Boost SNAP to make healthy eating easier
Vijay Das,
Tribune News Service
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants to make it harder for poor Americans to buy unhealthy food. Together with Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins, he is asking some 15 states to submit waivers to bar beneficiaries of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) from using those funds to buy soda and other specific items. Unfortunately, this approach is unproductive, in part because it does nothing to make it easier for Americans to buy healthy food. The nation does face an obesity crisis. But banning SNAP beneficiaries from buying a Hostess cake at Safeway will not address it in any significant way. Families on SNAP purchase approximately the same amount of unhealthy food as those not enrolled in the program. Restricting SNAP is about stigmatizing people living in poverty, not helping them.
A 2023 Cleveland Clinic study found that almost half of survey respondents considered the cost of healthy food to be the largest barrier to healthier diets. President Donald Trump's tariffs are expected to drive up the cost of groceries even further, especially fresh fruits and vegetables. SNAP is already inadequate to pay for the rising cost of groceries. SNAP provides only about $6 per person per day in food assistance. To make better food purchases more feasible for recipients, we need to increase SNAP payments, not cut them by imposing new rules and shifting responsibility to the states, as some Republican members of Congress are now looking to do. Evidence supports this strategy: When the child tax credit was expanded following the pandemic, low-income parents bought more healthy food with their extra cash. Poorer Americans (like richer ones) do buy too much junk food and consume too much ultra-processed crap — but the reasons are just as important as the facts. Poor families often lack access to stores that sell healthy fruits and vegetables. Meanwhile, billboards for fast food restaurants blanket poorer neighbourhoods, with images of attractive people savoring deep fried treats and pounding highly caffeinated sugary drinks.
Studies show poverty leads to increases in illness due to factors including the stress and financial strain of surviving with a shrinking safety-net and a lack of decent, stable paid work. With less access to healthy food and crafty ad campaigns targeting low-income youth, it's no wonder poor families dedicate a large portion of their spending to sugary and sodium-enriched junk. One model for expanding SNAP recipients' access to better, healthier food is already in place. The Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentive, launched as part of the 2014 Farm Bill, distributed more than $73 million to local SNAP incentive projects between 2015 and 2018. The program is now known as the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP).
In 2019, Congress set aside $250 million to fund GusNIP. Allocations since have varied but the program continues. GusNIP has a competitive grant program that funds state and local non-profit organisations to provide financial nutrition incentives that subsidise purchases of fruits and vegetables for SNAP customers. Less than 1% of SNAP beneficiaries can access GusNIP, however. We must expand the programme. SNAP's 'Double Bucks' programme, now operating in more than 25 states, also helps local farmers and families. This program provides SNAP participants with matching funds to purchase locally grown produce. Congress should also pass the Supporting All Healthy Options When Purchasing Produce (SHOPP) Act, a bipartisan bill backed by Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville, R-AL, that increases SNAP incentives to buy frozen fruits and vegetables.
If Kennedy wants to boost healthy eating, he should address nationwide poor nutrition at its root by boosting programs that drive consumption of whole foods, fruits and vegetables. We should teach healthier cooking practices. We should reduce the sticker shelf price tags of healthy groceries while encouraging buying fresh and frozen vegetables. As Kennedy and Rollins tour the nation, they'll learn that good jobs are scarce. Child care is difficult to find. Grocery stores with decent produce are not on most corners. Life is tough already, and we should help families in need leverage wide use of SNAP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
19 hours ago
- The National
Does Trump have the authority to declare war on Iran?
President Donald Trump's announcement that he would make a decision in two weeks about whether to directly involve US forces in Israel's war on Iran has reignited a longstanding constitutional debate on exactly what military powers America's leader has. The President has indicated in recent days that the US could carry out strikes against Iran in support of its ally. Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying it aimed to prevent its archenemy from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. According to the US Constitution, it's the Congress - the House of Representatives and the Senate - that has the power to declare war. This stretches back to 1973, when Congress passed the War Powers Act - also referred to as the War Powers Resolution - which sought to prevent the executive branch from declaring war without congressional approval. It was initiated shortly after a series of presidents unilaterally escalated the Vietnam war, specifically when Richard Nixon ordered the bombing and invasion of Cambodia without a green light from Congress. Yet there are several loopholes that various US presidents have used since the passage of the War Powers Act to exercise their ability to influence military policy. There's nothing in the legislation that prevents the White House from assisting other countries, with the current example being Israel. Some legal experts have also pointed out that the US Constitution, specifically Article II Section 2, states that "[the] President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" - that is, the White House has a legal precedent to try and mobilise the US military to some extent. "There is a constitutional ambiguity between the role of Commander-in-Chief and the congressional power to declare war," said Timothy Kneeland, a professor of history, politics and law at Nazareth University in upstate New York. Prof Kneeland said that shortly after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, George W Bush, president at the time, sought and obtained authorisation from Congress to use military force in both Afghanistan and Iraq, These so-called Authorisations to Use Military Force (AUMF) have since been used to justify actions against ISIS and Hezbollah, as well. "It may be that President Trump will use this as a pretext should he decide to attack Iran, which has been identified with supporting Hezbollah, listed as a terrorist organisation in the US," Prof Kneeland said, noting that laws passed after 9/11 blurred clarity on who could declare war. It could also be a matter of semantics, with the US providing assistance to Israel without ever mentioning war. Yet there is already pushback from Democrats and Republicans, as politicians seek to head off any potential unilateral decision by Mr Trump to move ahead with military action against Iran. In the Senate, Democratic Senator Tim Kaine introduced a resolution seeking to make debate and a vote compulsory before any military strike on Iran. And in the House of Representatives, Republican Thomas Massie introduced a similar resolution related to the situation in Iran. Yet resolutions like this, compared to laws, often lack enforcement mechanisms. Prof Kneeland also points out that constitutionally, Mr Trump could easily block them. "These are subject to President Trump's veto power and would require a two-thirds majority to override the presidential veto," he said. "With both the House and Senate in the hands of the Republicans, who overwhelmingly support President Trump, this seems highly unlikely." So, even with the 1973 War Powers Act, the ball appears to be in Mr Trump's court. Iran, meanwhile, is holding talks with European powers as its war with Israel enters a second week.
Al Etihad
19 hours ago
- Al Etihad
Israel committing war crimes, says Iranian FM
20 June 2025 20:55 GENEVA (WAM) Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said that his country's armed forces will defend Iran's sovereignty and territorial integrity with all might and by all an address to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on Friday, the top Iranian diplomat said that Iran has been subjected to an aggression that cannot be justified in any way, and "the justification for the aggression is equal to complicity.""We were supposed to meet with the Americans on June 15 to reach a very promising agreement on our nuclear programme" he said, condemning the attack against Iran's nuclear facilities as 'a major war crime, especially given the risk of environmental and public health disaster.""I stand before this prestigious institution to remind you that every member and observer of the Human Rights Council has a legal and moral duty to stand against this great injustice. The Israeli regime has launched an unprovoked aggression against Iran, which is a clear violation of the fourth paragraph of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and is a bold challenge against all the principles and rules on which this council is based."He added: "This is an unjust war that has been imposed on my people since the morning of Friday, June 13; a war in which Israel has committed a series of illegal and criminal operations against non-commissioned military personnel, university professors and ordinary people.""Hundreds of my compatriots have been killed or injured following Israel's surprise attacks and terrorist operations against residential areas, public infrastructure, hospitals, medical centres, and even the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Our peaceful nuclear facilities have also been targeted; Even though they are under the full supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and even though attacks on such facilities are strictly prohibited under international law."He underlined that Iran, as one of the founding members of the United Nations system, rightly expects each UN member countries to stand by justice, the rule of law, and the fundamental principles of humanity and morality. "Iran has been brutally invaded. This clear fact must not be allowed to be distorted by Israel and its supporters." Iran was attacked in the middle of a diplomatic process, he argued. "This action was a betrayal of diplomacy and an unprecedented blow to the foundation of international law and the UN system."
Sharjah 24
a day ago
- Sharjah 24
Iran rejects negotiation with US while Israeli attacks continue
"The Americans have repeatedly sent messages calling seriously for negotiations. But we have made clear that as long as the aggression does not stop, there will be no place for diplomacy and dialogue," said the chief diplomat, who was due in Geneva for talks with his European counterparts.
