We, along with Leung and Rimm, believe that it is imperative to draw conclusions that accurately reflect the data being analyzed. When potential policy decisions are at stake, such as those related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), this need becomes even further amplified. That is why we were especially disappointed with the misinterpretation of our results by Leung and Rimm.
It is crucial to emphasize that the purpose of our article and the analytic approach suggested by Leung and Rimm are inherently different. Whereas their analysis attempts to understand the differences between food-secure, income-eligible SNAP nonparticipants versus all other possible interactions of SNAP participants and nonparticipants with food-security groups, our study aimed to understand whether SNAP participation mitigates the association of food insecurity, dietary quality, and weight status. We looked at the interactions between SNAP and food security levels and how these modify the main effects of SNAP and food insecurity on dietary quality and weight status. Therefore, understandably, our results differ from those of Leung and Rimm.
We found that food-insecure adults had worse dietary quality and weight status compared with food-secure adults (Table 2 in the article). We also showed that SNAP appeared to neutralize the negative association of food insecurity on dietary quality and weight status, especially among those with marginal food security and Whites (Tables 3 and 4 in the article). We did not seek to understand the independent differences in outcomes between SNAP participants versus SNAP nonparticipants at the same food-insecurity level.
While we appreciate Leung and Rimm’s attention to our study, we stand behind our methodological approach, which yielded accurate conclusions. We underscore that these results are useful in disentangling and elucidating potential factors related to SNAP, which can ultimately help inform policy moving ahead.