The Wordsmith's Forge

Confusion and ‘More Chaos’ as States Implement SNAP Food Restrictions

Five states have already implemented bans on soda and candy through federal food assistance programs, with over a dozen more set to take effect this year.


Abusing poor people is popular.

The real aim is not to make people eat healthier foods, but rather to discourage people from using assistance programs. The benefits are not free, but cost a significant amount of time and energy to obtain. If they are stingy and/or restrictive, then it quickly becomes a waste of resources to chase after that pittance. Nobody wants to have to make a separate trip just for the food stamp shopping, let alone struggle to figure out what is "allowed" only to get stopped at the register because items are rejected. People will buy worse food with cash which can purchase anything, or go to a food pantry.

If the government really wanted people to eat healthier foods, then it would subsidize things like spinach instead of sugarcane. Another good approach would be buying healthy foods in bulk to distribute through programs or food pantries. It's not that difficult; people just don't choose to do it.


Those on the ground in states that have already implemented these restrictions report confusion over what items are now prohibited.

Retailers want more clarity on how these restrictions will be enforced, while warning that the cost of compliance could increase food prices for all consumers.

No shit. So if you need to save money, look for stores that don't take food stamps and therefore don't have that extra burden to pass on.


Adam said he prefers to manage his ADHD with the help of the caffeine in sodas.

“So many people are going to argue, ‘Oh it’s so silly, it’s just soda,’” Beth Bedway said. “But it’s just this for now.”

If you want a look at how useless food stamps are likely to get, check the WIC program, which routinely limits not only the types of food but the sizes that may be obtained with it. Very popular is requiring people to buy larger sizes than they can use before the food spoils.


“Our governor’s at least made an appearance to want to jump on board a lot with [MAHA],” Starks said. “I think these changes are him trying to do that, when in reality all it does is restrict people’s ability to make their own choices.”

Exactly.


Upon the second error, the retailer could be involuntarily removed from the SNAP program, no longer able to offer the benefit to its customers.

“I think there’s some real concern that it’s going to lead to many, many retailers being pushed out of the program, even if they are trying their best to comply with the new requirements,” Mannion said.

You can tell it's abusive, because the government isn't even using its own society's magic number, which in Western cultures is usually 3, not 2.


>>The total up-front cost of the SNAP restrictions is projected to be $1 billion for convenience stores, $11.8 million for small-format stores and $215.5 million for supercenters, according to an analysis released by NACS, the National Grocers Association, and the Food Industry Association (FMI).<<

Well, that's a colossal waste of money just to hurt people.


“These SNAP restrictions are increasing food prices for everyone, and the high cost of healthy food is the No. 1 reason people on SNAP can’t eat healthier,” said Elzinga of the Des Moines Area Religious Council. “Banning items does not make healthy food more affordable.”

That last line really nails it. People don't buy much healthy food with food stamps because healthy food is expensive. They buy as many calories of filling food as they can cram into their budget.


One of the “greatest fears,” Elzinga said, is that SNAP retailers will drop out of the program and stop accepting EBT. This could be because the costs of compliance are too high or because they get a second strike and are removed from the program.

That's what I would expect. Which leads to lower participation in the program as people no longer have a place to spend their benefits.


In Iowa, one in three SNAP participants, more than 800,000 people, live in a border county. These shoppers could simply take their business to neighboring states that do not have SNAP restrictions. If all of those participants travelled out of state for their shopping, Iowa would lose about $23 million per month in economic activity, Elzinga said.

Then the state deserves to bleed money.


In addition, Republicans in Congress have fixated on alleged fraud in the program, threatening to require that states recertify SNAP households and release more data on participants.

That will also drive people away from the program.


In the midst of the USDA’s heightened focus on fraud, the agency took to social media to mobilize shoppers to help the agency “fight fraud.” “If you suspect someone is abusing federal nutrition programs, REPORT FRAUD NOW,” the post reads, paired with a photo of a full grocery cart. This rhetoric raises another concern with the overall changes to SNAP policy, which is the potential increased stigma around the program.

If your society considers a full grocery cart to be a sign of crime, there is something deeply wrong with that society.


“When program stigma is higher, it has a dampening effect on participation,” Elzinga said.

Which is the whole point.


Elzinga believes growing stigma around SNAP is already having an impact in Iowa. Food banks and pantries are continuously breaking records in terms of visits, he said, but SNAP enrollment is nearing an 18-year low. He worries the new restrictions will lead to fewer people participating in SNAP and more people turning to food pantries to feed their families.

That's exactly what I'd expect to see. But it's not just the stigma. It's the fact that you're going through a lot more hassle to get less useful benefits. Since poor people are always busy and tired, the dropoff threshold is often fairly close to where they already are. That means a small cut can cause a large dropoff in participation, because it is no longer justifiable for people to participate.


“It’s unsettling,” she said. “It makes me question what is the future for us in this state, what is the future for the SNAP program? At what point are we just going to be kicked off of any assistance without warning?”

Something the government should remember is that loyalty comes from stability and people being able to meet their needs. If you don't provide that, then they are much more likely to keep an eye out for someone else offering them a better deal. That is a security nightmare. It is a vulnerability that no amount of threats can close. Hungry people are dangerous people.