What began in 1939 to help move surplus foods has grown into what is now the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, administered by the USDA.
Much has been written about recent changes to the program that seek to prohibit the purchase of unhealthy foods. While I will concede that much of the hype on both sides is fodder for the bases, there are numerous studies that show there is no major difference in the selection of foods between SNAP and non-SNAP households.
According to one study, approximately “40 cents of every dollar of food expenditures by SNAP households was spent on items such as meat, fruits, vegetables, milk, eggs, and bread. Another 20 cents out of every dollar were spent on sweetened beverages, desserts, salty snacks, candy, and sugar. The remaining 40 cents were spent on a variety of items such as cereal, prepared foods, dairy products, rice, and beans.”
While I would never advocate for government overreach like when we saw NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg push for a ban on large sodas, the government should have little to no input when comes to what we choose to buy and consume. The difference here is simple: the purpose of the program is to provide “supplemental nutrition” to those in need.
Hunger is a real problem. Approximately 620,000 Oklahomans receive SNAP benefits: 255,150 are under the age of 18; 70,672 are disabled; and 68,141 are over the age of 60. As a nation founded upon Christian principles, we should see to it that no one returns to hopeless and destitution that the country witnessed during the Great Depression. There is no doubt that SNAP benefits play a critical role in providing the most basic of needs to these Oklahomans.
But one should ask, are there better ways to alleviate hunger and food insecurity than spending $64.4 million per year on potato chips alone? That figure comes from a 2011 USDA report.
Those receiving assistance should not be shamed. Most SNAP précipitants are working, disabled, or elderly. The “beans and rice” arguments are not just unrealistic but inhumane. Their diet should not be a stark departure from the one you and I enjoy. Also, if a single mom is doing her best to provide for her children, I won’t take issue with a birthday cake. If we want children to grow up and become successful adults, a level of normalcy is more than warranted; it is a necessity. According to that same study, SNAP recipients spent $19.8 million on “Birthday/Celebration.
But one must wonder if we limited “Frozen Single Serve Premium Traditional Meals,” could we not spend that $43.8 million on healthier options instead? What about the $13.2 million spent on chewing gum?
This movement is not, nor should it be, about limiting who can apply for benefits or even reducing the average $157 per person that SNAP provides; it is about recognizing that America has an obesity crisis (which can be added to the long list of other crises). Even the author of this column could stand to lose 50 pounds. If we are going to invest in promoting a healthier population, perhaps we should start with the foods that we fund.
Imagine for a moment if we allowed more benefits dollars to be spent at farmers markets than convenience stores. Not only would we push a healthier diet, but we would help our local producers, which in turn would benefit the entire system.
JJ Français is an award-winning editorial writer and photographer with more than 15 years in the newspaper and media industry. He can be reached at jj.francais@swoknews.com mailto:jj.francais@swoknews.com