continues:
The Congress hereby finds that the limited food purchasing power of low-income households contributes to hunger and malnutrition among members of such households. It is further declared to be the policy of Congress—
(1) to permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power, and
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, to alleviate such hunger and malnutrition.
The emphasis is mine.
Under the legislation SNAP benefits may be used to purchase meat, fruits and vegetables, dairy products, seeds for growing fruits and vegetables, baked goods, cereals, and practically anything that has a nutritional contents label. The benefits may not legally be used to purchase alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or anything containing controlled substances.
The simplest way to improve SNAP would be to change the enforcement to prevent the purchase of beverages sweetened with sucrose, fructose, or artificial sweeteners. That could probably be done without changing the existing legislation.
A more extensive improvement in enforcement consistent with the legislation’s stated intent would prohibit the use of SNAP benefits for anything that is sweetened with sucrose, fructose, or artificial sweeteners but, since that would exclude practically everything except for meat, raw fruits and vegetables, minimally processed dairy products, and minimally processed grains, it would probably meet with considerable resistance from beneficiaries, merchants, and manufacturers alike.
What is clear is that obesity is quite prevalent among SNAP beneficiaries. That is confirmed anecdotally by the observation that the spokespeople selected by legacy media for SNAP beneficiaries, purporting to be beneficiaries, are so frequently morbidly obese. And that prevalence of obesity is contrary to the stated purpose of SNAP and should not be facilitated by it.
That is described by some as “paternalism” but, as noted above, promotion of better nutrition for the poor is written into the statute already. If your primary objection is to “paternalism” you should oppose the program outright. If, like me, you should think the stated purpose is appropriate and the law should be enforced, you think that stricter standards should be enforced for the utilization of SNAP benefits.
I’m pretty ambivalent about this, but a lot of places impose added taxes on soft drinks, like Chicago (3%). There was discussion about imposing a statewide tax about ten years ago of one cent per ounce, based upon claims in part that “the beverage industry is targeting low-income and minority populations that are most at risk for obesity as a result of sugary beverage consumption.”
https://www.illinoistimes.com/news-opinion/the-soda-sin-tax-11445612/
How much of the dispute is based upon attitudes about taxes or restrictions on welfare benefits?
Dave,
I’m not strongly opposed to adding restrictions for “bad” foods to SNAP, but I would make a couple of points:
First is that it likely won’t do anything. Money is fungible, and I’m extremely skeptical that restrictions on sweetened stuff will actually do much. More likely, they will continue to be bought with other money, or people will find alternatives that are not any better.
Related is that people are really good at gaming systems, and unless the rule is very well thought out, carefully defined in terms of what is and isn’t allowed, and easily adjustable as needed, it’s quite likely that food/soda manufacturers and consumers will find loopholes and workarounds. And this is before accounting for lobbying by industry, which has historically been very successful at weakening or outright changing federal nutritional guidelines. So the chances that a good set of enforceable rules would actually be implemented is, IMO, low.
So the end result is likely to be a lot wasted on rulemaking, oversight, and compliance costs, with little to no effect on the nutrition of poor people.
Secondly, the Federal government has a poor track record in nutrition science and mandates, and it is slow to adjust when circumstances change. We had, for example, the food pyramid for years, which promoted high-carb low low-fat diets, which we now know to be a mistake. Those were not just guidelines; following them was mandated in most institutional settings, particularly schools. And they forced institutional food providers to make food available in accordance with the letter of guidelines, not the intent. But they could not force people to eat something they don’t want to eat. So we had a generation grow up with highly starchy, processed diets, thanks in no small part to well-meaning but flawed government attempts at paternalism in shaping Americans’ food choices.
So I think the whole effort at attempting to control what people eat in this way is a waste of time.
Additionally, sweetened drinks and whatever else you want to add to the bad food list are not just a problem for poor people on SNAP. If we’re going to have the government try to enforce food choices on the American public, it ought to be a universal effort that applies to everyone. Taxes is one way to move in that direction, regulation is another. Of course, the problems mentioned earlier remain – these moves are unpopular and are subject to significant lobbying by the relevant industries, which is why attempts so far have failed to do anything.
Thought your first post on this pretty much said it all:
1 – a civil society as rich as ours should not allow Africa-style malnutrition. That should not be controversial.
2 – SNAP benefits should be directed to the most efficacious food purchases. That should not be controversial, but is. Yes, there will be some breakage. But wholesale dysfunction is unacceptable. Throw in the illegals and you have another fine mess, Stanley.
This scout character was upset by the notion of paternalism. But why? We have a social security system that is, from an investors viewpoint, an abomination. But it recognizes that people will spend rather than save, and throw themselves on the mercy of society at end of life. Hence the paternalistic rules. I suspect scout is all in for SS, which makes him/her a hypocrite.
And as far as alcohol, either you are a liar, a dope, or a rank partisan – or perhaps never lived in the city – if you don’t understand that a large proportion of food stamps is spent there. Nutrition my ass. Now pass lets talk Snickers bars………
Anyway, Dave’s last two paragraphs hit nails on the head. A civil society does not mean do want you want. With societies beneficence should come guardrails and efficacy. People arguing otherwise just want to throw money at a social issue, and don’t really care about the results. After all, we have politicians running for office today promising to fix the very same ills other politicians ran on 50 years ago. Maybe some day they will get it right. Better hurry. We are broke.
“Money is fungible.” – Andy
Yes it is. I know someone who was once addicted to meth and she received government emergency food benefits several times. She said every time she received the benefits, they were used to buy drugs. Fortunately, she has been clean over 10 years now.
How do we help people and not harm them with the benefits we provide? The higher obesity rates are not beneficial. Trading benefits for drugs is not beneficial.
All I can say about that is that using SNAP benefits to pay for alcoholic beverages or controlled substances is illegal and has been at least since 1964. That should be enforced.
One way to reduce that is by removing things more easily resellable like soft drinks and candy from SNAP eligibility.
The only security in an EBT card is a PIN. So, at anywhere from 40 to 30%, they can be easily turned into cash. Another spoke in the wheel, SNAP purchases exempt from local and state taxes.
I’m with Dave. Ban sugary drinks and candies.
It’ll punish the poor kids and do nothing to address obesity. Win-Win!
[note: if removing sodas and candies would reduce obesity, I’m sure it would have plenty of studies and support. I am not a obestatrician or a fatologist, so maybe I’m wrong but I haven’t seen it. As with most things, obesity is complicated and simple solutions don’t fit. Also, I’m not a bariatrician.]
best, scout
Andy observes that money is fungible. You bet.
So this is how the alcohol scam works. Use the SNAP card for $175 in scanned food items. The clerk gives you $25 cash back…….for beer, wine or liquor. Everyone looks the other way.
Let’s not be all syrupy eyed about the poor. Scammers everywhere. I don’t know what to do, but spare me the sob stories. Government programs are red meat.
And if you place enforcement on retailers just know you really put it on the people funding SNAP. Double whammy. Perhaps technology has progressed to the point that breakage is minimized. Beyond my pay grade.
Scout
Please tell me you are kidding. We have an obesity crisis. Candy, soda, chips and other processed foods. It’s not a national secret.
The fact that Dr Milky Way wants to attempt to put OJ in the same debate is just rank partisanship. Sad to see from a doctor.
Drew, I am not kidding, nor do I deny that obesity is a problem.
I simply posit that Dave’s suggestion would not affect it.
And that Dave’s plan would punish poor kids.
later, scout
I will just add to what Andy wrote. There are dozens if not hundreds of studies on the obesity rates of people on SNAP. Some suggest it is causal others that it is not. What is common among the studies is that the huge majority are poorly done. They rely too much upon self reporting and they rarely account for compliance. Looking at the studies when sodas have been restricted it looks as though people have found ways to consume drinks that are even worse, in terms of sugar. That has been because money is fungible as noted so people use their own money or the people running the program decided that fruit drinks must be healthy if they had some Vitamin C or something in them.
So again, who are going to be the food police? If they are going to make choices on what to include or eliminate based upon political concerns or poor food science it wont work. Then, what criteria are you going to use? Andy is correct that the government has not been especially good on diet issues, but then in reality no one has been especially good. The literature is poor and most fo the people opining on the issue have never actually read any studies and wouldn’t know how to read them anyway.
So like Andy, I think it would great if SNAP people, really every, consumed less soda and candy but we dont really know what will happen if we do it with SNAP people and we dont know if the outcome wont be worse. For that matter what outcomes should we monitor. With a little effort I am sure I can find the studies that show even if SNAP people were obese, they were healthier and required less money spent on health care than similar people not on SNAP. If your goal were really to have the program be effective, neither you nor Drew given any indication this is your goal, then you should be wanting some trial programs to see what works.
As an aside just to show how bad the literature is, there was a trial that offered rebates if people bought vegetables or fruit. It “worked in that people bought a lot more rabbit food. However, what we dont know is if people actually ate the stuff and what they did with the rebate money. To be fair, these are hard studies to do.
Steve
And once again, it is written into the legislation.
Do you advocate repealing the law or amending it? Those are the alternatives to implement your stated preferences. How do you want it amended? Asking “who” is not responsive since the law as written already empowers the USDA to make those determinations.
They are meeting the letter of the law. The law addresses malnutrition and hunger. SNAP people are permitted to obtain a diet that eliminates hunger and malnutrition. It also enables them if they wish to eat a diet that most would consider healthier or one not as healthy (setting aside the fact there has not been consistent agreement on what makes for a healthy diet), but in either case you dont have malnutrition or hunger.
Query- This seems new that you would cherry pick three words out of a law and eliminate the context and explanation within the law is written. Whence comes this change?
“1) to permit low-income households to obtain a more nutritious diet through normal channels of trade by increasing food purchasing power, and
(2) to the maximum extent practicable, to alleviate such hunger and malnutrition.”