Everyone has asked this question: If Mississippi is the poorest state in America, how come it has one of the country’s highest obesity rates?
Aside from dietary habits that tend toward fried chicken and other fatty foods, another answer is the federal government’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps.
“Though the program has ‘nutrition’ prominently in its title, SNAP benefits can be used to purchase soda and ultra-processed foods, which are major drivers of the obesity epidemic. That needs to change,” wrote Leana S. Wen in a column on The Washington Post website.
Wen, a professor of health policy and management at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, makes a compelling case for greater restrictions on what SNAP recipients can buy with the taxpayer aid they receive.
She cited a U.S. Department of Agriculture study from 2011, the latest year available, that showed the second-most-purchased product in the SNAP program was sugar-sweetened beverages, including soft drinks, energy drinks, flavored juice drinks and sweet teas.
These accounted for about 10% of SNAP spending in 2011, Wen said. Those drinks plus junk food like candy, chips and cookies totalled 20% of SNAP spending.
Wen contends that a program with the word “nutrition” in its name isn’t living up to its goal if one-fifth of its money is being spent on products that generally are inconsistent with the idea of providing government assistance to promote better health.
She quoted a pediatric endocrinologist who also is a Harvard professor of nutrition. He said SNAP’s tolerance of unhealthy foods and drinks costs taxpayers money by subsidizing junk food production and, perhaps more importantly, by increasing the cost of medical care for health problems related to a poor diet, like diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
It all sounds quite logical that SNAP needs some changes. So of course some heavy hitters are lined up against the idea.
Unsurprisingly, food and beverage groups oppose restricting SNAP benefits for nutritious products. Wen says they seriously claim it’s hard to draw a line between healthy and unhealthy foods — even though SNAP already prohibits spending on tobacco products, prepared hot foods, pet food and personal hygiene products. Isn’t this why we have bar codes — to let computers alert us to grocery store problems?
A more surprising objection comes from anti-hunger groups, as Wen described them. They actually have a legitimate concern: That politicians will reduce SNAP benefits instead of allowing recipients to redirect their soft drink and junk food spending to healthier products.
The anti-hunger groups have a second objection that is more easily addressed: Why should SNAP recipients be restricted in what they can buy, while others are not?
Well, duh. It goes back to that word “nutrition.” Why should government money allow someone to buy a 24-pack of soft drinks instead of healthier, more nutritious fare like vegetables, fruits, milk and protein?
The Harvard professor pointed out that more SNAP restrictions would not prevent recipients from buying junk food. It’s just that, along with everyone else, they’d have to buy the stuff with their own money.
41 million people get SNAP assistance. That is one of every eight Americans. If we are serious about encouraging healthier diets, this program clearly is a good place to start.
— Jack Ryan, McComb Enterprise-Journal
