A landmark Agriculture Department study using figures from 2011, the last year comprehensive data was available, found that the No. 2 product bought by households using SNAP was sugar-sweetened beverages, which includes sodas, energy drinks, flavored juice drinks and sweet teas. These beverages accounted for nearly 10 percent of purchases, and 20 cents out of every dollar was used to buy sugary drinks and junk foods such as candy, chips and cookies.
David S. Ludwig, a professor of nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argues that allowing the more than 41 million people who benefit from SNAP to use it to purchase sodas and chips is a “misuse of the program” and inconsistent with its stated goal of utilizing food assistance to promote nutritional health.
“Ironically, the public pays in two ways,” he told me. One is through the direct purchase of billions of dollars of sugary drinks and unhealthy food, essentially subsidizing junk food production. The second is through medical care for diet-related chronic diseases, specifically obesity and the diseases it contributes to, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and even depression.
Ludwig, who is also a pediatric endocrinologist at Boston Children’s Hospital, is particularly concerned about the long-term impact of poor nutrition on kids. Nearly 1 in 5 children and adolescents have obesity. Studies have repeatedly shown that consumption of sugary drinks and ultra-processed food is significantly higher among low-income families and Black and Hispanic youth. These same groups end up having higher rates of diabetes and heart problems in adulthood.
From a purely public health standpoint, there should be no question that SNAP must be restructured to focus purchases on healthier foods. Unsurprisingly, industry groups are unanimously opposed to such reform. They cite logistical concerns about how one draws the line between which foods are healthy and which aren’t and how stores can practically enforce limitations.
To me, these are not sound arguments. SNAP already prohibits purchases of tobacco and cigarettes, as well as prepared hot foods, pet food and personal hygiene products. And another federal program, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), which serves some 6.3 million pregnant and postpartum women and young children every month, has laid the groundwork for determining what foods are considered “nutritious” and can or cannot be covered.
What surprised me was learning that anti-hunger groups are almost uniformly opposed to such proposals. Their objections give me more pause.
First, they worry about tinkering with a program that has historically enjoyed bipartisan support. Recently, some Republican lawmakers have tried to limit SNAP through budget cuts and work requirements. Anti-hunger advocates fear that restrictions on unhealthy foods could become an excuse to reduce SNAP subsidies, which they feel are already insufficient.
I can appreciate this concern. Public health experts would want the 20 cents out of every dollar spent on junk food to go toward vegetables, fruits, milk, whole grains and protein, but those motivated to slash government assistance programs might try to reduce SNAP benefits by 20 percent. This, of course, is not what Ludwig wants at all; in fact, he is pushing for the United States to end childhood hunger. But, as he emphasized, “the solution to hunger is not empty calories.” Both childhood hunger and obesity arise from poor nutrition, and both are treated with healthful, whole-foods diet.
The second objection from anti-hunger groups is the issue of autonomy and dignity. Why should low-income individuals face restrictions in what they can buy, while those with means do not?
This is perhaps the most compelling argument. Still, though, I find Ludwig’s counterargument to be convincing, which is that SNAP limitations don’t take away the right of low-income people to choose what they want. “They’ll still be free to purchase sugary beverages with their own money, just not with government dollars that are intended to promote health,” he said.
Ultimately, whether SNAP should have more restrictions depends on what we believe its purpose should be. If it’s primarily about income assistance, then the dignity argument wins because people should use their money however they wish. But so long as the program has “nutrition” in its title, SNAP should deliver on this crucial mission and provide nutritious food that enhances health and well-being.
Credit: Source link