
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? Some of these questions may sound unrealistic, but with the increasing push for restrictions on the use of welfare, it seems that the government is trying to articulate those exact questions in a subtler way. 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 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 restrictions, the question must be asked- Is America’s health really to blame?... Or is this an excuse to label low-income citizens as a “lesser people”? The government lacks the qualifications needed in order to set a national guideline for the health of low income citizens. The government not only lacks the nutritional expertise needed to set a federal mandate for low income SNAP users, despite its Federal Nutrition Committees, but it also lacks evidence that low income citizens are consuming unhealthy foods, or that they are eating any differently than the higher income citizens.

It is bold of the government to 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. Though the government has committees devoted to researching nutrition, this does not mean that they always provide the most accurate nutritional information. These committees make mistakes just as we all do. 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. Creating a national nutrition policy for SNAP is a guarantee from the government that they know what is best for everyone’s nutritional needs, but why do only the low income families need to follow these rules? If an individual prefers following the guidelines of these nutritional committees, they have every right to do so. However, mandating that all low income families that receive support through welfare programs abide by the rules of these committees is unfair. Families who can afford to purchase their groceries without the guidance of the government are free to choose what they think is best for them, but SNAP users and other welfare recipients are expected to do as the government says. One can see how this creates a divide between the American people- the independent upper class citizens and the rule following lower class citizens. 

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 definite junk foods, 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? Well, to put it simply, they can’t. This means the government will 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 labels the low-income family as the “lesser” population of the country and all while claiming that it is for their own good.

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 examples of welfare users that are wasting government funds 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. 

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.  
