
“Poor people don’t deserve junk food, right?” “Why should they be able to partake in frivolous calorie consumption while depending on government aid?” “They don’t actually need extra sugar to survive, do they?” Racism, gender inequality, and now welfare stigma. Today’s “Beggars Can’t Be Choosers” mentality is creating growing tensions regarding a popular welfare program. SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program provides food assistance to millions of families each year by allotting a limited amount of money onto an EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card for groceries. There are rules about what you can buy- no hot meals, no household supplies or non-food products, no vitamins, and no alcohol/tobacco- but the increasing nationwide obesity rate is sparking new demand for stricter SNAP policies. The government is attempting to create policies that will restrict SNAP users from purchasing what it considers “unhealthy foods”. These policies have yet to be federally mandated, but in anticipation for these intrusive restrictions, the question must be asked- Is America’s health really to blame?... Or is this an excuse to label yet another group as a “lesser people”? The government’s emphasis on “serving the greater good” is one of the key reasons behind their goal to stigmatize (oops I mean limit) the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. The government lacks expertise in determining individual health needs and how to ensure these needs are being met, as well as solid evidence supporting their claim that SNAP participants are unhealthier than Non-SNAP participants, thus solely stigmatizing the low income families in the United States. Additionally, the government’s current system of subsidization and SNAP eligibility are negatively affecting the availability of proper nourishment to low income families.

The government operates on a “ends justifies means” type rationale (Cleveland).  This belief, that what is good for the majority is good for all, is unethical. Though it may seem that anything that is meant to serve a large mass of people in a positive way is completely acceptable, the approach to this effect is where this idea goes rogue. Many advocates for the restrictions on EBT users justify this through the argument that cutting the amount of SNAP funds that can be used on “unhealthy” purchases by the minority group of welfare beneficiaries will benefit the larger majority that is supporting them through taxes. That is because a claim has been made that links EBT users to obesity ( Klerman). When the low income households fall ill, presumably because of their unhealthy diets, their doctor visit is most likely paid for by the taxpaying majority’s dollar. Making sure that EBT purchases do not include less-than-nutritious foods could lead to less obesity, which would lead to less obesity related doctor visits. Not too shabby of a plan, right? Right. Except, the fact that this plan to cater to the taxpayers’ needs by shunting the welfare users’ needs places value on one group either because 1) they have more money and that makes them more important in society (this is wrong on so many levels) or 2) these “upper class” citizens outnumber the “lower class” citizens so we should do what will be best for them (this is Utilitarianism). Utilitarianism is not always bad, in theory. For instance, it works when an indecisive group of friends are trying to find somewhere to eat dinner together, or when siblings are arguing about which cartoon to watch on the television. This “majority rules” mentality is even the basis of democracy, because there is no logical way to get every single vote. These instances of “majority rules” are harmless and indeed productive.  On a more sinister note, however, left with no moral supervision, utilitarianism can rear its evil head in the form of legislation that targets minorities. Along with Hispanic and African-American minorities are the poor. Legislation that makes it even more difficult to carry on as a “lower class” citizen by creating stigma around a particular economic status are most often the result of a majority ruling. Should we allow more targeted legislation by way of extra SNAP restrictions? Is the government trying to create healthier welfare recipients or simply keep the less needy citizens happy? 

Hypothetically, if all the policies that limit EBT purchases and turned SNAP into the “healthy foods” only program were permitted, what would that look like? Realistically, how would the government decide what foods you can and cannot buy? Yes, sodas, greasy potato chips, and Oreos are a definite junk food, but what about other foods high in fats like avocados or cashews, or high in sugars like raisins and prunes? These have high fat and sugar content (mostly the good kind) but even too much of that is not part of the well rounded diet we hear so much about. After the point of sale (i.e. the cash register) how is the government to be sure that someone doesn’t eat 8 avocados and a whole can of cashews before lunch (other than, Heaven forbid, wire tapping the homes of welfare recipients, that is)? Well, to put it simply, they can’t. This means the government will (*Gasp) have to leave it up to the people to make the healthy decision. This is no different than before, when people had to decide for themselves what to buy with that government aid. The only difference is that the government “wins” in this scenario. The government successfully puts the low-income family in their place as the “lesser” population of the country and all while claiming that it is for the Poor’s own good.

 These policies prove that the government assumes they know better than its citizens about what they should eat. All people do not have the same bodies, build, allergies, and metabolism, therefore not everyone has the same nutritional needs. Expecting everyone to thrive on the same meal plan is similar to expecting everyone to succeed with the same workout plan (everyone has to tailor their goals and plans to their body’s needs). There is no plausible way to make a policy that suits every individual need of the United States’ SNAP recipients and there should not have to be. In a world where everyone knows at least two jingles from a commercial advertising a local law firm (“…Call Joel Bieber…”) and people are constantly seeking justice for being “misinformed” or for their “life being ruined”, it is odd that the government would claim such a responsibility as telling the American people what to eat, when its opinion of what to eat and how much to eat has been proven wrong in the past. For example, the once popular Food Guide Pyramid has since been debunked for its oversized portion of grains and carbs at the base of the pyramid. In its place is the MyPlate with a large portion of veggies and only about a quarter of the plate reserved for carbs (Food Guide Pyramid).  Science grows, researchers learn, and the world of nutrition undergoes a complete makeover. Vowing to maintain a national nutrition policy for SNAP is a guarantee from the government that they know what is best…they can dream, at least. These policies prove that the government assumes they know better than its citizens about what they should eat. All people do not have the same bodies, build, allergies, and metabolism, therefore not everyone has the same nutritional needs. Expecting everyone to thrive on the same meal plan is similar to expecting everyone to succeed with the same workout plan (everyone has to tailor their goals and plans to their body’s needs). There is no plausible way to make a policy that suits every individual need of the United States’ SNAP recipients and there should not have to be.

There is no significant difference between what SNAP receiving households eat and what Non-SNAP receiving households eat as proof by an investigation done by the IMPAQ International company with permission from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  The research team, composing of 5 qualified researchers, discovered that “there were no major differences in the expenditure patterns by SNAP households and Non-SNAP households, no matter how the data were categorized” (Garasky). Since both groups are eating basically the same foods, why is there such an outcry for the health of SNAP households? If health really is an issue, then the government and various Healthy Living organizations should work towards solutions to Nationwide Healthiness, not singularly focus on that of the poor. Advocating for one group and not the other would be unjust and would create a country with only half of its citizens leading a healthy life. 

Despite popular opinion, there are other ways to ensure that welfare recipients are choosing to eat more nutritious foods. The government is failing to recognize the alternatives to policies that forbid any lollipops or ice cream sandwich from ever gracing the buggy of a low income household, such as the- already in use- subsidies. Government subsidies are much to blame for the competition between cheap, junk food and expensive, healthy foods the way they are currently operating. Subsidies are government programs that were created in the Nixon era to encourage more agricultural production in the United States. Farmers receive a stipend from the government to encourage the farmers to continue to grow certain crops. Subsidies also work to keep the prices down for the particular crop being grown. In most cases in the United States, Corn and Soybean are being subsidized. This creates low corn and soybean prices, which keeps derived products such as soda (whose sweet, sugary syrup is made from High Fructose Corn Syrup) and French Fries (which are fried in oils from these crops as well) at such an affordable price (Brownell).Healthier fruits and vegetables stay at a high price or even increase in price because of their lack of subsidized farms; as Kelly Brownell states in her article, “Should Government Tell You What To Eat?,” (published in 2007) “in 15 years, the cost of soft drinks rose 20% and the cost of fruits and vegetables rose 117%.” For the government to so dearly want people to choose to eat healthier, they sure are turning a blind eye to this phenomenon. By adding new subsidies for carrot, broccoli, cabbage, (etc.) farms, more low income families would be able to afford healthy fruits and veggies. If the price difference between healthy and unhealthy food evened out, more families would use their EBT cards to purchase fruits and veggies instead of chips and cookies, and the government wouldn’t have to bother creating a strict SNAP policy.

In the US, there are obvious fears that citizens using welfare and SNAP are “cheating the system” and constantly splurging on “Filet Mignon and Crab Legs” (Ferdman). Using these fears to advocate strict SNAP limits is unjustifiable, however there is some validation of the fear of welfare abuse. The government reduces the effectiveness of SNAP by weakening its eligibility requirements; this opens up SNAP to abuse from households more capable of providing their own food (these are likely the infamous folks that everyone thinks are wasting taxpayer dollars on T-bone and Lobsters). The U.S. Department of Agriculture has been encouraging states to begin switching to “categorical eligibility” for its Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. Categorical eligibility allows a household or individual to qualify for SNAP if they qualify for other welfare programs (even the ones that are easier to get into!). How sweet of the states that use this easier system of eligibility, right? Actually, Categorical Eligibility was typically preferred because it saved the States money in administrative costs (so thoughtful). Those who qualify categorically made up over 65% of SNAP users in 2011 (Tanner). The problem with this eligibility system, as stated in Michael Tanner’s Policy Analysis, is that “as the economy eventually improves and some of these households see their income and assets increase, they will continue to improperly receive benefits for some months because they are subject to relaxed tests.” Households that would fall outside of the original eligibility (sans “categorical eligibility”) become a burden on the system, creating more “need” than the available resources can cover (spreading the butter too thin, so to speak). Instead of making it easier for those who don’t actually qualify for benefits to receive SNAP funds, the government should allot a bigger stipend to families who really deserve the benefit. More SNAP funds would likely lead to greater purchases of the ever-more-expensive produce. Low income families can afford fresh produce and the government can pat themselves on the back for “solving the issue of obese SNAP users” …win, win. 

Political Utilitarianism has begun to infiltrate into America’s welfare programs, causing quite a stir as the “Good ‘Ol Boys” and the “fat cats” cry foul on the lowly welfare “beggars” for wasting their taxes on no good foods. (The gall of those needy people). It is not only impossible to ensure that SNAP beneficiaries adhere to the guidelines of the proposed policies/restrictions, but it is also an invasion of privacy and an attack on the freedoms of the low income households. Forcing SNAP participants to abide by stricter guidelines in hopes of increasing America’s overall health is begging a portion of the American people to become dependent on the government for their nutritional knowledge. The government should be making it easier for low income households to live a healthy lifestyle and promoting informational opportunities regarding their nutrition, not blaming them for a NATIONAL health crisis. Another consequence of a stricter form of SNAP is the decline in enrollment by legitimately eligible citizens (think of the struggling families who decide they are better off without SNAP ); sometimes it’s too discouraging to ask for the help you need, but additional limitations can make it seem less like a handout and more like a punishment (Wahowiak). Taking away the right to eat responsibly creates an institutional bully out of the government. Soon, the government will not have to worry about preventing the lower class from using SNAP, because it is quickly morphing into society’s taboo.  
