Ag Committee weighs whether SNAP should pay for sugary drinks

Source: iStock

Prohibiting the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages and other “unhealthy” foods and beverages with SNAP benefits, also known as food stamps, likely would not discourage their consumption, but would be costly and difficult for retailers to implement, industry stakeholders argued on Capitol Hill last week. 

But others at the House Agriculture Committee meeting Feb. 16 in Washington, DC, said the restrictions are worth a shot given how sugary beverages offer no nutritional value and contribute to obesity and related chronic diseases.

Committee Chairman K. Michael Conway held the hearing to consider the pros and cons of restricting Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in light of a US Department of Agriculture report released last fall that found about 20% of SNAP benefits pay for sweetened drinks, desserts, salty snacks, candy and sugar.

“The report, while not the sole basis of this hearing, begs the question of whether certain food or beverage items should be restricted as eligible food items from SNAP,” Conway said in his opening comments at the meeting.

He added: “Our goal is to provide much needed nutrition and to encourage Americans to eat healthier.”

To that end, some public health and social service advocates argue restricting the use of SNAP benefits to buy sugar sweetened beverages could improve the health and well-being of SNAP recipients.

As a nutrition assistance program dedicated to improving the nutrition of low-income households, “SNAP could do more to support healthy eating among recipient households, especially children,” Angela Rachidi, a research fellow in poverty studies, testified at the hearing.

Rachidi suggests launching a demonstration project to test a sweetened beverage restriction as the foundation of evidence-based policy making.

“It could involve a few states or localities to assess whether the potential gains, such as better health, can be achieved without adverse effects on other measures of well-being,” Rachidi said.

She explained that the demonstration would not be difficult for retailers to implement because the technology currently used to disburse SNAP benefits already codes which items are and are not eligible for coverage.

She also noted that a survey of SNAP participants showed more than half supported the restriction.

An ‘administrative nightmare’

Contrary to what Rachidi argues, the Food Marketing Institute argued at the hearing that limiting what products are eligible under SNAP based on health would be expensive and difficult for USDA to implement and retailers to enforce.

Leslie Sarasin, president and CEO of FMI, noted at the hearing that 20,000 new products are introduced to the marketplace annually and USDA would need to hire additional staff to determine each product’s eligibility and then encode it in the electronic payments system.

Not to mention a policy for determining a product’s healthfulness and therefore ability to qualify as eligible would need to be developed, she noted.

The restrictions “also would prove an administrative nightmare, increasing the cost of acceptance and slowing down checkout lines in an industry that historically has experienced only just more than 1% profit margin and in which every second of delay affects profitability and ultimately the number of associates that can be hired and the prices in a store,” she said.

A ban would not reduce consumption

Not only would a ban be difficult to implement, but others argued at the meeting that they likely would not have the intended impact because “the rational for the bans is based on a false understanding of how SNAP benefits work,” Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, director of the Hamilton Project and senior fellow in economic studies at The Brookings Institution, said at the meeting.

She explained that SNAP benefits are modest, at about $4.50 per person per day, and “as a result nearly all families supplement their SNAP purchases with groceries purchased from their cash income.”

As such, she argues, if soft drink purchases are banned from using SNAP benefits, recipients simply would pay for them out of their other income.

“In other words,” she said, “a ban will likely increase the administrative costs of the program to both the USDA and retailers, and increase the stigma faced by recipients when they use the benefits, but not have the benefit of inducing any behavior changes.”

Rachidi recognized this risk in her testimony, but she still advocated for a pilot program because “it is unclear how SNAP households would respond to a restriction until it is tested and rigorously evaluated.”

Related News

USDA rejects NYC food stamps soda ban

USDA rejects NYC food stamps soda ban

Policies that ban or reduce the availability of unhealthy foods have the greatest anti-obesity effect, according to the findings of the new systematic analysis.

From soda bans to nutrient labelling: What really helps reduce obesity?

Food Stamp soda exemption in NYC is discriminatory, says industry

Source: iStock

More governments will act to restrict soda consumption, but additional progress needed, CSPI says

Related Products

See more related products

Comments (3)

Amanda Rose, RDN - 22 Feb 2017 | 06:08

There should be restrictions!

I am also a Registered Dietitian, and I completely agree with banning the purchase of particular beverages and foods with SNAP benefits. I feel like this could be a great opportunity to educate the public! I would also like to point out that there are very strict rules on what you can or cannot purchase with WIC benefits; so there are not truly any grounds for the claims that it will be too difficult for recipients to understand and more time consuming during the checkout process.

22-Feb-2017 at 18:08 GMT

Julia Quattrini, RDN - 21 Feb 2017 | 11:56

SNAP restrictions seem well-intentioned, but misplaced.

As a Registered Dietitian, I would love to see more policy aimed at reducing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. However, I question whether banning these items from SNAP purchases is the right move. I can see a policy like this producing a lot of hostility and not much behavior change, due to the painfully evident top-down nature of it. Essentially, a policy like this says "we think you shouldn't drink this, so now you can't. You're welcome," without offering any type of solution, like making healthy foods accessible and affordable. Additionally, this would do nothing to encourage healthier behaviors by those who do not receive SNAP, yet still have very tight food budgets. Over-consumption of junk food is rampant in our entire population: this problem is not unique to SNAP recipients. I would like to see more resources put into policies that tax the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages across the board, and use that to subsidize lower prices for fruits and vegetables. Or something of the like. We need to do better on comprehensively reforming our food system, and focus less on controlling our most impoverished population.

21-Feb-2017 at 23:56 GMT

Submit a comment

Your comment has been saved

Post a comment

Please note that any information that you supply is protected by our Privacy and Cookie Policy. Access to all documents and request for further information are available to all users at no costs, In order to provide you with this free service, William Reed Business Media SAS does share your information with companies that have content on this site. When you access a document or request further information from this site, your information maybe shared with the owners of that document or information.