OPINION:
One of the larger federal policy changes brewing in the Trump administration is proposed restrictions on how families supported by the Supplemental Nutrition Assessment Program (SNAP) can spend their benefits.
Republicans in the House of Representatives are adding worrisome momentum to the concept by holding an Agriculture Committee hearing this week.
The push is fueled by advocates of so-called “Make America Healthy Again” and their desire to adopt strict restrictions on purchasing snack foods and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs).
This crusade eerily mirrors that of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a liberal politician who notoriously fought to ban soda consumption.
There is no evidence that demonstrates that SNAP recipients will have improved health outcomes by restricting their benefits. In fact, “SNAP reduces medical spending and increases health care access.” The medical bills of SNAP recipients are $1,400 less than those of low-income adults not receiving SNAP. Adding restrictions will only “interfere with the primary function of SNAP—reducing hunger by increasing purchasing power.”
A USDA study shows that there is no difference in the spending habits between SNAP participants and nonparticipants.
Dr. Jonathan Ellen, a behavioral epidemiologist and pediatrician, as well as former medical school professor and as CEO of Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital has summarized the way to actually deal with obesity: “Research shows that balance and moderation, not deprivation and prohibition, properly orient our brains to make nutritious choices that, compounded over time, help keep our bodies healthy and strong for as long as possible.”
Dr. Ellen’s dose of common-sense includes the recommendation that “the public health goal should be to encourage balanced living, including properly fueling our bodies, staying active, and prioritizing our emotion well-being.”
That reality clashes with what the government can achieve with onerous regulations. Relying on the federal government to wave a false flag on a real problem by wrongly blaming certain products in a certain category and limiting consumer choice diminishes the need for real solutions.
Stripping autonomy from vulnerable families also runs against the goal of shrinking government and comes with a host of unintended consequences. For one, the USDA has estimated the cost of implementing restrictions on SNAP benefits to be $400 million the first year, with an additional $600 million the year after.
The financial burden of new regulations on the roughly 260,000 authorized retailers is also significant. They may actually increase prices or force some stores to withdraw from supporting the program. As a result, healthy food would become even less accessible to low-income families.
A majority of Trump voters feel strongly about consumer independence. Fifty-nine percent of Republicans said they would not want to pay higher prices for food, even if it meant a healthier food supply. No surprise that many state food prices are already too high. Older Americans are also especially concerned about the rise in grocery prices.
Another recent poll demonstrates that the great resistance among Trump’s base to placing attempts to restrictions on how SNAP can be used. Overall, 58% of Trump voters support a person’s right to purchase soft drinks with SNAP.
The federal government “should not be disproportionately punishing” families that fall on hard times, especially when the supposed good intentions of those pushing restrictions will not even be realized. Placing restrictions on a family’s consumption choices strips their autonomy, a punishment that voters will not tolerate and that no public official should countenance.
• Mario H. Lopez is president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.