Sen. Michael Bennet recently announced new legislation, “The Hot Foods Act,” that would allow the purchase of hot foods from grocery stores via the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
SNAP, previously known as “food stamps,” provides assistance to 42 million Americans. Most recipients are children, elderly or disabled. Certainly, nutritious food cannot be defined by its temperature and Bennet deserves credit for listening to experts and SNAP recipients. The legislation includes provisions that keep SNAP dollars from being used at fast-food establishments and other restaurants.
The Hot Foods Act addresses an archaic rule within the SNAP program and will allow greater food choices for individuals and families receiving aid. Kudos to Bennet. When politicians propose evidence-based policy changes that translate into better outcomes, it is worth noting.
SNAP is a more than $100 billion yearly program that is reauthorized every five years via the Farm Bill. It provides critical nutritional support for families at or near the poverty level. This year Congress has a twice-per-decade chance to improve the program.
While Bennet’s legislative proposal addresses an important deficiency in SNAP, further changes to this program must occur as we grapple with a devastating amount of chronic diseases associated with poor nutrition, obesity, and diabetes. The obesity and diabetes epidemics in the United States represent huge barriers to improved population health and the financial solvency of Medicaid and Medicare.
Accordingly, we must consider further changes to the SNAP program that properly align with our goals for population health and health care system sustainability. To that end, our representatives in the House and Senate should utilize this year’s opportunity in the Farm Bill to end the soda pop subsidy within the SNAP program. SNAP should not allow the purchase of sugar-sweetened beverages.
The volumes of science and data linking the consumption of these beverages to obesity and diabetes cannot be ignored. How can we possibly justify the subsidy and explicit nod of approval of these beverages at the very same time we are facing devastating effects from obesity and diabetes? We can’t. It’s immoral and financially irresponsible.
Furthermore, evidence indicates that the soda industry targets populations that already suffer from higher rates of obesity and diabetes. Our very own public health policy, via SNAP, creates inequity in population health with a policy that promotes the consumption of non-nutritious products that remain major causal factors of chronic disease.
Consumer groups, that resist this change at first glance, must examine and appreciate the data. There is absolutely no scientific reason to continue the sugar-based beverage subsidy in SNAP. The counterproductive policy is not good for our collective health. And, we simply can’t afford it.
Three factors stand in the way of science and fact-based policy within SNAP: the soda industry lobby, institutional inertia, and some consumer groups that are fighting too hard to protect current policy to appreciate the data. Clearly, 21st-century public health policy should not and cannot include taxpayer-funded soda pop purchases.
Colorado’s Sen. Bennet and Rep. Yadira Caraveo Caraveo sit on their respective agriculture committees in the Senate and House. They will be considering Farm Bill legislation and voting on it this fall. Again, the opportunity for a more scientific and intelligent approach to SNAP only presents itself every five years.
The time is now. It makes sense to support Bennet’s legislation to allow hot food purchases via SNAP as proposed in The Hot Foods Act. Simultaneously, ask Bennet and Caraveo to support aligned public health policy that helps address equity in population health, fiscal responsibility in SNAP, and data-based policy provisions. Ask them to end the subsidy in SNAP for sugar-based beverages by excluding purchases of sugar-based beverages with SNAP dollars. After all, the “N” in SNAP stands for nutrition.
Michael Pramenko is a graduate of Dartmouth Medical School. He currently works as a family physician and chief medical officer for Monument Health and Primary Care Partners in Grand Junction. Michael and his wife Karen have three children with two now in college. Over the past 15 years he has written a column for the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel on topics related to health reform, cost, and quality.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
