Abstract
Introduction:
Millions of U.S. families rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to afford food. Congress has proposed changing the items eligible for purchase with SNAP, which could influence participants’ diets. Understanding attitudes towards these changes overall, by political party, and by SNAP participation can identify proposals with bipartisan support and center SNAP participant preferences.
Methods:
This cross-sectional survey of U.S. adults (n=4,470) from November 3–14, 2023 evaluated support for four changes to SNAP purchases. In 2024, descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to evaluate overall support for these four policies and to test for differences by political party and SNAP participation.
Results:
A majority of U.S. adults (68.1%) across political parties supported allowing the purchase of hot and prepared foods under SNAP. A slim majority (51.6%) supported creating nutrition guidelines to guide allowable items. Policies to exclude sugary drinks (38.7%) and unhealthy items generally (46.2%) were less popular.
Conclusions:
Policies to expand SNAP were more popular than restrictions, both overall and across political parties, and restrictions were particularly unpopular among SNAP participants. Bipartisan support for policies to expand SNAP may help these proposals advance during Farm Bill negotiations and would align with the preferences of SNAP participants.
Introduction
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides financial assistance to millions of Americans every year to help them afford food.1 SNAP participation is associated with numerous benefits, including improved health and food security, making it a critical program for supporting the well-being of low-income families in the United States (US).2,3 In 2024, policymakers have debated several changes to the items eligible for purchase with SNAP such as allowing hot and prepared food, excluding sugary drinks, and making foods that do not align with dietary guidelines ineligible.4–7 Several studies have examined the potential impact of changing the items eligible for purchase with SNAP, but public preferences are comparatively understudied, particularly after the broad yet temporary social safety net expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have altered related policy preferences.8
As Congress debates renewing the Farm Bill, which funds and authorizes SNAP, bipartisan support is likely necessary for any proposals to advance. It is therefore important to understand related public attitudes, as well as whether these attitudes vary by political party. Because SNAP participants have the most experience with the program and would be materially impacted by any changes, it is also important to understand their preferences towards proposed changes.9 This study aims to identify public attitudes towards four potential changes to the items eligible for purchase with SNAP and whether these attitudes vary by political party and SNAP participation.
Methods
This cross-sectional study uses data from an online panel of U.S. adults fielded nationally with CloudResearch between November 3 and 14, 2023. Quotas benchmarked to U.S. Census data were used to ensure the sample reflected the national population based on gender, age, race, and ethnicity distributions [see online appendix for additional details]. Respondents provided informed consent at the start of the survey before answering questions about their SNAP participation, their support for four policies related to SNAP, and their demographic information. The survey completion rate after exclusions (e.g., not consenting, identified as bot or fraud by Qualtrics, completing <90% of questions) was 46%. The final analytic sample includes 4,470 adults with complete information for all study measures.
Participants were asked how strongly they supported or opposed (on a 7-point Likert scale) the following four policies:
Allow SNAP benefits to be used to purchase hot prepared foods.
Remove sugary drinks (such as soda) from the list of foods that can be purchased with SNAP benefits.
Remove soft drinks, candy, ice cream, and prepared desserts such as cakes, pies, cookies, or similar products from the list of items that can be purchased with SNAP benefits.
Create guidelines for foods and beverages that can be purchased with SNAP benefits based on nutrition guidelines such as for the fat, sugar, and salt content.
Consistent with past studies, a measure of dichotomous support was created (somewhat support, support, strongly support) vs. strongly oppose, oppose, somewhat oppose, neither support nor oppose.10,11
Key independent variables included SNAP participation in the past 12 months and political party (Republican, Independent, or Democrat). Additional covariates included gender identity, age, race and ethnicity, household income, educational attainment, marital status, household size, urbanicity, and region.
First, unadjusted support was calculated for the four policies. Logistic regression was then used to estimate the adjusted odds of supporting each policy across participant characteristics, which was converted to predicted probabilities overall and by SNAP participation and political party. Analyses were conducted in June 2024 using Stata Version 18. This study was approved by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Institutional Review Board.
Results
Table 1 presents sample descriptives and support for each policy. A majority of the sample was White, non-Hispanic (64.5%) and identified as female (53.6%), and SNAP participants comprised 25.2% of the sample. Two policies enjoyed majority support: allowing hot and prepared foods to be purchased with SNAP (68.1%) and creating healthy guidelines for SNAP purchases (51.6%). In contrast, 46.2% and 38.7% of adults supported excluding sugary drinks and unhealthy items, respectively.
Table 1.
Sample Descriptives and Support for Four SNAP Policies
| Characteristics | Number (%) | Allow Prepared Foods | Remove Sugary Drinks | Remove Unhealthy Items | Create Healthy Guidelines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 4,470 | 68.1% | 46.2% | 38.7% | 51.6% |
| Gender Identity | |||||
| Male | 2,039 (45.6%) | 65.9% | 47.7% | 41.0% | 53.7% |
| Female | 2,396 (53.6%) | 69.7% | 45.2% | 36.9% | 50.0% |
| Non-binary, other, refused | 35 (0.8%) | 88.6% | 31.4% | 20.0% | 37.1% |
| Age, years | |||||
| 18–29 | 636 (14.2%) | 76.1% | 32.4% | 25.3% | 44.2% |
| 30–39 | 649 (14.5%) | 73.2% | 42.4% | 35.3% | 48.2% |
| 40–49 | 740 (16.6%) | 73.1% | 41.5% | 36.5% | 45.1% |
| 50–59 | 953 (21.3%) | 66.4% | 45.9% | 39.8% | 49.1% |
| 60–69 | 677 (15.1%) | 60.1% | 55.7% | 44.0% | 56.4% |
| 70+ | 815 (18.2%) | 61.7% | 57.1% | 48.0% | 64.7% |
| Race and Ethnicity | |||||
| Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic | 181 (4.0%) | 65.8% | 53.6% | 44.8% | 58.6% |
| Black, non-Hispanic | 524 (11.7%) | 72.9% | 33.6% | 26.7% | 47.9% |
| Hispanic | 698 (15.6%) | 69.6% | 43.3% | 35.4% | 49.7% |
| Native American, Middle Eastern, Other non-Hispanic | 184 (4.1%) | 68.5% | 39.7% | 29.9% | 41.9% |
| White, non-Hispanic | 2,883 (64.5%) | 66.9% | 49.2% | 41.8% | 52.9% |
| Income, annual dollars | |||||
| <$25k | 946 (21.2%) | 72.0% | 29.0% | 21.1% | 35.7% |
| $25k-$49,999 | 1,173 (26.2%) | 68.0% | 42.3% | 35.5% | 49.5% |
| $50k-$99,999 | 1,367 (30.6%) | 65.8% | 50.0% | 42.7% | 55.0% |
| $100k+ | 824 (18.4%) | 69.1% | 64.3% | 56.6% | 66.5% |
| Prefer not to say/refused | 160 (3.6%) | 59.4% | 51.9% | 39.4% | 54.4% |
| Education | |||||
| <HS, HS or GED | 1,152 (25.8%) | 64.8% | 33.3% | 27.0% | 39.1% |
| Some college | 1,371 (30.7%) | 69.2% | 42.8% | 36.1% | 47.0% |
| College/grad degree | 1,947 (43.6%) | 69.2% | 56.3% | 47.4% | 62.2% |
| Marital Status | |||||
| Single, never married | 1,275 (28.5%) | 74.0% | 36.2% | 28.6% | 45.8% |
| Married | 1,797 (40.2%) | 64.1% | 56.5% | 50.0% | 58.6% |
| Separated, divorced, or widowed | 990 (22.1%) | 66.2% | 45.8% | 35.8% | 50.7% |
| Domestic partnership/living with partner | 383 (8.6%) | 72.1% | 33.9% | 27.7% | 41.0% |
| Prefer not to answer | 25 (0.6%) | 64.0% | 28.0% | 16.0% | 36.0% |
| Household Size | |||||
| 1 person | 1,037 (23.2%) | 67.9% | 47.7% | 37.7% | 53.5% |
| 2 people | 1,592 (35.6%) | 63.6% | 48.2% | 42.8% | 53.4% |
| 3–4 people | 1,411 (31.6%) | 70.2% | 45.5% | 37.4% | 50.9% |
| 5+ people | 430 (9.6%) | 78.1% | 37.7% | 30.0% | 42.3% |
| Urbanicity | |||||
| Urban | 1,366 (30.6%) | 72.7% | 44.5% | 35.4% | 51.0% |
| Suburban | 1,948 (43.6%) | 67.8% | 47.7% | 40.5% | 53.8% |
| Rural | 1,156 (25.9%) | 63.2% | 45.8% | 39.5% | 48.5% |
| Region | |||||
| Northeast | 735 (16.4%) | 71.3% | 48.4% | 40.8% | 56.1% |
| Midwest | 950 (21.3%) | 66.5% | 46.5% | 39.3% | 49.8% |
| South | 1,784 (39.9%) | 67.3% | 45.4% | 38.3% | 50.8% |
| West | 1,001 (22.4%) | 68.5% | 46.0% | 37.1% | 51.3% |
| Political Affiliation | |||||
| Republican | 1,365 (30.5%) | 60.0% | 51.0% | 44.2% | 50.8% |
| Democrat | 1,582 (35.4%) | 74.9% | 46.1% | 37.2% | 56.5% |
| Independent | 1,523 (34.1%) | 68.2% | 42.2% | 35.2% | 47.2% |
| SNAP Participation (Past 12 Months) | |||||
| Non-participant | 3,342 (74.8%) | 64.0% | 53.1% | 45.4% | 57.6% |
| SNAP participant | 1,128 (25.2%) | 80.2% | 25.9% | 18.8% | 33.8% |
Notes: Percentages beneath the four policies correspond to the share of respondents who reported somewhat supporting, supporting, or strongly supporting each policy proposal.
Table 2 displays logistic regression results, and Figure 1 presents the predicted probabilities of policy support overall and by SNAP participation and political party. Democrats (OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.48–2.08) and Independents (OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.14–1.57) were more likely to support allowing hot and prepared foods to be purchased with SNAP, relative to Republicans. Independents were less likely to support removing sugary drinks (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70–0.96) or unhealthy items (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.69–0.95) from SNAP than Republicans. SNAP participants had 2.22 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.84–2.68) of support for including hot and prepared foods, relative to non-participants, and lower odds of supporting removing sugary drinks (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.40–0.56), removing unhealthy items (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.36–0.52), and creating healthy guidelines (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.47–0.65).
Table 2.
Multivariate Logistic Regression Results for Four SNAP Policies
| Allow Prepared Foods | Remove Sugary Drinks | Remove Unhealthy Items | Create Healthy Guidelines | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value | OR | 95% CI | p-value |
| Gender Identity | ||||||||||||
| Male | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Female | 1.11 | 0.97–1.26 | 0.145 | 1.13 | 0.99–1.28 | 0.076 | 1.04 | 0.91–1.19 | 0.544 | 1.02 | 0.89–1.15 | 0.811 |
| Non-binary, other, refused | 2.56 | 0.88–7.45 | 0.084 | 0.86 | 0.40–1.85 | 0.700 | 0.60 | 0.25–1.45 | 0.258 | 0.64 | 0.31–1.32 | 0.228 |
| Age, years | ||||||||||||
| 18–29 | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 30–39 | 0.81 | 0.62–1.05 | 0.117 | 1.36 | 1.07–1.75 | <0.05 | 1.41 | 1.09–1.83 | <0.01 | 1.07 | 0.84–1.35 | 0.580 |
| 40–49 | 0.82 | 0.63–1.07 | 0.146 | 1.31 | 1.03–1.67 | <0.05 | 1.48 | 1.14–1.91 | <0.01 | 0.93 | 0.74–1.18 | 0.553 |
| 50–59 | 0.70 | 0.54–0.90 | <0.01 | 1.42 | 1.12–1.81 | <0.01 | 1.48 | 1.16–1.91 | <0.01 | 1.04 | 0.83–1.31 | 0.742 |
| 60–69 | 0.58 | 0.44–0.76 | <0.001 | 1.99 | 1.53–2.60 | <0.001 | 1.58 | 1.20–2.08 | <0.01 | 1.31 | 1.01–1.69 | <0.05 |
| 70+ | 0.67 | 0.51–0.89 | <0.01 | 1.75 | 1.35–2.29 | <0.001 | 1.55 | 1.18–2.04 | <0.01 | 1.63 | 1.25–2.11 | <0.001 |
| Race and Ethnicity | ||||||||||||
| White, non-Hispanic | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Asian or Pacific Islander, non-Hispanic | 0.83 | 0.59–1.16 | 0.270 | 1.02 | 0.74–1.42 | 0.891 | 1.01 | 0.73–1.40 | 0.963 | 1.04 | 0.75–1.43 | 0.833 |
| Black, non-Hispanic | 0.95 | 0.76–1.20 | 0.674 | 0.60 | 0.49–0.75 | <0.001 | 0.63 | 0.50–0.79 | <0.001 | 0.86 | 0.69–1.05 | 0.144 |
| Hispanic | 0.93 | 0.77–1.12 | 0.437 | 0.91 | 0.76–1.09 | 0.313 | 0.91 | 0.75–1.10 | 0.316 | 0.96 | 0.80–1.15 | 0.646 |
| Native American, Middle Eastern, Other non-Hispanic | 0.98 | 0.70–1.37 | 0.906 | 0.75 | 0.54–1.03 | 0.075 | 0.67 | 0.48–0.94 | <0.05 | 0.67 | 0.49–0.93 | <0.05 |
| Income, annual dollars | ||||||||||||
| <$25,000 | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| $25,000-$49,999 | 1.06 | 0.87–1.31 | 0.548 | 1.40 | 1.14–1.70 | <0.01 | 1.51 | 1.22–1.87 | <0.001 | 1.41 | 1.16–1.70 | <0.001 |
| $50,000-$99,999 | 1.01 | 0.82–1.26 | 0.903 | 1.60 | 1.30–1.97 | <0.001 | 1.69 | 1.36–2.11 | <0.001 | 1.48 | 1.21–1.81 | <0.001 |
| 100,000+ | 1.14 | 0.89–1.47 | 0.303 | 2.55 | 1.99–3.25 | <0.001 | 2.61 | 2.03–3.36 | <0.001 | 2.05 | 1.61–2.60 | <0.001 |
| Prefer not to say/refused | 0.76 | 0.53–1.11 | 0.155 | 1.88 | 1.30–2.71 | <0.01 | 1.65 | 1.13–2.41 | <0.05 | 1.49 | 1.03–2.14 | <0.05 |
| Education | ||||||||||||
| High school degree (or equivalent), or less | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Some college | 1.49 | 1.24–1.78 | <0.001 | 1.18 | 0.99–1.41 | 0.059 | 1.21 | 1.00–1.45 | <0.05 | 1.14 | 0.96–1.34 | 0.138 |
| College/grad degree | 1.58 | 1.32–1.89 | <0.001 | 1.54 | 1.29–1.83 | <0.001 | 1.42 | 1.19–1.70 | <0.001 | 1.67 | 1.41–1.98 | <0.001 |
| Marital Status | ||||||||||||
| Single, never married | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Married | 0.77 | 0.63–0.95 | <0.05 | 1.54 | 1.27–1.87 | <0.001 | 1.70 | 1.39–2.08 | <0.001 | 1.23 | 1.02–1.48 | <0.05 |
| Separated, divorced, or widowed | 0.86 | 0.70–1.06 | 0.151 | 1.10 | 0.90–1.34 | 0.354 | 1.09 | 0.88–1.34 | 0.432 | 1.01 | 0.83–1.23 | 0.933 |
| Domestic partnership/living with | 0.90 | 0.68–1.19 | 0.464 | 1.01 | 0.78–1.32 | 0.930 | 1.04 | 0.79–1.38 | 0.777 | 0.96 | 0.75–1.24 | 0.768 |
| Prefer not to answer | 0.75 | 0.32–1.77 | 0.508 | 0.56 | 0.22–1.42 | 0.218 | 0.44 | 0.14–1.33 | 0.144 | 0.61 | 0.26–1.44 | 0.258 |
| Household Size | ||||||||||||
| 1 person | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 2 people | 0.99 | 0.80–1.21 | 0.901 | 0.64 | 0.52–0.78 | <0.001 | 0.72 | 0.58–0.88 | <0.01 | 0.75 | 0.62–0.92 | <0.01 |
| 3–4 people | 1.11 | 0.89–1.37 | 0.358 | 0.71 | 0.58–0.88 | <0.01 | 0.67 | 0.54–0.83 | <0.001 | 0.81 | 0.67–0.99 | <0.05 |
| 5+ people | 1.54 | 1.14–2.09 | <0.01 | 0.58 | 0.44–0.76 | <0.001 | 0.53 | 0.39–0.71 | <0.001 | 0.63 | 0.48–0.83 | <0.01 |
| Urbanicity | ||||||||||||
| Urban | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Suburban | 0.94 | 0.80–1.11 | 0.448 | 0.79 | 0.68–0.93 | <0.01 | 0.87 | 0.74–1.02 | 0.092 | 0.89 | 0.76–1.03 | 0.118 |
| Rural | 0.80 | 0.67–0.96 | <0.05 | 0.89 | 0.75–1.07 | 0.207 | 1.00 | 0.83–1.20 | 0.978 | 0.90 | 0.75–1.07 | 0.223 |
| Region | ||||||||||||
| Northeast | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Midwest | 0.84 | 0.67–1.04 | 0.107 | 0.97 | 0.79–1.20 | 0.796 | 0.97 | 0.79–1.20 | 0.793 | 0.82 | 0.67–1.01 | 0.063 |
| South | 0.92 | 0.75–1.11 | 0.376 | 0.94 | 0.78–1.14 | 0.542 | 0.94 | 0.78–1.14 | 0.531 | 0.88 | 0.73–1.06 | 0.180 |
| West | 0.91 | 0.73–1.13 | 0.406 | 0.84 | 0.69–1.04 | 0.111 | 0.81 | 0.65–1.00 | <0.05 | 0.79 | 0.64–0.97 | <0.05 |
| Political Affiliation | ||||||||||||
| Republican | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Democrat | 1.75 | 1.48–2.07 | <0.001 | 0.90 | 0.76–1.06 | 0.203 | 0.85 | 0.72–1.00 | 0.052 | 1.33 | 1.14–1.57 | <0.001 |
| Independent | 1.34 | 1.14–1.57 | <0.001 | 0.82 | 0.70–0.96 | <0.05 | 0.81 | 0.69–0.95 | <0.05 | 0.98 | 0.84–1.15 | 0.834 |
| SNAP Participation (Past 12 Months) | ||||||||||||
| Non-participant | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| SNAP participant | 2.22 | 1.84–2.68 | <0.001 | 0.47 | 0.40–0.56 | <0.001 | 0.43 | 0.36–0.52 | <0.001 | 0.56 | 0.47–0.65 | <0.001 |
Notes: Significant findings are identified by bolding, and all odds ratios are in comparison to the reference group (“Ref”) listed in the first row of each covariate. Boldface indicates statistical significance.
Figure 1. Predicted Probabilities of SNAP Policy Support: Overall and by Political Party and SNAP Participation.
Notes: Predicted probabilities estimated following the multivariate logistic regressions presented in Table 2.
Discussion
This study identified post-pandemic public views regarding changing items eligible for purchase with SNAP. A majority of participants across parties supported allowing the purchase of hot and prepared foods, while a narrow majority supported creating nutrition guidelines to guide allowable purchases. Conversely, most adults did not support excluding sugary drinks or unhealthy items. SNAP participants had higher support for expanding allowable foods and lower support for more exclusions.
SNAP participants face multiple barriers to consuming nutritious diets, including lack of time, knowledge, and equipment.12 Allowing purchases of hot and prepared foods with SNAP has been identified as a potential strategy to overcome some of these challenges and improve the dietary quality of SNAP participants.13,14 Given the need for bipartisan support to renew the Farm Bill, it is notable that most adults, across political parties, supported these changes.
Unlike prior work, a majority in this study did not support excluding sugary drinks or unhealthy items from SNAP, which could be due to compositional differences in study samples or changes in attitudes over time.11 For example, the social safety net expansion, high food prices, and economic hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic could have reshaped public attitudes, which warrants further study. Despite lower support for excluding items, a majority supported creating nutritional guidelines for SNAP-eligible items, offering a potential alternative to improving SNAP participants’ diets. Less popular policies to exclude unhealthy items may nonetheless improve diets and population health, and policymakers must weigh benefits alongside public preferences.15 Future work is also needed to identify the potential tradeoffs of proposed changes (e.g., diet quality, participation, stigma, food costs, etc.) and to identify other supports (e.g., fruit and vegetable incentives) that could effectively complement such restrictions.11,16
Limitations
This analysis has three important limitations. First, it documents support for policies related to SNAP but did not use exact language from proposed policies. Second, although constructed using Census quotas, the sample is not nationally representative. Third, participants may have interpreted both hot and prepared foods and the creation of healthy guidelines inconsistently (e.g., mandatory vs. voluntary), which could have affected support.
Conclusions
In this sample of U.S. adults, allowing the purchase of hot and prepared foods with SNAP was the most popular proposal and supported by a majority of SNAP participants and adults across political parties. Prioritizing bipartisan policy options that reflect SNAP participant perspectives as part of Farm Bill negotiations may be a viable strategy to removing barriers to consuming nutritious food.
Supplementary Material
Funding Sources
This study was supported by an award from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health ((Award# K01DK119166).
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest Statement
Dr. Wolfson received grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the study and collaborating with the Center for Science in the Public Interest on a report making recommendations to promote healthy food retail for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program participants. Dr. Leung received grants from the National Institute of Nursing Research during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Financial Disclosure Statement
No financial disclosures have been reported by the authors of this paper.
References
- 1.Food and Nutrition Service. SNAP Data Tables. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap. Published 2024. Updated July 12. Accessed August 8, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gregory CA, Deb P. Does SNAP improve your health? Food Policy. 2015;50:11–19. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Wang M, Levi R, Seligman H. New SNAP Eligibility in California Associated With Improved Food Security and Health. Prev Chronic Dis. 2021;18:E28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Food Research & Action Center. The Hot Foods Act. October 2023. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Oshin O Rubio calls for Congress to bar SNAP purchases of soda, junk foods. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3995624-rubio-calls-for-congress-to-bar-snap-purchases-of-soda-junk-foods/. Published 2023. Updated May 9. Accessed August 8, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Downs G Congress nears WIC deal, with a catch. Politico. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/weekly-agriculture/2024/02/20/congress-nears-wic-deal-with-a-catch-00142136. Published 2024. Updated February 20. Accessed June 21, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Healthy SNAP Act of 2023. In. Rubio M, trans. 118th Congress ed2023. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Cuffey J, Beatty TK, Harnack L. The potential impact of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) restrictions on expenditures: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2016;19(17):3216–3231. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chiappone A, Parks CA, Calloway E, Fricke HE, Stern K, Yaroch AL. Perceptions and Experiences with SNAP and Potential Policies: Viewpoint from SNAP Participants. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition. 2019;14(1–2):98–109. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Long MW, Leung CW, Cheung LWY, Blumenthal SJ, Willett WC. Public support for policies to improve the nutritional impact of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Public Health Nutrition. 2014;17(1):219–224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Franckle RL, Polacsek M, Bleich SN, et al. Support for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Policy Alternatives Among US Adults, 2018. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(7):993–995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Gearing M, Dixit-Joshi S, May L. Barriers that constrain the adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) allotments: survey findings. US Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service: Alexandria, VA, USA. 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wolfson J, Leung C, Moran A. Meeting the moment: policy changes to strengthen SNAP and improve health. Milbank Quarterly Opinion. 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 14.John S, Johnson J, Nelms A, Bresnahan C, Tucker AC, Wolfson JA. Recommendations to Promote Healthy Retail Food Environments: Key Federal Policy Opportunities for the Farm Bill. Center for Science in the Public Interest;2023. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mande J, Flaherty G. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as a health intervention. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2023;35(1):33–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Engel K, Ruder EH. Fruit and Vegetable Incentive Programs for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participants: A Scoping Review of Program Structure. Nutrients. 2020;12(6):1676. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.