Social Welfare Issue Policy

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): History, Politics, and Public Health Implications

This commentary introduces a

special section of AJPH on the

Supplemental Nutrition Assis-

tance Program (SNAP), the US

government’s largest antihunger

program and third-largest anti-

poverty program. SNAP demon-

strably lifts adults, children, and

families out of poverty, thereby

constituting a vital component

of this nation’s public health

safety net.

Despite its well-documented

benefits, SNAP is under political

and budgetary siege, mainly

from congressional represen-

tatives and lobbying groups

opposed to a federal role in

welfare. In part, SNAP is pro-

tected from total annihilation

by its unusual authorizing

legislation—the Farm Bill.

This commentary provides a

brief overview of the political

history of SNAP and its Farm

Bill location as background to

the deeper analyses provided in

this series of articles. (Am J Public

Health. 2019;109:1631–1635. doi:

10.2105/AJPH.2019.305361)

Marion Nestle, PhD, MPH

See also the AJPH Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program section, pp. 1636-1677.

The Supplemental NutritionAssistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, is by far the largest antihunger program in the United States and, therefore, is a vital component of the welfare safety net for low- income Americans. SNAP is de- monstrably effective in reducing hunger, food insecurity, and pov- erty,therebyreducingtheeffectsof these conditions on public health (see Table 1 for definitions). In 2017, SNAP alone is said to have lifted 3.4 million people out of poverty, nearly half of them chil- dren, and it ranks third only to Social SecurityandEarned Income Tax Credits in its effectiveness in reducing poverty.1 It also benefits the economy with a multiplier effectthat makes every$1 billion in SNAP benefits worth $1.5 billion in gross domestic product.2

Despite the evident value of SNAP to public health and to the economy, it is the target of critics across the political spectrum. Antihunger and public health supporters of SNAP want the program to do more and better: to increase enrollments and benefits and improve diet quality.3 But opponents of government-supported welfare want SNAP to do less. They view the program as too bloated and expensive, and they charge that it encourages idleness, depen- dency, and fraud.4 Although these charges do not hold up under scrutiny, opponents of

SNAP control the power in to- day’s political environment. Even so, the program is protected against total destruction by the peculiar location of its authoriz- ing legislation—in the Farm Bill (Pub L 115-334), the law prin- cipally designed to protect the interests of agribusiness. Congress cannot get the votes to pass agri- cultural supports unless it simul- taneously authorizes SNAP.

But before exploring the his- tory of SNAP and its contested politics, it is worth reviewing some basic facts. SNAP is indeed large and expensive: in 2018, it provided 40.3 million adults and children (one in eight Americans) with an average benefit of $125 per month—at a total cost of $60.8 billion in benefits and $4.4 billion in administrative ex- penses.5 SNAP is administered by the US Department of Agricul- ture (USDA) but dominates ex- penditures; it accounts for about 65% of the agency’s budget—and nearly 80% of total Farm Bill expenditures. SNAP is an enti- tlement; anyone who qualifies on the basis of income and assets can obtain benefits, and enrollments rise and fall with changes in the poverty rate.6 Participants receive

SNAP benefits via Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) debit cards administered through con- tracts between USDA and banks.

SNAP is relatively permissive: participants may use EBT cards to buy any food, beverage, or food seed or plant but may not use those funds to buy alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, pet foods, dietary supplements, hot foods, or nonfood items (they can buy these items with their own money). The USDA requires retailers authorized to sell foods to SNAP participants to stock specific categories and amounts of staple foods.7 Most SNAP funds (82%) are spent at supermarkets or superstores, making retailers the program’s greatest beneficiaries and defenders of the status quo.8 A smaller percentage (15%) is spent at convenience or small grocery stores and, despite substantial promotion and incentive efforts, only 0.02% is spent at farmers markets.9 In 2019, a USDA pilot project permitted New York State participants to use SNAP benefits to shop online through Amazon, Walmart, and ShopRite; other states and online retailers are expected to follow.10

SNAP unquestionably reaches the poor and vulnerable. In 2017,

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Marion Nestle is with the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, New York University, New York, NY.

Correspondence should be sent to Marion Nestle, Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, 411 Lafayette, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003-7035 (e-mail: [email protected]). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the “Reprints” link.

This article was accepted August 20, 2019. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305361

December 2019, Vol 109, No. 12 AJPH Nestle Peer Reviewed Commentary 1631

AJPH SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

the average SNAP household income was just 63% of the poverty line. SNAP households include children (43.5%), the elderly (13%), and the disabled (11%). SNAP participants are 36% White (compared with 61% of the general population11), 25% African American (compared with 13%), and 16.5% Hispanic (compared with 18%). Able- bodied adults without de- pendents are required to work or to be enrolled in employment programs for at least 20 hours per week; otherwise, they cannot receive more than 3 months of benefits in a 36-month period (some states have waived these requirements). In 2017, 25% of SNAP recipients worked, al- though these jobs did not raise their incomes high enough to disqualify them for benefits.12

To introduce the series of articles about SNAP in this issue of AJPH, this commentary deals with how this program, which started out in the Great De- pression of the 1930s as a means to alleviate hunger while also helping farmers, evolved to be- come the primary means of US food assistance, embedded in the

Farm Bill, and the flash point for political battles about whether and how to deal with American poverty. Current efforts to “re- form” SNAP (in quotes because the term is often a euphemism for budget cuts, enrollment re- ductions, work requirements, and, these days, keeping even legal immigrants off the rolls), are deeply rooted in this country’s history of welfare, food assis- tance, and policy compromise.

WELFARE HISTORY: ATTITUDES TOWARD THE POOR

To anyone who has studied the English Poor Laws dating back to the 1600s, the current rationale for opposition to SNAP sounds remarkably familiar. Those laws derived from views of the poor as inherently unworthy, and of poverty as a matter of personal choice—not as the result of misfortune or a rapidly in- dustrializing economic system. Through public taxes, the Poor Laws authorized local provision of benefits. Out of fear of

inducing dependency, the laws kept benefits at levels barely ad- equate to prevent overt starvation or rebellion. They required re- cipients to work and to be pun- ished for not working; they created poorhouses, authorized imprisonment, and encouraged child labor. Although their os- tensible purpose was to relieve hunger, they also had underlying political goals: to maintain public order, control the poor, and maintain a low-wage work force, and, for politicians, to gain power.13

The punitive nature of these laws and their failure to relieve poverty are well known from the writings of Charles Dickens and others. Nevertheless, the colo- nists brought them to America where they have influenced policy ever since. As in England, local governments could not keep up with the demands, even when supplemented by churches, fraternal orders, and private charities. A federal role in poor relief only became possible in 1913 when Congress passed the income tax law. Federal in- volvement in food assistance began later, in the 1930s, when

massive unemployment and devastating poverty became a political problem that could not be ignored.14

Then and now, government interventions elicited fierce de- bates. How should societies bal- ance compassion for the poor against fears that tax-supported relief measures would induce dependency? What level of benefit is appropriate? Should benefits be provided in the form of cash or ways that enable agencies to control what bene- ficiaries can buy? Should benefits be tied to work requirements? It is fair to say that positions on these arguments have far more to do with politics than public health.

FOOD ASSISTANCE HISTORY: SURPLUSES VS HUNGER

SNAP may be the third- largest welfare program in the United States, but it is by far the largest of the USDA’s food assistance programs.15

Table 2 summarizes key events in its history. The origins of SNAP date back to the unem- ployment-induced poverty of the Great Depression, when farmers were producing surplus food but masses of people could not afford to buy it. Some farmers went bankrupt, but others deliberately destroyed their animals, grains, or fruit. That so many people were relying on soup kitchens or breadlines while farmers—and sometimes the government— destroyed unsold food created a political crisis. The government’s win–win solution: distribute surplus commodities to the poor while also—and politically more important—paying farmers a fair price for what they produced.16

TABLE 1—Basic Definitions of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Policy Terms

Term Definition

Hunger The highly unpleasant sensation elicited by acute or chronic lack of sufficient food.

Malnutrition The longer-term physiological or cognitive signs of chronically deficient intake of

energy or nutrients.

Food insecurity Inadequate access to reliable sources of food or to resources to obtain food. By this

definition, people are considered food insecure even when they have enough but

acquired it through food banks, private charity, or means that are socially

unacceptable or illegal.

Poverty The lack of resources to obtain food, clothing, housing, and other necessities of life.

In 2017, the United States defined the poverty threshold as $12 488 for an

individual and $25 094 for a household of four people (http://bit.ly/2lVcHRn).

Public health consequences of poverty and

food insecurity

Children and adolescents: higher risk of low birth weight, short stature, poor oral

health, asthma, developmental delays, learning disabilities, behavioral and

emotional problems, high-risk behaviors. Adults: higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, depression,

disability, poor oral health, reduced life expectancy (http://bit.ly/2kJPzoT).

AJPH SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

1632 Commentary Peer Reviewed Nestle AJPH December 2019, Vol 109, No. 12

The USDA’s food distribu- tion programs did indeed help farmers more than the poor. They also excluded food retailers and wholesalers, who lobbied for the first food stamp program in 1939. The USDA sold orange stamps that low-income partici- pants could exchange at retail stores for any food except alco- holic beverages, tobacco, and items eaten on premises (soft drinks were added to the ex- clusions in 1941, but later re- instated). For each dollar spent on orange stamps, the USDA gave participants blue stamps worth 50 cents that had to be spent on surplus commodities—beans, eggs, and fruit, for example. During the 4 years of its

existence, this program reached 4 million people. Food stamps converted participants into con- sumers. It was popular with retail grocers and with participants who had enough money to invest in the stamps. It ended in 1943 during World War II when un- employment declined along with agricultural surpluses.17

Poverty and hunger contin- ued after the war, but attempts to reinstate food stamps failed until 1961 when President John F. Kennedy initiated pilot programs in several states. Participants still had to buy the stamps but did not have to use the bonus stamps for surplus commodities. This change further entrenched food stamps as a consumer program

with benefits for retailers and the makers of processed foods. By 1964, 370 000 participants in 22 states were participating in pilot programs at an annual cost of $30.5 million.18

POLITICAL LOGROLLING: SNAP IN THE FARM BILL

SNAP may be critical to the health of participants, but it has always been subject to rules and funding set by congressional ag- riculture committees whose pri- mary mandate is to promote agribusiness. This odd situation is attributable in part to SNAP’s

origins in USDA-managed food distribution programs but also to the program’s increasing in- tegration into Farm Bills.

From 1954 to 1964, members of Congress introduced legisla- tion for national food stamp programs. These bills were largely supported by urban Democrats who viewed food stamps as public welfare, distinct from commodity agriculture. The bills were largely opposed by Republicans and Southern Democrats uncomfortable with their cost and lack of benefit to farmers, but also politically op- posed to fostering dependency, expanding USDA’s mission, and promoting civil rights for Southern participants.

Although Congress passed food stamp legislation in 1959, the program was not imple- mented until 1964 when Presi- dent Lyndon B. Johnson orchestrated classic political “logrolling.” Urban Democrats agreed to vote for wheat and cotton legislation only if rural Democrats would agree to vote for food stamps (Republicans generally disapproved of both measures).19 As passed, the pur- pose of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (Pub L 88–525) was to permit low-income households to “receive a greater share of the Nation’s food abundance.” The act eliminated the surplus com- modity requirement, excluded imported foods, and required participants to use the stamps only at qualified grocery stores at prevailing retail prices—a loss for farmers, but a win for retailers.

After 1964, as the program grew in coverage and cost, Congress responded by intro- ducing tighter eligibility stan- dards, work requirements, penalties for nonworking par- ticipants, and measures to ensure accountability and prevent fraud. Congress also increasingly

TABLE 2—Selected Events in the History of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): United States, 1939–2019

Date Event

1939–1943 USDA’s first food stamp program. People on relief can buy orange stamps to exchange for food at participating

retailstores;foreach dollarstamppurchased,USDAprovidesabluestampworth50centsfor surpluscommodity

foods at those stores.

1961–1964 Pilot food stamp programs. Participants in 22 states can buy subsidized stamps to exchange for eligible foods and

beverages at retail stores.

1964 Food Stamp Act authorizes recipients to purchase subsidized stamps usable for eligible retail foods and

beverages.

1973 Farm Bill: Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act amends the Food Stamp Act of 1964 to require state plans for

food stamp programs; adds imported foods and food-producing seeds and plants to SNAP-eligible items.

1977 Farm Bill: Food and Agriculture Act incorporates the Food Stamp Act of 1977 as Title XIII; eliminates purchase

requirements for the stamps.

1990 Mickey Leland Memorial Domestic Hunger Relief Act authorizes use of EBT cards.

1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act restricts food stamp eligibility, reduces

benefits, tightens work requirements, and expands penalties.

2008 Farm Bill: Food, Conservation, and Energy Act. Title IV Nutrition renames the program SNAP.

2014 Farm Bill: Agricultural Act. Title IV Nutrition tightens SNAP eligibility and verification requirements.

2018 Farm Bill: Agriculture Improvement Act. Despite attempts to introduce more stringent work requirements, Title

IV Nutrition remains relatively unchanged. Department of Homeland Security proposes to refuse admission to

the United States of aliens likely to use public benefits, including food assistance. White House proposes to

introduce “harvest boxes” of commodities to replace some SNAP benefits and to eliminate state waivers for

SNAP work requirements.

2019 USDA implements congressionally mandated pilot projects for online purchases; finalizes “public charge”

measures to discourage immigrants from using SNAP and other services. Supreme Court rules that retailers do

not have to reveal data on in-store SNAP purchases. Administration proposes to end categorical eligibility for

participants qualifying for other federal and state assistance.

Notes. EBT = Electronic Benefit Transfer; USDA = US Department of Agriculture.

AJPH SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

December 2019, Vol 109, No. 12 AJPH Nestle Peer Reviewed Commentary 1633

embedded food stamps in Farm Bills. The 1973 Farm Bill amended the 1964 Food Stamp Act, addingimported foods to the list of eligible items. The 1977 bill incorporated the entire Food Stamp Act as a separate title for “raising levels of nutrition among low-income households,” and the 2008 bill renamed the program SNAP in view of its nutritional purpose and the replacement of stamps by EBT cards.

During the 1970s, budget reductions and more restrictive welfare policies reduced program participation. In the early 1980s, local communities and states began to document the failure of both the federal safety net and private charity to meet the in- come and food needs of the poor.20 The program grew again and, by 1994, more than 27 million people were enrolled. Two years later, President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Op- portunity Reconciliation Act (Pub L 104–193) to “end welfare as we know it.”21 This act further restricted program eligibility, tightened work requirements, reduced benefits, and expanded penalties. Food stamp enroll- ments fell, setting a precedent for how such measures could be used to weaken the program.

SNAP UNDER SIEGE: “REFORM” VS SAFETY NET

Although food insecurity has now declined from peak levels, it still affects 12% of the pop- ulation.22 Public health advocates continue to urge improvement of SNAP’s outreach, eligibility, and benefits. They also call for efforts to promote healthier diets among SNAP participants and urge the USDA to release store data on

SNAP food purchases. Although limited information from one retailer suggests that SNAP par- ticipants use their benefits to buy more highly processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages than does the general population,23

most retailers have refused to disclose this information. The USDA says it cannot compel retailers to share such data without a congressional mandate, and, as discussed by Jennifer Pomeranz in this issue (p. 1659), the Supreme Court has ruled that retailers do not have to dis- close this information. The USDA did establish an obesity- prevention grant program in 201624 but has rejected attempts by cities and states to conduct pilot projects to remove sugary drinks and other highly processed (“junk”) foods from SNAP pur- chase eligibility.

In the current political cli- mate, concerns about cost and dependency far outweigh con- cerns about the nutritional health of the poor. Thus, the govern- ment’s recent “reform” efforts have included more stringent work requirements, a proposal to partially replace SNAP benefits with “harvest boxes” of surplus commodities, enforcement of “public charge” measures to deny admissibility or deport immi- grants—even those legally ad- mitted—who use federal food assistance, a requirement that sponsors of immigrants reimburse the costs of public assistance, and a proposal to eliminate automatic SNAP eligibility for people who qualify for other federal and state benefits. USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue justifies such measures as promoting personal responsibil- ity: “government dependency has never been the American dream.”25 As was their true purpose, these measures have succeeded in reducing SNAP enrollments.

The articles in this special section of AJPH address these issues head on. They begin with analyses of SNAP’s overall importance and accomplish- ments (Keith-Jennings et al., p. 1636) in settings both rural (Harnack et al., p. 1641) and urban (Cohen, p. 1646) and, in a relatively new develop- ment, among college students (Freudenberg et al., p. 1652). Pomeranz (p. 1659) provides an analysis of why SNAP expen- diture data are essential for ef- fective advocacy for program improvements. As for alterna- tive ways to address poverty, Gaines-Turner et al. (p. 1664) explore how SNAP partici- pants themselves view pro- gram and policy needs, and Fernald and Gosliner (p. 1668) examine how other countries have chosen to address poverty and food insecurity, often more effectively than in the United States.

Together, these articles com- prise a textbook case study of a food assistance program that could do far more to address both poverty and food insecurity—if only it were not blocked by partisan politics. Similarly blocked are other policies known to reduce poverty and its public health consequences: adequate minimum wages, tax credits, subsidies for housing, health care, child care, job training. Objec- tions that the costs of food assis- tance and other public health antipoverty policies are too high are clearly not based on resource availability but rather derive from dismissive attitudes toward the poor, politics, and lack of political will, as the articles in this AJPH section so clearly demonstrate.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author thanks Daniel Bowman Simon for comments on an earlier version of this article.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST The author receives royalties from books and honoraria from lectures about matters relevant to this commentary.

REFERENCES 1. Fox L, Mykta L. Supplemental poverty measure shows who benefits from gov- ernment programs. US Census Bureau. September 12, 2018. Available at: https:// www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/ 09/supplemental-nutrition-assistance- program-lifts-millions-out-of-poverty. html. Accessed September 24, 2019.

2. Canning P, Stacy B. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the economy: new estimates of the SNAP multiplier. ERR-265. Wash- ington, DC: US Department of Agricul- ture, Economic Research Service; 2019.

3. SNAP to health: a fresh approach to strengthening the Supplemental Nutri- tion Assistance Program. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of the Presi- dency and Congress; 2012.

4. Rector R, Menon V. SNAP Reform Act offers sound basis for welfare policy. The Heritage Foundation. January 9, 2018. Available at: https://www.heritage. org/hunger-and-food-programs/report/ snap-reform-act-offers-sound-basis- welfare-policy. Accessed September 24, 2019.

5. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. SNAP data tables. National level annual summary: partici- pation and costs, 1969–2018. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/ supplemental-nutrition-assistance- program-snap. Accessed September 24, 2019.

6. Center for Budget and Policy Priori- ties. Policy basics: the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). June 25, 2019. Available at: https://www. cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-the- supplemental-nutrition-assistance- program-snap. Accessed September 24, 2019.

7. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance- program. Accessed September 24, 2019.

8. Simon M. Food stamps follow the money: are corporations profiting from hungry Americans? Eat, Drink, Politics. June 2012. Available at: http://www. eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/ uploads/FoodStampsFollowtheMoney Simon.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2019.

9. US Department of Agriculture. SNAP retailer data: 2017 year end summary. Available at: https://fns-prod.azureedge. net/sites/default/files/snap/2017- SNAP-Retailer-Management-Year- End-Summary.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2019.

AJPH SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

1634 Commentary Peer Reviewed Nestle AJPH December 2019, Vol 109, No. 12

10. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. USDA launches SNAP online purchasing pilot. April 18, 2019. Available at: https://www.fns.usda. gov/pressrelease/2019/fns-000319. Accessed September 24, 2019.

11. US Census Bureau. Quick facts: United States. Population estimates, July 1, 2018. Available at: https://www. census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/ PST045218. Accessed September 24, 2019.

12. Cronquist K, Lauffer S. Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program households: fiscal year 2017. February 2019. Available at: https://fns- prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/ ops/Characteristics2017.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2019.

13. Quigley WP. Five hundred years of English Poor Laws, 1349–1834: regulat- ing the working and nonworking poor. Akron Law Rev. 1997;30(1):4.

14. Katz MB. In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1986.

15. Oliveira V. The food assistance landscape: FY 2018 annual report. US Department of Agriculture. 2019. Avail- able at: https://www.ers.usda.gov/ publications/pub-details/?pubid=92895. Accessed September 24, 2019.

16. Poppendieck J. Breadlines Knee-Deep in Wheat: Food Assistance in the Great De- pression. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2014.

17. Moran RL. Consuming relief. Food Stamps and the new welfare of the New Deal. J Am Hist. 2011;97(4):1001–1022.

18. Richardson J. A concise history of the Food Stamp program. Congressional Research Service Report No. 79-244. November 16, 1979. Available at: https:// digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/ metacrs8857. Accessed September 24, 2019.

19. Ripley RB. Legislative bargaining and the Food Stamp Act, 1964. In: Cleaveland FN, ed. Congress and Urban Problems: A Casebook on the Legislative Process. Washington, DC: Brookings In- stitution; 1969:279–310.

20. Nestle M, Guttmacher S. Hunger in the United States: rationale, methods, and policy implications of state hunger sur- veys. J Nutr Educ. 1992;24(1):18S–22S.

21. Congressional Research Service. Short history of the 1996 Welfare Reform Law. February 7, 2001. Available at: https://www.everycrsreport. com/files/20010207_RS20807_ c9b18070b6269eac37d3074ab721fa53 dcdeb4cc.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2019.

22. Coleman-Jensen A, Rabbitt MP, Gregory CA, Singh A. Household food security in the United States in 2017. ERR-256. Washington, DC: US

Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service; September 2018.

23. US Department of Agriculture. Foods typically purchased by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) households. November 2016. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/ foods-typically-purchased-supplemental- nutrition-assistance-program-snap- households. Accessed September 24, 2019.

24. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Final rule: SNAP Nutrition Education and Obesity Pre- vention Grant Program. March 31, 2016. Available at: https://www.fns.usda.gov/ snap/fr-033116. Accessed September 24, 2019.

25. Perdue S. Commentary: Utah an example of boosting self-sufficiency. Salt Lake City Tribune. May 24, 2019. Avail- able at: https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ commentary/2019/05/24/commentary- utah-an. Accessed September 24, 2019.

AJPH SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

December 2019, Vol 109, No. 12 AJPH Nestle Peer Reviewed Commentary 1635