Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Data: Why Disclosure Is Needed

Abstract

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides funding to low-income households to purchase food at participating stores. The goals of the program include reducing hunger, improving nutrition, and strengthening the US food system. These are interrelated, as food access and choice depend on availability.

SNAP generates data that could be useful for program evaluation and evidence-based policymaking to reach public health goals. However, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not collect or disclose all SNAP-related data. In particular, the USDA does not systematically collect food expenditure data, and although it does collect transaction (sales) and redemption data (the amount retailers are reimbursed through SNAP), it does not release these data at the store level.

In 2018, Congress quietly changed the law to prohibit the USDA from disclosing store-level transaction and redemption data, and in 2019, the US Supreme Court blocked disclosure of these data. These federal proceedings can inform the outcome of additional efforts to disclose SNAP-related data, as well as future research and policy evaluation to support improved public health outcomes for SNAP beneficiaries.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is a federal program jointly administered by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and state governments to provide benefits to low-income households to purchase food. Congress reauthorizes SNAP approximately every five years through the Farm Bill. During this process, policymakers and stakeholders debate the value of SNAP against a backdrop of threats to cut the program; the food industry lobbies in support of SNAP, and public health groups seek improved data-collection methods, including pilot programs, to engage in research and program evaluation to improve the program. Contemporaneous public discourse often focuses on beneficiaries with substantially less focus on the food industry, and even less on participating retailers.

The stated policy objectives of SNAP, however, fall into two categories: first, to alleviate “hunger and malnutrition” by raising nutrition levels of SNAP beneficiaries; and second, to promote the distribution of the “nation’s agricultural abundance,” strengthen the “agricultural economy,” and “result in more orderly marketing and distribution of food.”¹ SNAP thus aims to support low-income households and the food industry. SNAP policy also directs the program to function “through normal channels of trade,”¹ which historically meant food retailers and wholesalers.

In 2018, approximately 40.3 million people received SNAP benefits.² Beneficiaries use a government-issued electronic benefit transfer card to purchase food at participating “firms,” which include retail food stores, specialty shops, special dining establishments, and wholesale food concerns.³ As of September 2017, more than 260 000 firms were authorized to accept SNAP benefits.³ Firms must stock a certain number of staple and perishable foods to qualify to accept SNAP benefits, or they can apply for an “access consideration,” which allows them to accept SNAP if it would “serve communities in low food access areas.”⁴ Through the 2014 Farm Bill, the federal government enhanced stocking requirements to increase the number of staple and perishable foods offered but did not substantially address other retail practices.⁵

Public health practitioners and researchers seek accurate and reliable data to effectively evaluate the program and recommend evidence-based policies to support the program’s food security and nutrition goals. Previous research found that SNAP is generally successful at reducing hunger and food insecurity but that SNAP participants’ diet quality is lower than that of both income-eligible nonparticipants and higher income nonparticipants.^6,7 Yet, food access and food choice depend on availability through SNAP authorized firms.⁸ There are gaps in knowledge stemming from lack of national data on retailer practices that may influence food purchase decisions among SNAP households⁹ and whether variation exists in healthy food access across SNAP-approved retailers or communities.⁸

Table 1 sets forth SNAP data definitions and identifies whether the USDA discloses these data. In brief, when SNAP beneficiaries swipe their electronic benefit transfer card to purchase food, this generates two types of data: food expenditure data, which identifies which foods are purchased using SNAP benefits,¹⁰ and transaction data, which includes the sale amount, date, time, and store- and household-identifying information.¹¹ Redemption data are the dollar amount of goods that participating stores sell to SNAP beneficiaries and subsequently “redeem”— or obtain reimbursement—from the federal government.¹²

TABLE 1—

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)-Related Definitions

Term	Definition	Data Disclosed by USDA
Fraud	Fraud is intentional activity that violates federal or state laws. There are four main types of SNAP fraud: (1) retailer or beneficiary trafficking SNAP benefits, (2) retailer application fraud, (3) household application fraud, and (4) state agency fraud.	USDA discloses retailer fraud and trafficking information, actions taken by the USDA to address fraud, state agency reports of recipient fraud, the number of fraud investigations nationally and by state, compliance activity nationally, and sanctions by states.13
Firms	Firms are stores authorized to accept SNAP benefits such as retailers (e.g., supermarkets, superstores, bakeries, convenience stores), wholesale food concerns, and specialty dining establishments.3	USDA discloses the number of authorized firms nationally and total redemption amounts by firm type.
Food expenditure data	These are point-of-sale information that identifies which foods are purchased using SNAP benefits.10	USDA does not systematically collect this data but releases results of FoodAPS and other food-related data-collection efforts.
Transaction data	These are point-of-sale information that identifies the sale amount, date, time, and store- and household-identifying information.11	USDA does not disclose these data. Pursuant to a FOIA request, the USDA released the names and addresses of participating stores. In 2018, Congress amended the law to prohibit the USDA from disclosing store-level transaction data.
Redemption data	This is the dollar amount of goods that participating retailers sell to SNAP beneficiaries and subsequently redeem from the federal government.12 Redemption is the process whereby retailers obtain reimbursement for the food purchased by SNAP beneficiaries from the federal government. (The term is a remnant of when retailers had to redeem physical food stamps; the electronic process is still referred to as redemption.17)	USDA discloses de-identified redemption data by firm type, state, and region.3 USDA does not disclose store-level redemption data. In 2018, Congress amended the law to prohibit the USDA from disclosing store-level redemption data, and in 2019 the Supreme Court ruled that the USDA does not have to disclose store-level redemption data under FOIA.16

Note. FOIA = the Freedom of Information Act; FoodAPS = National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey; USDA = US Department of Agriculture.

The USDA does not systematically collect point-of-sale food expenditure data. The USDA does systematically collect all transaction and redemption data but does not disclose this information at the store level. Stakeholders have used legal strategies to attempt to access store-level redemption data, which the food industry and USDA opposed. These efforts shed light on outstanding gaps in knowledge, additional research that may be necessary to identify relevant retailer practices, and how requests for the systematic collection and disclosure of food expenditure data may fare. In this commentary, I focus on the historical and contemporary legal mechanisms and arguments stakeholders have used to gain or block disclosure of redemption and food expenditure data, and I provide recommendations for future research and data disclosure efforts.

REDEMPTION DATA

The Food Stamp Act of 1977 is the federal statute that authorizes SNAP. The act requires food retailers and wholesalers to submit information (e.g., tax filings) to the USDA to qualify to accept SNAP benefits.⁴ Section 2018 of the act requires the USDA to provide safeguards to ensure confidentiality of this information by limiting its use or disclosure to purposes directly connected with the administration and enforcement of the act.⁴ In 1978, the USDA issued regulations implementing section 2018 and extended the definition of the information it was required to collect and safeguard to include “sales and redemption data”—neither of which were specified in section 2018 itself.¹⁴

In 2011, a South Dakota newspaper, Argus Leader, issued a request for information from the USDA under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking six years of SNAP retail store records, including store-specific information and yearly redemption amounts or electronic benefit transfer sales figures for each retailer participating in SNAP.¹² (The request did not include food expenditure data.) Argus Leader sought the redemption data to identify “annual amounts that taxpayers paid to every business in the country that sells food” through SNAP, identify “which corporations make the most money in the program,” provide “insight into food deserts and food insecurity in rural South Dakota,” and reveal “potential instances of food stamp fraud.”¹⁵ The USDA released the names and addresses of participating stores (and already discloses de-identified redemption data by firm type, state, and region³) but refused to release store-level redemption data, consistent with its understanding of its obligation under section 2018.

Argus Leader sued the USDA in 2011 to enforce its FOIA request for annual store-level redemption data. The USDA and food retailers argued that this information was exempt from FOIA because it was “confidential” business information and the disclosure of store-level redemption data would “threaten stores’ competitive positions.”¹⁶ SNAP retailers were concerned that if their SNAP sales data were released, additional retailers could compete for SNAP dollars in their communities; these arguments highlight potential benefits of disclosure. The outcome of nondisclosure and thus less competition is that fewer retailers will accept SNAP benefits in certain communities, which could limit participants’ access to a wider range of foods and increase food costs.

In 2012, a federal district court found that the USDA properly withheld the redemption data.¹² However, in 2014, the federal appellate court for the Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded the case, finding that the “plain text” of section 2018 did not include redemption data so the USDA erroneously withheld this information.¹⁷ As a result, the USDA issued a formal public request for information on whether aggregated monthly or annual SNAP redemption data at the individual store level or a retailer’s aggregated sales at all stores within a state or nationally would qualify as confidential business information or whether these data should be released for transparency purposes.¹⁸ The USDA received 539 comments.¹⁸

Table 2 summarizes the primary arguments in comments submitted by food industry entities, public interest groups, and researchers. In general, large food retailers argued that the data were confidential business information that would not increase transparency for the program; researchers and public interest groups argued for transparency and disclosure; and smaller retailers mostly agreed with large retailers, but these comments were less uniform.

TABLE 2—

Arguments for and Against Increased US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Disclosure of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Redemption Data Monthly or Annually

Individual Retailer Per Locationa		Aggregate Retailer State-/National-Level Data
Arguments For Disclosure Specific to Individual Retailers	Arguments Against Disclosure Specific to Individual Retailers	Arguments for Disclosure of This Aggregation	Arguments Against Disclosure of This Aggregation
Increase transparency for program.	Would cause substantial competitive harm for retailers.	Increase transparency for program.	Large chain retailers argued that aggregation at a state or national level would have the same drawbacks as at the individual level.
Identify SNAP sales figures for each participating retailer.	Would disclose confidential business information or trade secrets.	Identify SNAP sales figures for participating retailers within a state or nationally.	Retailers with only single outlets argued that they would be at a disadvantage because state/national data would not be aggregated for them but would be aggregated for chains. Some small retailers suggested that large chains but not small retailers should be required to disclose these data.
Identify retailers participating in program.	Not needed to or would not increase transparency for the program.	Identify retailers participating in program.
Fraud detection.	USDA already has a fraud detection program, and regulations already address fraud.
Can be used for targeted interventions/policies in low-resource communities where SNAP use is and is not prevalent.	Would stigmatize stores.
Provide insight into food deserts and food insecurity.	Would stigmatize SNAP beneficiaries.
	Kmart argued that people may assume stores with high SNAP participation are located in areas with more crime or certain racial/ethnic minorities.

Note. Major arguments gleaned from industry and researcher comments on the request for information from the USDA and made during the Argus Leader Media v. USDA case. Arguments were identified multiple times except for arguments identified by an entity. Aggregate de-identified retailer state/national data are already disclosed.

^aNot legally viable after the 2018 Farm Bill amendment to 7 USC §2018, which now prohibits the disclosure of transaction and redemption data of individual retail food stores or wholesale food concerns (which are identified by a unique Food and Nutrition Service number).⁴ The Supreme Court also held that these data cannot be discovered through a Freedom of Information Act request.¹⁶

During this period, the food industry lobbied Congress to include language in the 2018 Farm Bill to protect the data at issue in the Argus Leader case from future FOIA requests.¹⁹ In December 2018, Congress quietly amended section 2018 through the final Farm Bill to require the USDA to collect and safeguard “transaction and redemption data” from retail food stores and wholesalers.²⁰ As such, Congress prohibited the USDA from disclosing the exact store-level data sought in the Argus Leader case. The Congressional Research Service report and the Senate and House Reconciliation report referred to the new provision as one of many “technical changes,” so there was no explanation of the amendment.²¹

By this time, the courts had found in favor of Argus Leader. At the end of 2018, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a new lower court ruling that required the USDA to disclose all store-level redemption data. The USDA withdrew from the case, and a trade association for the food retail industry, the Food Marketing Institute, took over and filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court, which accepted the case.

During the Supreme Court hearing, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remarked that one of the purposes of FOIA was to require the disclosure of information that government officials may not want to disclose if, for example, there is agency capture (which is when a regulatory agency or process is controlled by or advances the interests of those it is supposed to be regulating). In light of the USDA’s strong alliance with the retailers’ competitive concerns,²² this may have been a legitimate concern. Nevertheless, in June 2019, the Supreme Court found (6 to 3) for the Food Marketing Institute and against disclosure of the requested information by finding the data at issue to be confidential business information.¹⁶

The Supreme Court’s ruling and amended section 2018 of the act do not preclude the disclosure of redemption data that do not identify individual retailers, aggregated in other ways such as those proposed by the USDA in its request for comments (e.g., by state or nationally). However, large retailers opposed the disclosure of these aggregations in their comments (Table 2), indicating that a potential legal battle could ensue over such requirement.

The act does permit the disclosure of store-level data to “law enforcement and investigative agencies of a State government for the purposes of administering or enforcing” the act or other federal or state laws.⁴ Although the act limits which state agencies can access the data and for what purposes, there may be opportunities for states to use these data to improve healthy food access in areas where it is currently limited. As mentioned, the act allows retailers that do not otherwise qualify to accept SNAP to apply for an access consideration, allowing them to accept SNAP benefits if it would “serve communities in low food access areas.”⁴ States may seek to ensure that these goals are being met by enacting state laws to enhance this aspect of the program and enforce state and federal standards for SNAP retailers.

FOOD EXPENDITURE DATA

Federal law does not require the USDA to collect or safeguard food expenditure data, so these data are not tracked or collected during the SNAP transaction process. As a result, researchers have used various methods to identify the range of foods SNAP households are purchasing (with and without government benefits), including using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey²³ and de-identified retailer scanner data²⁴ and relying on consumers’ dietary recall,¹⁰ diaries, or scanning of products,⁷ among other methods.¹⁰ Researchers have identified research challenges to collecting these data, including industry reluctance to share detailed information.¹⁰ In light of these difficulties and the critical gap in food purchase information, the USDA designed FoodAPS (the National Household Food Acquisition and Purchase Survey) with outside researchers “to inform policymaking on key national priorities, such as health and obesity, food insecurity, and food and nutrition assistance policy.”²⁵ FoodAPS is a nationally representative survey of household food purchases and acquisitions, including for SNAP participants, from which the USDA makes available restricted-use and public use data sets.

Congress has not proposed bills that would require the systematic collection of all point-of-sale food expenditure data under SNAP. For example, a House of Representatives’ proposed amendment to the 2018 Farm Bill would have authorized the USDA to collect a statistically significant sample of SNAP retailer transaction data, including the cost and description of food purchased with SNAP, while ensuring that the information is de-identified for individual retail food stores and chains. A national system of food expenditure data collection would require equipment and system changes across all retailers to collect, store, and transmit food item–level data.¹⁰ Additionally, online food shopping has now become one of the “normal channels of trade.”¹

The USDA launched an online purchasing pilot for SNAP beneficiaries in 2019. Online purchasing creates an electronic record and an opportunity to track this subset of SNAP data. As these services increasingly become available to SNAP beneficiaries, future research will be necessary to determine whether such services address access issues or compound disparities for SNAP participants who lack the resources to use such a system. Congress could require the USDA to collect online food expenditure data through this system.

Even if the USDA systematically collected food expenditure data, questions remain about how it would disclose these data. The House of Representatives’ proposed amendment I mentioned would have required the data to be de-identified for individual retail food stores and chains, similar to how other SNAP-related data are released. As was the case for transaction and redemption data, food retailers have been reluctant to disclose store-level food expenditure data, arguing that information on “exactly what” their “customers are purchasing with their SNAP benefits” should remain confidential.¹⁹ The food industry and USDA may therefore oppose the disclosure of store-level food expenditure data.

The Supreme Court’s decision in FMI v. Argus Leader Media is instructive if groups sought disclosure of store-level food expenditure data under FOIA. The Supreme Court explained that data would meet the definition of “confidential” under FOIA if the food industry intended the information “to be held in confidence or kept secret” or if the USDA provided assurance that it will remain secret.¹⁶ In the case of food expenditure data, food industry members would likely argue that they do not disclose this information voluntarily; for example, they do not delineate sales data by food item in shareholder reports or required federal securities filings. If a future Congress wanted to make this information available, it could expressly make the collection and disclosure of food expenditure data a condition of firm participation. However, although such a requirement would allow disclosure, it also may unintentionally drive away participating firms, compounding food access issues in underserved communities.

At a minimum it is important that the USDA and researchers continue to identify SNAP household food expenditures to evaluate and improve the nutritional focus of the program. In addition, to help fill the gap in knowledge left in the wake of the redemption data dispute, researchers might increase their focus on retail practices, for example by including online purchases in future studies and identifying food purchase variations across retail establishments or communities.⁸ Such data could be useful for determining whether certain retail establishments or communities are disproportionately associated with high spending on unhealthy food, potentially indicating discounting of unhealthy food by retailers⁹ or lack of access to healthy food in those locations.⁵ This could support policy or program change such as incentivizing appropriate retailers to accept SNAP in particular communities, addressing problematic retailer practices, or providing incentives or disincentives for healthy or unhealthy food, respectively.²³

CONCLUSIONS

Accurate and reliable data are essential for supporting evidence-based policies and effectively evaluating and improving programs. There is a constant and pervasive threat that the federal government will cut safety net programs, including SNAP. This threat is not based on data and seems to exist regardless of what the data reveal. It remains valuable for public health groups to support transparency and identify SNAP retail sales and food expenditure data to meet the food security and nutritional goals of the program.