NGA Response to AEI Article on SNAP Restrictions

A February 29 commentary published by the American Enterprise Institute offers up a four-point argument claiming industry groups are making false claims about a congressionally proposed pilot program restricting items that can be purchased under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Author Angela Rachidi of the Center on Opportunity and Social Mobility offers some counterpoints, but broadly fails to demonstrate that any of the concerns shared by the National Grocers Association and other industry groups are wrong - let alone false.

The piece begins with the acknowledgment that hundreds of items in grocery stores are already restricted under SNAP. True statement, but it has nothing to do with the fact that the proposed pilot program being considered under the House Agriculture committee's appropriations bill would require the designation of hundreds of thousands of items on American store shelves. Each grocer would be responsible for deciphering the rules and determining which items fit in which category. If that's not creating red tape, what is?

The second point of the piece is that USDA's Food and Nutrition Service has already determined that studying restrictions serves a public health need. The USDA is following the instructions of Congress when studying restrictions. Unlike a conceptual study, real-world pilot restrictions have very different consequences for participants, retailers, and program access.

The goal of the pilot program is to make sure that SNAP beneficiaries are purchasing "healthy" foods that are nutrient dense. How healthy? The dietary needs of 42 million individuals are diverse and require the flexibility that SNAP choice provides. A cancer patient trying to gain weight doesn't have the needs of someone with diabetes or a pregnant woman. As far as individual products go, the government shouldn't be in the place of choosing winners and losers.

Point three is that SNAP Choice is designed to promote nutrition, not offer unlimited choice. SNAP does not offer unlimited choice, but analyzing every food sold in every market in the United States and deciding whether SNAP will or won't cover it undermines what has made SNAP so successful: It works on both sides of the checkout counter, without needless hassles to consumers or to small businesses already operating on razor-thin margins.

The final point of the commentary is that the government should be good stewards of the public dollars. Absolutely true, but the incredibly restrictive plan being proposed by Congress will come at a very high price, both in terms of tax dollars and cutting holes in one of this country's most effective safety nets.

###