SNAP: The Most Important Component of Our Efforts to End Food Insecurity in the United States

Food insecurity, the leading indicator of well-being among vulnerable Americans, remains a daunting challenge for our country. In 2020, 38 million persons in the United States lived in food-insecure households.¹ This is lower than the record highs of 50 million in 2009 and 2011 but remains unacceptably high.

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

These food insecurity rates would have been far higher were it not for the primary component of the social safety net against food insecurity, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The success of this program has been demonstrated in multiple studies insofar as SNAP recipients are up to 45% less likely to be food insecure than eligible nonparticipants once nonrandom selection into the program is addressed in econometric models.^2,3 Insofar as food insecurity is tied to a wide array of negative health outcomes,⁴ by reducing food insecurity, SNAP also leads to lower health care costs among recipients. These reductions in health care costs as a result of SNAP are, not surprisingly, very large. For example, a recent study found that SNAP leads to reductions in health care costs through Medicaid of $2360 per person per year.⁵

The results of the study by Insolera et al. (p. 1498) provide critical further evidence of the success of SNAP. Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, they find substantial evidence of reductions in food insecurity years after receipt of SNAP. Namely, adults who received SNAP during childhood were more than three times more likely to be food secure than adults who did not participate as children despite being eligible. The results of the study by Insolera et al. are part of a broader set of articles that demonstrate the longer-term positive impacts of SNAP on health and other outcomes.⁶ We are able to say that SNAP leads to not only immediate improvements in well-being but also improvements years later.

The success of SNAP is attributable to five main factors. First, it reaches those who are most in need. Only those with access to resources so limited that they are not able to purchase a food-secure quantity of food with their current incomes are eligible for the program. Second, it leverages the traditional retail sector in the United States. It does so by allowing SNAP recipients to use their benefits in more than 260 000 stores.⁷ Third, SNAP is funded as an entitlement program. As such, there is no need for explicit authorization by policymakers to expand or contract during changing economic conditions. This is particularly important during times of increased economic need such as the Great Recession or the COVID-19 pandemic. Fourth, SNAP is also an entitlement program at the individual level. Although the average length of time on SNAP is slightly less than one year, there are persons who need assistance for longer time periods and, in some cases, much longer time periods. With a few minor exceptions, these particularly vulnerable individuals can stay on SNAP for as long as needed. The fifth and most important reason SNAP works is that it gives dignity and autonomy to recipients.⁸ SNAP recipients are given the dignity of being able to shop alongside their friends and neighbors at the food store, and, when shopping, they are given the autonomy of being able to make their own food choices that are consistent with their preferences, religious beliefs, dietary requirements, culture, and so forth. This differs from some other programs that sharply delineate what recipients can and cannot obtain. Consequently, it is not surprising that SNAP participation rates are very high, especially in comparison with other food assistance programs that do not afford households the same levels of dignity and autonomy.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR AND THREATS TO SNAP

Any comprehensive effort to eradicate food insecurity in the United States, then, must have SNAP at its center. The US Department of Agriculture emphasized this importance in their recent momentous decision to raise the value of the maximum SNAP benefit by approximately 20%. This was done to reflect the high proportion of SNAP recipients who, although better off because of receiving SNAP, were still food insecure. It is estimated that this increase in benefits will lead to a decline of approximately 40% in food insecurity among SNAP recipients.⁹

One further step would be to expand eligibility and make enrollment more seamless. A possible path would be to have SNAP reconstructed as a modified universal basic income program whereby all households with incomes below 400% of the poverty line (approximately $100 000 for a family of four) would receive the maximum SNAP benefit. If this were implemented, there would be an estimated 98% decline in food insecurity in the United States at a cost of $564 billion.¹⁰ Although this is not an inexpensive proposal, any comprehensive cost–benefit calculation should account for the subsequent reductions in near-term and long-term health care costs.

Unfortunately, although support for the dignity and autonomy of SNAP recipients and recognition of the importance of food insecurity is strong in many circles, this is not universal. A recent manifestation of this is a belief among some that we should no longer be concerned with food insecurity and instead should concentrate on “nutrition security.” From a research perspective, this is problematic,¹¹ and we already know that reducing food insecurity improves nutrient intakes and reduces health disparities. I’m much more concerned, though, about the explicit and implicit encouragement by some “nutrition security” advocates to make changes in the structure of SNAP such that restrictions would be imposed on what can and cannot be purchased by SNAP recipients. In essence, these advocates for changes to SNAP are saying vulnerable Americans do not have the capacity to make decisions about what is best for their families, and, instead, outside “experts” should be dictating these choices. This, of course, is stigmatizing to an already vulnerable population and would lead to declines in SNAP participation, subsequent increases in food insecurity (both short term and long term), declines in health outcomes, and widening of health disparities. Considering the evidence found in the study by Insolera et al. and in multiple other studies about the profound positive impacts of SNAP, we should resist the efforts of those who seek to infantilize SNAP recipients.