Currently browsing posts about: SNAP

I wish USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins would use less inflammatory language in making her announcements.  They sound right out of George Orwell’s 1984—or the 1950s McCarthy era—and do not speak well for American democracy.

Let’s start with the banner at the top of USDA websites.  If nothing else, it violates the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from partisan public statements.

Next, take a look at ICYMI: Secretary Rollins Pens Newsweek Op-Ed “Theatrics Don’t Feed the Hungry” [my emphasis]

What began as a program for the neediest Americans, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as food stamps, has exploded to serve one in every eight Americans. The food stamp rolls have not only skyrocketed due to eligibility loopholes and regulatory boondoggles—each allowing for millions of work-capable adults with school age children to participate—but a program that has recently become a “leverage” point for Democrats in their self-inflicted government shutdown…So, the truth has revealed itself. Democrats’ support for programs like SNAP is now reduced to cynical control over people’s lives.

Instead of focusing on reopening the government and keeping programs like SNAP and WIC functioning…Senate Democrats are holding firm on propping up failed government programs with billions in health care subsidies that benefit corporations over people. Not to mention exposing their far left agenda items: illegal aliens, open borders, gender mutilation and more…It is unconscionable.

I agree on “unconscionable.”

On Monday, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins’ filed this comment on X:

@POTUS is doing everything he can to help our most vulnerable mothers and babies while Radical Left Democrats continue to obstruct.

Name-calling does not help.

Red-baiting does not help.

Civility might.

I’ve been trying to keep track of what’s happening with SNAP, but it hasn’t been easy.

Fortunately, Jerry Hagstrom’s Hagstrom’s Report “Ag News As It Happens” does the heavy lifting.

But first, a brief recap.

The current government shutdown is about SNAP benefits.  Republicans want to cut benefits; Democrats don’t.

The Trump administration said it could not use emergency funds to pay SNAP benefits during the shutdown, because Congress has not appropriated money for SNAP for fiscal year 2026.

Friday, October 31

Two federal judges disagreed.  They said USDA should issue at least partial benefits through November.

• Commonwealth of Massachusetts v U.S. Department of Agriculture: Memorandum and Order
•  Speaker Johnson and Secretary Rollins Remarks on Day 31 of Government Shutdown (video)
• The New York Times : Government Ordered to Pay Food Stamp Benefits During Shutdown

Also, President Trump said he wanted SNAP benefits paid.

Our Government lawyers do not think we have the legal authority to pay SNAP with certain monies we have available, and now two Courts have issued conflicting opinions on what we can and cannot do. I do NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT. Therefore, I have instructed our lawyers to ask the Court to clarify how we can legally fund SNAP as soon as possible.

In the meantime, the USDA issued a sharp edict to retailers: Do not give any special discounts to SNAP recipients.

Saturday, November 1

Leah Douglas writes in Reuters:  As US federal food aid lapses, most states unable to fill the void

Just five states, Delaware, New Mexico, Louisiana, Virginia and Vermont, and the District of Columbia have said they will pay for some or all of the November food aid, according to a Reuters review of state websites and public statements. The rest have said they will not pay for the benefits due to technical or cost barriers, or provided no explanation.

The USDA said in an October 24 memo that it will not reimburse states if they cover the cost of benefits.

• CNN: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent won’t say whether Trump will use emergency funds to restore SNAP benefits
• NBC News: Trump administration faces Monday deadline to respond to judge’s SNAP order
• Associated Press: SNAP benefits cut off during shutdown, driving long lines at food pantries
• Politico: Trump admin will partially fund November SNAP benefits

Tuesday, November 4

Here is President Trump on Truth Social:

SNAP BENEFITS, which increased by Billions and Billions of Dollars (MANY FOLD!) during Crooked Joe Biden’s disastrous term in office (Due to the fact that they were haphazardly “handed” to anyone for the asking, as opposed to just those in need, which is the purpose of SNAP!), will be given only when the Radical Left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yes, SNAP benefits increased—during the pandemic.  No, they were not haphazardly “handed” out for the asking.

If Trump will not provide benefits during the shutdown, let’s hope the courts intervene.

Tomorrow: the McCarthy-era rhetoric

The USDA requires retailers who accept SNAP benefits to stock a few fruits and vegetables.  Formerly, USDA required retailers to provide three varieties of food in each of four categories—dairy, protein, grain, and fruits and vegetables.  It allowed stores to meet these requirements by providing a few tired-looking produce items, such as the ones shown here from a Walgreen drugstore.

USDA proposes to expand the number from 3 to 7.

This is confusing.  I thought the USDA did this in 2016: Enhancing Retailer Standards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Clarification of Proposed Rule and Extension of Comment Period.

OK.  Whatever.  Let’s start with the press release, because I always enjoy USDA rhetoric: Secretary Rollins Strengthens SNAP Retailer Stocking Requirements to Make America Healthy Again.

Right now, the bar for stocking food as a SNAP retailer is far too low, allowing people to game the system and leaving vulnerable Americans without healthy food options. These common-sense changes are designed to minimize benefit trafficking and skimming, among other fraudulent activities, while making more nutritious foods available to families who rely on the program….USDA is actively reorienting SNAP towards better nutrition and emphasizing whole, healthy food for program participants. This includes approving 12 states to exclude certain unhealthy foods from purchase with SNAP benefits.

If you want the details, check the Proposed Rule – Updated Staple Food Stocking Standards for Retailers in SNAP. 

This offers complicated explanations of each food category: “The Department is proposing to subdivide protein into the following seven groupings of varieties:

• Perishable meat, poultry, or fish, including fresh or frozen versions for each different kind of animal;
• Shelf-stable meat, poultry, or fish for each different kind of animal;
• Eggs;
• Nuts/seeds;
• Raw beans, peas, or lentils, each of which would count as a distinct protein variety;
• Cooked (e.g., canned) beans,
• Peas, or lentils and multi-ingredient products with beans, peas, or lentils as the main ingredient; and
• Tofu/tempeh, together, would be a distinct variety from all other types of proteins and any other pea product as the main ingredient.”

At first glance, this looks like a step in the right direction.  It will require stores that accept SNAP benefits to offer a greater variety of healhy food options.

This is a no-brainer for Walmart or any other large grocery store.  They already do this.

Therefore, this rule has to be understood as being aimed at bodegas as well as at Dollar stores located in areas where no other retail foods are readily available.

That is why this proposal is considered a ‘mixed bag’ for both retailers and shoppers.

Such stores, widely frequented by SNAP recipients whose payments are likely to constitute significant percentages of sales, will have a hard time meeting these requ.  They already had trouble meeting the existing requirements.

This proposal does not seem to be accompanied by incentives to SNAP recipients to buy fruits and vegetables.

As detailed in an issue brief by Healthy Eating Research, The Current State of Knowledge on SNAP Restrictions and Disincentives, incentives would help.  Otherwise, the rising cost of fruits and vegetables can seem prohibitive.

The proposal is open for comment—by November 24.  Here’s how.

The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA, invites interested persons to submit comments on this proposed rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Preferred method; follow the online instructions for submitting comments on docket FNS-2025-0018 or enter “RIN 0584-AF12” and click the “Search” button. Follow the instructions at this website.
• Mail: Comments should be addressed to SNAP Retailer Policy Division, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

I’ve been collecting graphs on the likely effects of President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (shades of Orwell’s 1984) on income distribution in the United States.  Here are two examples to ponder.

From the Congressional Budget Office:

From The Budget Lab at Yale and Paul Krugman’s Substack

From Tax Policy Center and Penn-Wharton Budget Model (also via Paul Krugman)

These make the effects of the bill crystal clear.  The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The losers?  Everyone else, but especially those at the very bottom of the income distribution.

This is what Americans voted for?

And at a time when the bill cuts funding for federal food assistance programs like SNAP?

Will this Make Americans Healthy Again?

I don’t think so.

I am indebted to Melissa Fuster at Tulane University (congratulations on achieving tenure!) and Megan Knapp of Xavier University of Louisiana for telling me about this one.

The USDA has just approved a waiver for the State of Louisiana to exclude soft drinks, energy drinks, and candy from allowable purchases with SNAP benefits.

Check the definition of  excluded soft drinks [my emphasis]:

“Soft drinks” are defined as any carbonated nonalcoholic beverage containing high fructose corn syrup or artificial sweeteners.

By this definition, soft drinks made with cane or beet sugar are fully allowed to be purchased using SNAP benefits.

What is the difference between high fructose corn syrup and cane or beet sugar?  Not much.  All are mixtures of glucose and fructose and have the same number of calories.

So why the distinction?

Guess which state is the #2 producer of cane sugar.

As I said, nutritionally hilarious (see my clip in John Oliver’s Last Week Tonight on this point).

I thought I should say something about the new state bans on using SNAP benefit cards to buy sodas and other kinds of junk foods.

More states ban soda and ‘junk food’ purchases from SNAP benefits: Varying restrictions add more confusion for food companies already struggling with slowing sales.

This article, from Food Dive, says

• Twelve states have now received approval to restrict benefits, with bans set to commence next year. The Department of Health and Human Services said the waivers aim to end the “subsidization of popular types of junk food.”

It points out that the bans vary in what they cover, and define candy and soft drinks in different ways.

Iowa, which has one of the most restrictive set of SNAP rules, is banning sugar-sweetened beverages that contain less than 50% juice, including sodas, energy drinks and flavored waters. The state is also restricting drink concentrates and powdered mix-ins.

The USDA has a web page devoted to SNAP Waivers (of existing rules governing what SNAP participants are allowed to buy).

Comment: I have long been in favor of pilot projects for banning sugar-sweetened beverages on SNAP (I was a member of the SNAP to Health Commission which issued a report in 2012.

Sodas are composed of sugars and water and have calories but no other redeeming nutritional value.

Even though we sympathized with the arguments that restrictions on purchases are condescending, we recommended pilot projects—along with research to evaluate them.  Would the bans change purchasing habits?  How would SNAP recipients feel about them?

It’s pretty clear how retailers feel about them.  Ouch.  Reduced sales.

The USDA turned down all requests for researchable pilot projects, ostensibly for logistical reasons.  Whatever.

Times have changed.

USDA’s SNAP waivers do not require research, unfortunately. I hope somebody in those states does some before-and-after data collection.

I worry that the waivers will be used as wedges to further cut SNAP benefits.

This one is a wait-and-see.  Stay tuned.

I made a mistake and did not get this one scheduled correctly.  I’m trying again to get it posted (sigh, my error).

The USDA’s Economic Research Service (what’s left of it) has released its annual report on food assistance, which cost $142 billion in 2024 for all of the 16 programs.

This is a decrease from the $168 billion spent in 2023.

Food assistance accounts for two-thirds of USDA’s budget.

SNAP accounts for 70% of USDA’s food assistance budget.  Its 14% (inflation-adjusted) decline from 2023 “was larger than for any other year on record.”  And that’s before this year’s proposed cuts.

SNAP participation and costs track closely with poverty and food insecurity; when they go up, SNAP goes up.

Comment: The best way to cut SNAP?  Cut poverty.

__________

Forthcoming November 11, 2025: What To Eat Now

I was delighted to see this opinion piece in Forbes by Hank Cardello, who writes very much from the food industry’s point of view: The One Big Beautiful Bill To MAHA: Drop Dead.

The so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” now moving through the Senate proposes sharp cuts to SNAP (food stamps), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) and Medicaid—programs that are lifelines for low-income families. The contradiction is glaring: How can one branch of government promote healthier eating while another branch strips away the supports that make that possible?

“The bill handicaps MAHA’s goals,” he says, pointing out that reducing benefits for these programs can only “increase food insecurity, making it more difficult for people to afford nutritious food and sustain their health.”

This, he says, is

a political blunder…affordable food has more power to sway voters than tariffs or slogans. Cut these programs, and we widen the gap between what families should eat and what they can eat….Medicaid and SNAP aren’t just social programs—they’re long-term investments in public health and economic stability.

He suggests three ways to make MAHA a reality:

• Expand SNAP eligibility to include struggling working families just above the poverty line.
• Recognize food policy as a voter issue, not just a health issue.
• Lawmakers should stop pretending nutrition policy can succeed without social policy alignment.

COMMENT

Wow.  I could not have said this better myself.  What this tells me is that at least some segments of the food industry fully understand that making people too poor to buy their products is not good for business, let alone for society.  Cardullo always has intelligent things to say about food issues, even when I don’t always agree with them.  On this one, we are completely aligned.  Thanks Hank.