Bill Would Improve "Food Stamp" Program to Emphasize Nutrition, Healthy Eating

A House bill unveiled this week is seeking changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) aimed at encouraging better eating habits among recipients.

The SNAP program, often referred to under its previous "food stamp" moniker, aids eligible low-income Delawareans by providing a modest subsidy for the purchase of food.  According to the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS), about 152,000 residents - about one-in-every-six Delawareans - receive the assistance. 

SNAP benefits are paid with federal funds, but the costs to administer the program are split between the federal and state government. 

State Rep.   Tim Dukes

"I see this as a public health issue," said State Rep. Tim Dukes, R-Laurel, one of the prime sponsors of the bill.  "Gov. Markell has been an outspoken proponent of promoting wellness; reducing obesity; and encouraging exercise and better nutrition.  I believe this initiative is in keeping with those efforts."

Gov. Markell recently held a press event to sign a proclamation in observation of March as National Nutrition Month.  The governor's proposed capital budget, unveiled earlier this year, includes $2.7 million for trails and pathways to encourage healthy lifestyles.

Rep. Dukes also noted his bill is consistent with how the State of Delaware administers the Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC).  Like SNAP, WIC is a food assistance program that is managed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is federally funded, and administered by the state government. 

However, the WIC program stresses high-value nutritional choices, delineating specific healthy foods that are eligible to be purchased using the government benefit.  "If you've ever been in a supermarket, you've probably see signage indicating a certain product is 'WIC eligible,'" said State House Minority Leader Danny Short, R-Seaford, another prime sponsor of the bill.

The SNAP program does have some restrictions.  According to the USDA, recipients cannot use the assistance to buy beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco; any nonfood items; vitamins and medicines; any food that will be eaten in the store; and hot foods.   However, among the items food stamps can be used to purchase are soft drinks, energy drinks, candy, cookies, cakes, snack crackers and ice cream.

Under the bill, a.k.a. the "Delaware Nutritional Improvement Act," the DHSS would draft a list of approved, nutritious SNAP-eligible foods.  The agency would build on the WIC program's existing list with the goal of expanding selection and increasing affordability. 

The bill also directs the DHSS to seek a waiver from the USDA to implement the improvements - a necessary step since the program is paid for with federal money.

Delaware is not the first to seek such a waiver.

Citing sugar-sweetened beverages as "the largest single contributor to the obesity epidemic," in 2010 then New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Governor David A. Paterson asked the USDA for permission to undertake a two-year pilot program preventing city residents from buying sugary soft drinks with SNAP benefits. 

In a research paper published in the October 2012 issue of the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Yale University researchers estimated that approximately $2 billion of food stamps are spent annually on sugary drinks that provide no nutritional content and contribute to obesity.  Those purchases alone constituted 2.3 percent of the money spent on the program nationwide that year.

"We are not talking about reducing benefits or the amount of food purchased by our most vulnerable citizens," Rep. Dukes said.  "Making healthy choices is not inherently more expensive than making unhealthy selections.  I just believe it is ludicrous to have a government nutrition program that subsidizes poor nutritional habits."  

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, since the start of 2012, at least 13 states - including California, New Jersey and Illinois - have considered bills to restrict the purchase of certain foods under SNAP.

The USDA has yet to grant a SNAP waiver to any jurisdiction seeking to ensure the benefits are used for healthy choices.  Among the reasons the agency notes for its refusal are that no clear standards exist for defining foods as "healthy."

The Delaware Department of Health and Social Services has no such reservations.  The DHSS' Division of Public Health has an "Eating for Better Health" webpage that includes nearly a dozen dietary guidelines based on "the best scientific advice on selection of foods for promoting health, preventing disease and maintaining or losing weight."

The USDA has also maintained that implementing SNAP restrictions would increase the program's complexity and costs; and that food stamp participants would simply use their own money to make unhealthy food purchases.

"The USDA is being hypocritical," Rep. Short said.  "WIC specifically emphasizes healthy food choices by making only those items eligible for the program, without being costly or complicated.  SNAP benefits already have some prohibitions, and the USDA has not claimed those restrictions are too difficult to enforce.  How does it make any sense to manage one program for healthy outcomes and neglect that rationality when it comes to an initiative that helps feed nearly 50 million Americans?"

Supporters of the measure also say refining the focus of the SNAP benefit would harmonize that program with other government efforts to help the most vulnerable Americans.

"Good food is good public policy," said Sen. Greg Lavelle, R-Sharpley, the prime sponsor of the bill in the Senate.  "Many SNAP recipients are also eligible for Medicaid benefits.  Our state is spending about $750 million on Medicaid assistance annually, so encouraging wellness through better nutrition is in the best interests of the state, of taxpayers, and especially of the SNAP recipients themselves.  We should be doing what we can to emphasize the 'nutrition' in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program."  

The sponsors admit the deck is stacked against getting a waiver from the USDA to implement their measure, but Rep. Short says it is worth the effort.  "It's not unusual for the federal government to continually resist positive change, bending to public will only after repeated attempts. We need to make the 'ask,' before they can say 'yes.'  I think this proposal makes sense and will help people.  It is certainly a conversation worth having."

The bill has been distributed to all state legislators for sponsorship.  It will be introduced in the State House of Representatives next week.