The United States is facing a poverty crisis. Over 40 million Americans live below the federal poverty line and are unable to consistently put food on the table without government assistance.[1] As income inequality worsens and low-income families feel an increasing strain on their pockets, further government intervention may be needed to help families make more money and put food on the table. But poverty is not the only crisis faced by the United States: obesity is an issue that needs to be addressed. Today, over 40% of Americans are obese, which marks an 11% increase since 1999, and obesity-related deaths caused by heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes, or cancer have skyrocketed during this same period.[2] Both issues need to be combated by robust government action, and the federal government’s administration of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) marks an avenue that can be used to address them. By decreasing SNAP benefits gradually as income increases instead of cutting them off altogether, the federal government will encourage upward mobility by ensuring individuals and families do not lose access to food when they get a raise or promotion. The federal government can also put strict guidelines around what SNAP recipients can purchase to prevent over-consumption of highly processed and unhealthy foods that lead to detrimental health outcomes and prevent people from working.
To qualify for SNAP, the gross monthly income of individuals or families must be at or below 130% of the federal poverty line. This corresponds to $1,580 for an individual or $3,250 for a family of four. But once gross household monthly income exceeds 130% of the federal poverty line, low-income individuals and families are at risk of losing all their SNAP benefits.[3] For example, if a single mother of three gets an hourly pay raise from $13 to $15, putting her gross monthly income above 130% of the federal poverty line, she would be at risk of losing all her SNAP benefits even though the $2 pay raise would not cover the food costs for her family. This fact disincentives workers on SNAP from pursuing better career prospects and upward mobility.
What I described above is called the benefits cliff. It simply means that a small increase in income puts individuals and families at risk of losing their benefits because they are now above the income threshold necessary to qualify for SNAP. Because of the benefits cliff, individuals may reject promotions or better career prospects to retain their benefits and put food on the table.[4] To address the benefits cliff and promote upward mobility, I suggest that SNAP benefits not be cut off immediately once an individual or household rises above the income threshold. Instead, benefits should gradually decrease as income increases. For example, if the aforementioned single mother’s gross monthly income increases and puts her household above 130% of the federal poverty line, her benefits would decrease by 25% instead of completely disappearing. This system incentivizes the mother to accept and pursue better career options while also acknowledging that initial increases in income will not be enough to keep food on the table for her and her family.
When focusing on promoting upward mobility, it is also important to enhance the quality of food SNAP recipients can purchase. Nearly 47% of all SNAP recipients are unemployed and not looking for work, and the main reason for this is due to poor health or disability.[5] While recipients are ostensibly required to work, there is a broad exception for those experiencing physical or mental difficulties.[6] If the federal government wants to promote gainful employment, it needs to address the unhealthiness of SNAP recipients so they can work and develop a steady income stream. SNAP recipients spend more on sugary beverages and unhealthy convenience foods compared to Americans not covered by the program;[7] furthermore, researchers also found that low-income households using SNAP had poorer nutrition than low-income households not participating in the program. Another important thing to note is that over 40% of SNAP recipients reported feeling worthless or hopeless in the last month.[8] To get people back to work, SNAP must adjust what recipients are able to purchase with their benefits. Currently, recipients can buy staple foods like fruits and vegetables, meat, poultry, and fish, dairy products, and grains like bread and cereal. They can also purchase accessory foods such as potato chips, baked goods, ice cream, and soda. SNAP recipients are unable to purchase foods that are hot at the point-of-sale, meaning they cannot purchase rotisserie chickens, buffet-bar food items, and soups.[9] I suggest Congress continues to allow SNAP recipients to purchase staple food items, but they should mandate that recipients only spend 20% of their benefits on accessory food items. For example, if an individual lives alone in North Carolina and has an income that is 200% below the federal poverty line, they would receive $291 monthly in SNAP benefits.[10] Under my proposal, this individual would only be able to spend $58.20 monthly on accessory foods that tend to be unhealthier compared to staple foods.
But I also recognize that low-income individuals frequently purchase accessory foods because they are convenient and do not require the prep-time that is needed when consuming staple foods. For this reason, I suggest Congress removes the prohibition on purchasing hot foods by SNAP recipients. Hot food items can be consumed upon purchase and are a better option for recipients that may not have the time to cook staple foods. More importantly, these items are less likely to be extremely processed compared to accessory foods and are better for overall health.
While the evidence showing that SNAP creates and exacerbates poor nutritional outcomes, the Biden Administration has refused to adjust what can be purchased with SNAP benefits. At a recent House Appropriations Committee meeting, USDA Secretary Thomas Vilsack said the only efforts they had towards enhancing nutrition among SNAP recipients was a non-compulsory education program about healthy nutritional options.
Both reforms would address poverty and obesity among low-income individuals and families. But it is worth noting that to place stringent guidelines around what can be purchased with SNAP benefits, the federal government would need to address the lack of health food options in food deserts. This is vital towards accomplishing the goals outlined in this blog post but is an issue that deserves its own in-depth exploration .
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/07/19/what-the-data-says-about-food-stamps-in-the-u-s/
[2] https://www.aei.org/op-eds/congress-must-address-snaps-contribution-to-poor-health/
[3] https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/recipient/eligibility
[4] https://www.benefitscliffs.org/
[5] https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/promoting-mobility-through-snap-toward-better-health-and-employment-outcomes/
[6] https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements
[7] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/snap-program-spending-less-healthy-foods/#:~:text=The%20study%2C%20published%20online%20August%2014%2C%202017%20in,compared%20with%20purchases%20paid%20for%20with%20other%20means.
[8] https://www.aei.org/health-care/health-policy/snap-shouldnt-subsidize-poor-health/
[9] https://www.ncoa.org/article/what-can-you-buy-with-snap
[10] https://www.morefood.org/using-snap/am-i-eligible/
