Washington Insider

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides a vital safety net, offering regular and reliable food support to low-income individuals and families. However, this important program is facing calls for funding cuts and restrictions on the foods that recipients can purchase.

These trends in state and national discussions surrounding SNAP reveal a disturbing paternalism. Instead of addressing the fundamental barriers to healthy eating for low-income individuals, policymakers are increasingly focused on cutting funding and restricting what SNAP recipients can purchase, labeling certain foods as "junk," and implying a lack of responsible decision-making among beneficiaries. This approach is not only misguided but also threatens to exacerbate food insecurity and further strain our already fragile emergency food system, namely, food banks.

While those in the highest income brackets spend less than 20% of their income on food, individuals in the lowest income quintile allocate over 35% to this basic necessity, leaving little room for other critical expenses. SNAP benefits allow recipients to allocate their limited resources to other essential needs like housing, heat, transportation, childcare, and healthcare.

The assertion that SNAP recipients inherently make poor dietary choices ignores a crucial economic reality: the price of food. As I shared with Newsweek earlier this year, the stark difference in cost between nutrient-poor, calorie-dense options like soda and candy and wholesome foods such as 100% fruit juice or prebiotic beverages is largely due to federal subsidies that disproportionately support the U.S. sugar industry. Healthy snacks like nuts, cheese, whole-grain crackers, and raw vegetables are simply more expensive than their less nutritious counterparts.

The current push to control the food choices of SNAP recipients is a punitive measure directed at a symptom, not the root cause. If states genuinely aim to improve the diets of low-income individuals, the focus should shift from restriction to incentivization. Providing additional benefits for the purchase of healthy foods would empower individuals to make healthy choices without the shame and judgment inherent in banning certain items. We must ask ourselves why our federal policies prioritize the sugar industry over the producers of fruits and vegetables, creating a system where the healthier option is often the less affordable one.

In addition to restrictions on what people can buy, projected cuts to SNAP funding, potentially reaching $230 billion, pose a grave threat to an already strained emergency food system. With the proposed cuts, food banks, which are designed to supplement federal aid, will be overwhelmed by a significant increase in demand. The logistical challenges of providing adequate and nutritious food to a growing number of people will become insurmountable without significant investment and infrastructure improvements.

The consequences of this renewed scrutiny of SNAP spending are already being felt and are likely to increase. A case in point is the proposed elimination of SNAP-Ed in the latest budget put forward by the House Committee on Agriculture. SNAP-Ed is the nation’s largest federal nutrition and active living education program designed to promote healthy behaviors. At only 0.5% of the total SNAP budget, this program works through community-based partnerships with schools and other organizations to serve populations most at-risk for chronic health conditions. For example, they work with youth education sites to prioritize access to and promotion of water over sugar-sweetened beverages and backpack programs to send children home with healthy foods. This work has been shown to reduce the purchase and consumption of junk food and beverages. Eliminating it would be a step backward for the very public health outcomes SNAP purchasing restrictions seek.

The ongoing debates around proposed changes to SNAP benefits at both the national and state levels are stoked by a stream of media coverage. These “discussions,” often fueled by a desire to curb government spending, come at a particularly precarious time. The very inflation that impacts all Americans has already eroded the purchasing power of SNAP benefits. Currently, the weekly SNAP allowance for a family of four stands at $192.84, while the average national cost of groceries for a basic, healthy diet, as outlined by the USDA's Thrifty Food Plan, is $229.90, up 2% from last year alone.

We can see this unfortunate dynamic at play right in Washington College’s backyard. In Chestertown, Maryland, nestled within a productive agricultural county on the Eastern Shore, this disparity is pronounced. Groceries at the two main local retailers are priced 7-20% higher than the national average. Our neighbors are already feeling financially vulnerable, and the increased scrutiny of their ability to afford food only amplifies this anxiety.

A significant concern arising from these "junk food" restrictions is the potential surge in individuals relying on food banks. As the rules surrounding SNAP purchases become more restrictive and as inflation continues to erode the real value of benefits, those struggling to afford food will inevitably turn to emergency food providers.

This brings us to the critical role of food banks in our communities. As the backbone of the emergency food system, these organizations bridge the gaps in federal food assistance. However, they are already grappling with increasing food insecurity. In Maryland, a staggering one in three households faces food insecurity, leaving one in six children hungry. The philanthropic efforts of organizations like the Maryland Food Bank and an innovative organization called First Fruits Farm that provides free food to anyone in need are commendable, but they operate within a fragile system.

The network of local food pantries, often run by volunteers in churches and schools, lacks the infrastructure to handle a significant increase in demand, particularly for perishable, healthy foods. Logistical challenges further complicate the issue. For instance, farms on Maryland's Upper Eastern Shore, despite their agricultural productivity, face hurdles in donating fresh produce due to the lack of efficient transportation and storage. The current system often requires transporting goods hours away for processing, only to be shipped back to local pantries, if at all.

It is crucial to understand that food insecurity does not affect all populations equally. As documented, it disproportionately impacts certain groups based on class, race, and household structure. Households below the poverty line, households with children, and single, female-headed households experience significantly higher rates of food insecurity. Alarmingly, African American and Latinx households are twice as likely to be food insecure compared to white households. Furthermore, food insecurity is often intertwined with housing insecurity, creating a cycle of hardship.  

The real issue is not a lack of willpower among SNAP recipients but the economic barriers that make healthy food unaffordable. Instead of punitive measures, we need policies that incentivize healthy choices and address the systemic issues within our food system, including the subsidies that favor less nutritious options and policies that stigmatize the experience of food insecurity. We must recognize the immense pressure that increasing SNAP restrictions and cuts will place on our already overburdened food banks, particularly impacting vulnerable populations. It is time to shift our focus from the illusion of control to the fundamental human right to affordable, nutritious food for all.