Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits need changing

When it comes to nutrition, there can be uncertainty about what the role of government should be in ensuring that the poorest Americans have access to healthy, affordable food.

Many Americans, however, are certain about one thing: Our federal government — and our states — must reform how governments deliver food assistance.

IOWA ATTEMPTS REFORM — IT’S CLUNKY

The latest move by the Iowa Legislature is to enhance the Double Up Food Bucks program, a federal program administered state-by-state to provide a dollar-for-dollar match up to a certain amount on purchases of fresh fruits and vegetables at grocery stores and farmers markets. Double Up is available to anyone who participates in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a federal benefit formerly known as Food Stamps to provide food assistance to low-income Americans.

Legislation introduced in the Iowa House of Representatives that cleared last week’s first “funnel” deadline would give an additional $1 million in state Double Up funding for FY 2026. It’s contingent, however, on a federal waiver to reduce the items on the SNAP eligibility list to “healthy food based on necessary nutrition for good health.” The list includes ”healthy grains, dairy, meat, eggs, peanut butter and nuts, pasta, rice, legumes, and fruits and vegetables.”

Done in the name of cutting out junk food with little to no nutritional value, it’s a steep reduction in eligible foods for SNAP beneficiaries. I’m not convinced it’s the right move. But when viewed in light of the problems with the current SNAP setup, some might not be quick to call it a wrong move, either.

That’s because SNAP as we know it today is immensely different from what it was at its inception over 60 years ago, when it was known as the Food Stamps program, a nod to a Depression-era project in which people used stamps provided by the government to exchange for surplus food.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF SNAP

Piloted by President John F. Kennedy in 1961, eligible Food Stamps program participants purchased coupons up front to exchange for any food item sold for home consumption, provided the food was not imported. At the time, most food was purchased at either mom-and-pop grocers or supermarkets.

Legislation signed in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson made the program permanent. Its original version introduced in the House of Representatives intended to ban soft drinks, but the Senate version, which ultimately passed, removed that restriction — partly out of belief that food stamps would not be used for sugary beverages.

In 1977, after the program reached a record high 18.5 million participants, a supermajority-Democratic Congress, through legislation signed by President Jimmy Carter, removed the requirement that participants purchase their food coupons in advance. Within one month, 1.5 million new participants had flocked to the program, which would undergo various expansions and only the occasional cut over the next several decades.

By the 1980s, nutrition education grants were added to the program. In 1992, as diet concerns continued to grow, some states began implementing the federally approved Food Stamp Nutrition Education plans to promote healthier eating and more physical activity.

By 2002, Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems were made mandatory as the way to furnish and spend Food Stamp dollars. Participation exploded to a record high of over 28 million in 2008, the same year the name of the program was changed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. New participation records would continue to be set annually for another five years.

In late 2010, diet and lifestyle went from a concern to a full-blown problem. As part of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act signed by President Barack Obama, the nutrition education programs that were part of SNAP were revamped as the Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention Grant Program, adding new strategies to promote healthier diet and exercise. The number of state agencies with nutrition education programs, which had originally numbered seven in 1992, rose to 52.

Has all of the nutrition education of the previous three-plus decades had an overall positive effect on obesity rates in SNAP recipient households? Sadly, the data says no. A 2014 study of adults in Los Angeles that compared both SNAP recipients and others who were eligible for SNAP benefits but did not use them concluded that “SNAP participants had almost three times the odds of being obese when compared with eligible nonparticipants.”

Sugary drinks are likely a contributor. Research in 2016 by the USDA analyzing point of sale data showed that while all households spend more money on sugary drinks than any other item, SNAP-participating households spent a higher percentage of their food budgets on sweetened beverages than non-SNAP recipients. Other analyses have captured similar results.

Obviously, senators in the early 1960s were shortsighted to assume that sugary drinks would not be an issue with food stamp purchases. But at the time, only about 13% of Americans were considered obese according to CDC figures. Today, over 40% of Americans are obese, with people in poverty disproportionately so.

RULES ENABLE POOR SPENDING HABITS

In addition to what would be purchased with SNAP dollars, senators in the 1960s could not foresee where it would be purchased. The most common SNAP-eligible retailers in almost every state including Iowa are now convenience stores.

Yes, some like Kwik Star have good selections and sell fresh items like milk, eggs, bread and bananas for prices competitive with regular grocers. But most offer primarily junk food and sell a limited number of grocery items — at typical convenience store premiums. Candy, pop and potato chips can all be purchased using SNAP benefits. Almost anything with a Nutrition Facts label can.

In the name of ensuring access to food to those living in “food deserts,” we’ve sacrificed quality for quantity, at a cost of more than just money. Even liquor stores commonly accept SNAP benefits.

Not for alcohol, tobacco or vape products, of course. But thanks to fairly lax criteria from the USDA, any store that sells the requisite number of what are called “staple foods” can accept SNAP benefits as payment for any eligible food item. As a result, a SNAP recipient who is less than judicious with their benefits can go the Neighborhood Tobacco Outlet in Marion and purchase whiskey and cigarettes with cash and potato chips, pop and candy with their EBT card.

Even rules meant to prevent misuse can be sidestepped. SNAP benefits cannot be used to purchase hot foods — foods already freshly cooked — such as a family-size meal from the fried chicken case at a store. But heated foods — foods that are purchased raw and cooked after the sale — can. As long as the sale of fried chicken or similar items makes up less than 50% of gross sales at an establishment such as a convenience store, a customer can use SNAP benefits to purchase that chicken raw and have it cooked immediately after the sale.

The practice is commonly called “you-buy-we-fry.” In one southwest Cedar Rapids convenience store, it’s advertised on the wall with a notice that it takes 20 minutes for the chicken to cook. To be fair, my non-EBT dollars have paid to confirm it’s pretty tasty chicken. But SNAP benefits were never intended to pay for what is effectively restaurant takeout.

This all demonstrates significant issues with how some SNAP recipients are spending their dollars and what foods those dollars are paying for them to consume — issues that aren’t going to be solved through more money and only more money. Money isn’t as appealing when the solutions it promises seem far less certain than the strings attached.

So when extra money was offered by the federal government for $40 a month in additional SNAP benefits for kids at or below certain income guidelines, Reynolds said no thanks — two years in a row. It’s a gutsy move considering the bloodthirst of her political opposition.

In lieu of the additional funding and benefits, Reynolds proposed using the same funding to work with food banks to distribute food boxes to eligible children and their families over the same time period. Iowa Democrats balked. The USDA said no.

And frankly, I agree that giving a totally uniform product based on where a family lives is much less efficient and effective than just letting families use the funding in a way that meets their needs. If Reynolds wanted Democrats to embrace the food boxes idea, she should have started referring to SNAP benefits as “private food vouchers.”

She and legislative Republicans have tried other measures to address food insecurity while reigning in bad SNAP habits. Last year, they implemented an asset test — a stringent one to be sure. In 2023, they attempted to limit approved foods to those allowed under WIC, a separate program designed for women with infants and children that limits purchases to a list of healthy foods similar to what this year’s Double Up bill would likely entail. The 2023 effort was not fruitful (no pun intended.)

This year’s House bill, should it pass, won’t fix the concerns with SNAP spending and allowable purchases. Nor can it. A state should not bear the burden of fixing a federal program.

But change is needed. And doesn’t happen by diving deeper and deeper into the federal coin purse.

How to effect that change is the complicated part. Iowa and the feds each have their roles to play. At least Iowa is stepping up to the plate.

Comments: 319-398-8266; althea.cole@thegazette.com