Within this year’s blizzard of cutbacks and restrictions of public assistance, both state and national, one that seems to make at least surface sense is Idaho House Bill 109, which bans candy and sugary drinks from the products that can be obtained with what most people still call food stamps.
The benefit (properly, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) was intended originally to keep people from going hungry and, implicitly, allow them to maintain decent health. The use of SNAP benefits long has carried guardrails - you can’t use them to buy alcoholic drinks, or cigarettes or hot foods, for example - but broadly, non-alcoholic beverages and snacks are allowed. Or have been.
If part of the goal of SNAP is to foster good health, though, why shouldn’t candy and sugar drinks be exempt, like cigarettes and liquor? It’s hard to argue (maybe allowing for rare exceptions) they don’t degrade health, certainly the case of sugar-packed candies and high-sugar and high-caffeine drinks: these “food” purchases can turn into health issues down the road. And a recent federal report estimates 13% to 17% of SNAP benefits go toward these purchases.
After the legislature passed HB 109, the restriction still needed federal approval; that came on June 11. Alex Adams, then director of the state Department of Health and Welfare (which administers the program), remarked, “This is about ensuring that public dollars are used to support public health. By aligning SNAP benefits with nutritional goals, we’re not only promoting better outcomes for families today—we’re investing in a healthier, more resilient Idaho.”
Idaho is not alone in moving this way: Texas, Nebraska, Indiana, Utah and Arkansas are among the other states also restricting SNAP use.
But.
Advocates for the restriction overstep when they argue, as John Bernasconi, administrator of Health and Welfare’s Division of Self-Reliance, did, that “this isn’t about restricting choice—it’s about making it easier for families to choose nutritious options.” He’s wrong: It is about restricting choice.
The question is, is that the right thing to do? The answer isn’t obvious.
In Texas, market owners and operations have questioned how they will be able to adequately monitor sales of the drinks and candies.
There’s also little consistency or clear definition about what can and can’t be sold under SNAP; the rules seem to vary state by state. Back in 2010 when New York City tried to make a similar SNAP change (which yes, it actually did, or tried to), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (then) denied it, saying among other things, “The proposal lacks a clear and practical means to determine product eligibility, which is essential to avoid retailer confusion at point-of-sale and stigma for affected clients.” It could say the same today about the new rules.
And that’s not theoretical. Where do energy drinks fit on the allowable spectrum, or sports drinks? How about almonds if they’re covered with chocolate? Does it matter where the specific edible is located on the store’s shelves?
One Texas food policy analyst remarked, “Sometimes, there's a kid at home alone in a house that has no electricity. They have no experience cooking. Is it more important that they get calories to get through until tomorrow or is it more important that they spend their $6 allotment on a $3 bell pepper?”
There are also food desert problems in the many places outside metro areas where food shopping choices are limited and far between. Gina Plata-Nino of the Food Research & Action Center in Indiana predicted - bearing in mind that compliance with SNAP rules can be expensive - “that some retailers won’t want to update their systems to accommodate the SNAP changes and may stop accepting SNAP benefits altogether.”
The end result, several people in Indiana and Texas predicted, will be fewer people who need help who actually get the help or are able to use it.
An effort to improve health in communities where economic and other incentives have made that more challenging than it should be ought to be welcome. But it has to be carefully thought through, and this one probably is going to take a little more thought.
(image)