Expert Q&A: Bauer on the complex reality of SNAP food policies

SNAP benefits, sometimes referred to as “food stamps,” are limited to people who meet income eligibility; they are different from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, called WIC for short, but individuals can be eligible for both at once.

Kate Bauer, associate professor of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, weighs in on what new research has shown about restrictions for families already navigating limited resources.

What are your thoughts on restrictions to the SNAP program?

Restricting the types of foods allowed to be purchased with SNAP benefits has been debated for years. I understand that it is tempting to think that by not allowing SNAP recipients to purchase sugar-sweetened beverages or other less-nutritious foods, we could easily improve the health of families with low household incomes.

However, recent randomized controlled trials, which provide high-quality scientific evidence, along with an increased understanding of individuals’ experience of food insecurity, show that such efforts would likely not promote health and would have unintended, negative consequences.

Specifically, randomized controlled trials that have tested the effects of different limitations or incentives on SNAP purchases demonstrate that, while soda purchases may decrease when SNAP benefits are restricted, there are no meaningful differences on individuals’ overall dietary intake.

How might restrictions on soda purchases impact families who rely on SNAP benefits?

Unfortunately, these restrictions would increase the already significant challenges that SNAP recipients face, most notably stigma and discrimination.

In a recent study we conducted with food-insecure families across Michigan, we heard countless stories of SNAP participants experiencing judgmental comments and humiliation while grocery shopping—strangers criticizing their food choices and even telling children that their parents shouldn't use food stamps. This stigma harms both mental and physical health, adding another burden to those already struggling.

Additionally, restrictions would create confusion and delays at the grocery store checkout, which our research shows can prompt negative interactions and public shaming. We know that this stigma can result in people choosing to not use assistance.

Programs like Michigan’s Double Up Food Bucks match SNAP dollars spent on fruits and vegetables. How do these incentive programs compare to restrictions in improving nutrition?

Incentive programs like Double Up Food Bucks represent a fundamentally different approach—they empower rather than restrict. While restrictions have not been shown to improve dietary intake in randomized controlled trials, incentive programs demonstrate much more promising results.

Making healthy options more affordable addresses one of the real barriers to healthy eating—cost—without adding stigma or complications. This particular program also acknowledges the dignity and agency of SNAP participants.

There is reported interest from some states to expand restrictions to other foods like chips and candy. What are the potential implications of broadening restrictions?

Restricting SNAP purchases based on often arbitrary determinations of dietary quality feeds into the incorrect belief that the public has a right to monitor and criticize what low-income families eat. Broadening restrictions essentially tells these families they can't be trusted to make their own food choices, which is both demeaning and, according to the evidence, ineffective at improving nutrition behaviors.

Food deserts and limited access to nutritious options are realities in many communities. How should consideration about food environments factor into policies that restrict food choices? 

The food environment is critical. Before considering restrictions, we need to address structural barriers like food deserts, transportation limitations, and the higher cost of nutritious foods. The focus should be on improving food environments rather than restricting choices within inadequate environments.

This means investing in community infrastructure and addressing the practices of food and beverage companies that limit options in low-income areas. It also means creating environments where healthy choices are accessible, affordable, and appealing for everyone.

Excerpts of this article were taken from a U-M School of Public Health Q&A - read the original post here.