|
Over the course of 2018, top scholars will debate on these pages some of the most pressing issues facing low-income Americans today. Policies aimed at reducing poverty and increasing opportunity for low-income Americans will be the focus. Both sides of an issue will be presented in a series of point/counterpoint essays in the hopes of opening minds and advancing discussion. We hope you enjoy it and we welcome respectful feedback in the comments section.
Nearly 43 million Americans receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) benefits, making it a source of considerable focus for those looking to reform programs for low-income people. With the program only nominally committed to nutrition, some experts say restricting unhealthy food and beverage choices — namely sugar-sweetened beverages — is a good place to start.
In this installment of AEI’s Poverty and Social Policy Debate Series, Jerry Mande, former Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety at the USDA and current professor at Tufts University, will debate Craig Gundersen, Professor in Agriculture Policy at University of Illinois, on the merits of restrictions on sugary beverages in SNAP. This is the first round of their exchange. You can find the entirety of their debate, as well as sources for the various studies they cite, here.
Jerry Mande:
Absolutely, restricting sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) from SNAP is the best way to protect and strengthen the program. Today the greatest threat to SNAP is no longer its fiscal integrity, which is sound, but SNAP’s nutritional integrity.
These were the findings of the recent Bipartisan Policy Center SNAP Task Force, co-chaired by former USDA secretaries Ann Veneman and Dan Glickman, and Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist. The bipartisan National Commission on Hunger made similar findings in 2015. Both expert panels recommended eliminating SSBs from SNAP. This action is also supported by a majority of SNAP recipients and the public.
Unlike virtually all other foods and beverages, SSBs have no nutritional value and only cause harm to health without benefits. SSB consumption has been linked, time and time again, to weight gain, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. These diseases accrue tremendous health care costs that threaten Medicaid, Medicare, and our entire economy.
Today the greatest threat to SNAP is no longer its fiscal integrity, which is sound, but SNAP’s nutritional integrity.
Recent studies show that the diets of SNAP recipients are slightly worse than Americans of similar income not on SNAP. A USDA study found that sweetened beverages constitute 9% of SNAP purchases, compared to 7% of purchases from non-SNAP households. SNAP is funded by taxpayer dollars to provide nutrition and should not subsidize products that lead to chronic disease and burden an already stressed health care system.
A frequent argument against restricting SSBs is the potential stigma involved. However, growing up as a low-income child with obesity and diabetes is also tremendously stigmatizing. Furthermore, purchases of sugary beverages are a frequent, if often anecdotal, cause for criticism of SNAP. This policy change could help blunt negative views of the program and actually reduce the stigma experienced by SNAP recipients.
There is no denying that most SNAP recipients want to make sound decisions about what to feed themselves and their families. But these desires are no match for the billions of dollars spent on targeted SSB marketing. Treating low-income citizens with dignity and autonomy means prioritizing their health and making nutrition a central tenant of SNAP.
Craig Gundersen:
There is a long history of proposals to place restrictions on SNAP recipients. These proposals are based on the perception that participants are extravagant in their food purchases (e.g., comments like “the other day I saw a man using food stamps to buy lobster”) and/or are purchasing the “wrong” things (“the woman and her children in front of me in line were using SNAP to buy sugary cereals”).
It is therefore not surprising that an array of proposals has emerged based on these perceptions. For example, the Trump administration wants to give SNAP recipients pre-selected “Harvest Boxes” of shelf-stable foods from the US as a large portion of their benefits, regardless of the family’s dietary needs, preferences, allergies, or other factors. In his essay, Mr. Mande has argued for a similar proposal to place restrictions on the purchases of some types of “Sugar Sweetened Beverages” (SSBs). While these proposals may help score political points for some, they have been roundly criticized by anti-hunger groups and other organizations concerned about the well-being of low-income families in the United States — and for good reason.
Credible study after study has shown that SNAP recipients are no more likely to be obese than eligible non-participants, or are even less likely to be obese.
Study after study has shown that SNAP has been a profound success at achieving its central goal of reducing food insecurity in our country. A direct result of the welcome decrease of hunger in our nation has been reductions in multiple negative health outcomes and associated health care costs. And, along with achieving its main goal of reducing food insecurity, the program leads to improvements across multiple other dimensions over both the short term and, critically, over much longer time horizons.
The studies cited above about the positive impact of SNAP use sophisticated, state-of-the art methods that carefully control for the non-random selection into SNAP and the fungibility of SNAP and cash. Unfortunately, some less rigorous studies have gained traction and led some to believe that SNAP is responsible for increases in obesity as suggested by Mr. Mande. Instead, credible study after study has shown that SNAP recipients are no more likely to be obese than eligible non-participants, or are even less likely to be obese.
SNAP has been successful at combating hunger in our nation because it gives its customers the freedom to choose the grocery items they feel are most appropriate for their families and their budgets. We would never dream of telling farmers receiving subsidies from the USDA, USDA and HHS employees, or Social Security beneficiaries how they should spend these funds from the government. To preserve the success of SNAP, we should accord SNAP recipients — seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, low-paid workers and their children, and other struggling Americans — the same dignity and autonomy.
Jerry Mande is a former Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety at the USDA and a current professor at Tufts University. Craig Gundersen is a Professor in Agriculture Policy at the University of Illinois.
In this installment of AEI’s Poverty and Social Policy Debate Series, Jerry Mande and Craig Gundersen discuss the merits of restrictions on sugary beverages in SNAP.
|
|
