The Food Stamp Program and the Farm Bill

Berry Friesen, Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center

Over the next fifteen months, the Senate and House agriculture committees will prepare legislation to reauthorize the federal programs included in the Farm Bill, which expires in September 2007. The Food Stamp Program (FSP), the foundation of America’s effort to end hunger and the largest program in the Farm Bill, will be included.

With an annual budget of around $35 billion, and with the federal government going ever deeper into debt, the FSP will receive a lot of attention. Even more importantly, Congress has finally begun to recognize the far-reaching implications of America’s taste for cheap, high-energy and low-nutrient food items. Unless Americans can be persuaded to eat more healthily, we face a future in which the federal treasury will be swamped by the costs of treating chronic disease.

Can the FSP be used to persuade low-income Americans to eat more healthily? Of course, in one sense it already is being directed toward that goal. Food Stamp Nutrition Education (FSNE), which funds Pennsylvania’s Nutrition Education Program (PA NEP), exists for that specific purpose.

Beyond that, however, some are suggesting that the FSP could more directly impact diet by targeting the dollars it authorizes for grocery purchases. We know that we would be less susceptible to chronic disease by eating more fruits and vegetables and more whole grains. So why not incentivize such purchases through the FSP?

Nutrition practitioners are key participants in this emerging debate and two recent publications illustrate the contributions they are making.

Dr. Karen M. Jetter and Dr. Diana L. Cassady, writing in the January issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, describe a study of the availability and cost of healthier food alternatives in twenty-five Los Angeles and Sacramento grocery stores. They concluded that for a two-week shopping list, the cost of a market basket based upon the current U.S. dietary guidelines (whole grains, low-fat dairy, lean meat, fruits and vegetables) costs 18 percent more than the standard Thrifty Food Plan market basket. They conclude that “the higher cost of the healthier market basket may be a deterrent to eating healthier among very low-income consumers. Public policies should take the food environment into account in order to develop successful strategies to encourage the consumption of healthier foods.”

Writing in the January issue of the American Dietetic Association, Dr. Marilyn Townsend, a cooperative extension nutrition specialist at the University of California, takes up that challenge and proposes specific changes in the FSP. Instead of a program designed to prop up agriculture prices and add calories to the diet of low-income households, the program should be redesigned as “a health and nutrition intervention.” To accomplish this, Townsend would restrict the use of food stamp dollars to high-nutrient, low-energy dense foods. Low-income consumers could continue to purchase energy-dense foods with their own funds but not with their EBT card. “A recipient could use food stamps to buy an orange, but not orange punch; 1% milk, but not cream or ice cream; whole wheat bread, but not doughnuts.” As a result, producers of fruits and vegetables would experience an increase in demand. Grocery stores in low-income communities would change the nutritional quality of their merchandise to meet the FSP criteria. To get its share of the pie, the industry would be encouraged to produce tastier, healthier foods that could be purchased with food stamp dollars.

Furthermore, Townsend suggests that such a change in the FSP would create synergy with nutrition education efforts directed to low-income households. Foods on the inclusion list would be highlighted in programming; recipes could be redesigned and tastings could be based on the encouragement of less popular foods on the list.

Objections to such an approach might come from two sources. The first is the food industry, which would oppose the use of public funds to encourage the purchase of some foods over others. The second is the low-income consumer, who would oppose such a drastic restriction on his/her ability to use an EBT card to purchase the groceries of his/her choice.

Advocates for low-income consumers are working to identify variations on the Townsend proposal that would preserve a greater element of consumer choice. The Pennsylvania Hunger Action Center has asked the USDA to offer food stamp recipients a choice of two food plans: the existing Thrifty Food Plan, which would operate much as it does now and a Healthy Food Plan, which would provide 15-20 percent more buying power but would restrict purchases to nutrient-dense foods. The California Food Policy Advocates have proposed an incentive plan where FSP participants would receive a 50 percent credit whenever buying fresh fruits and vegetables. Thus, if a consumer purchased $20 in fresh produce, a $10 credit would be put back on the account.

Variations on these ideas have already caught the attention of public officials. According to a January 29 article in the New York Times, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee wants to “give food stamps more purchasing power when they are used to buy fruits or vegetables.”

Readers who are interested in participating in this debate are encouraged to become active soon. Much of the preparation for the next Farm Bill will occur this year and the final legislation is likely to be adopted in April or May, 2007. Senator Rick Santorum and Congressman Tim Holden, as members of the Senate and House agriculture committees, are currently the most important points of contact with this process.