Big change in SNAP benefits: 100,000 families will be affected

There is a commotion regarding food stamps (SNAP) in the American state of Idaho these days. The state administration wishes people to stop using their SNAP benefits in the purchase of items such as candy and soda. Yes, you heard correctly. This is not an isolated local issue, but an emerging national trend, which gained pace after the return of Donald Trump.

What is SNAP and why is it so important?

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is a federal program through which low-income individuals receive assistance to purchase food. Eligible individuals under this scheme are provided with an EBT card, which is similar to a debit card. Money is deposited on this card each month, whereby poor individuals are able to purchase ration for their household.

In Idaho, roughly over 1,30,000 individuals are reliant on this scheme. If the state government modifies this, then it will influence roughly 1,00,000 families.

What things can be prohibited from buying?

Now the state government is seeking to prohibit the buying of “junk food” under SNAP. Recently the local House of Representatives voted for Bill 109, wherein **38 voted for it and *32 voted against*. Interestingly, this vote was *not along party lines* – since 23 Republicans and all the Democrats themselves opposed this proposal.

The state government wishes to request permission from the federal government to terminate the practice of purchasing candy and soda with SNAP benefits. But the issue at hand is what is deemed “sweet”?

The bill states that anything that is made with sugar, honey or sweetener and is in the form of chocolate-covered bars, chunks or gummies with fruit, nuts, etc. can be cut out. But if it’s more than 10% flour or requires refrigeration, it can live.

Thus, packaged cakes can be bought, but not Hershey’s chocolate! Is it weird?

Opinion of supporters and opponents of the bill

Advocates of this bill argue that this proposal has been drafted to encourage healthy nutrition. Representative Jordan Redman indicates that this is a move towards improved nutrition.

But few professionals are willing to accept this line of argumentation. As Washington College professor Valerie Imbruce explains, yogurt has as much as 20 grams of sugar, pasta sauces have sugar, and the usual granola bars are sweetened. Why go after chocolate and soft drinks alone?

Another issue is that much of Idaho is rural, and fresh fruits and vegetables are not easily accessible. Folks tend to shop at small convenience stores or gas stations, where the healthiest thing to grab is likely dust-covered Cheetos!

So the question is, if folks are getting a little bit of energy from a Snickers bar, is it appropriate to cut back on buying it? Or will it complicate their lives?

SNAP can change nationwide as well

It’s not solely Idaho. Republican Josh Brechin in Washington introduced the “Healthy SNAP Act” that calls for a total ban on ice cream, soft drinks, desserts, and candy.

His rationale is that “if you want to treat yourself to something, pay out of pocket; why should taxpayers subsidize your poor eating habits?”

Some individuals believe that this argument is legitimate, yet many perceive it as a “stealth attack” on the poor.

Centrist Republicans and Democrats in Idaho opposed to the project regard it as “government overreach.” According to them, the government ought not to tell individuals “what should be on their plate.”

Furthermore, they think that the actual issue is limited access to healthy food and limited nutrition education, not candy. Therefore, why not provide individuals access to farmers markets or provide healthy cooking classes?

Will a ban change anything?

Imbruce is doubtful. He states that people will continue to purchase sugar, only in a different package. And it is true — if you don’t tackle the underlying issue (such as the food industry that adds sugar to everything), it’s a doomed effort.

Furthermore, isn’t it hypocritical to mock the poor for purchasing Coca-Cola, yet allow large corporations a free hand to sell ultra-processed food?

Conclusion: Is it the right move?

Idaho’s proposal to alter SNAP benefits is controversial. On the one hand, it is a move to encourage healthy eating, but on the other, it limits the poor’s freedom of choice in shopping.

The largest question is – Should the government be allowed to dictate what individuals can and cannot purchase for their meals?

Many believe that the real solution is to make fresh and nutritious food more accessible and promote nutrition education, not just ban certain things. Now it remains to be seen whether this law remains just a cosmetic reform or really marks the beginning of significant change.

FAQs