At the 49th annual National Food Policy Conference, I was intrigued by the discussion in the “Measuring Success - a Closer Look at SNAP Waivers” session. This panel focused on waivers the USDA issued to more than 20 states across the country to allow the exclusion of sugar sweetened beverages and other “junk” foods from being eligible for purchase with SNAP benefits. This conversation involved perspectives from a variety of stakeholders, including a representative from the National Grocers Association, a previous government official in the USDA, and a Food is Medicine researcher. The panel kept on reiterating a question that has made me reconsider the way I think about SNAP: “Is SNAP an anti-poverty or a public health program?"
My reflection on this question is through the lens of both someone who has worked to promote SNAP nutrition incentive programs, and someone who has worked on the ground to advance food security for college students. From my public health perspective, I have always assumed that SNAP is and should be a public health program, and believe in the power of creative incentives to encourage people to use their SNAP benefits for more nutritious foods like fruits and vegetables. My vision of food security is someone being able to access the food they need to be happy and healthy, but putting restrictions on foods people can purchase seems like an ethical dilemma (even though the WIC program has a list of items that can/can not be purchased with the program).
On another note, the logistical issues surrounding the waivers as discussed by the representative from the National Grocers Association, Stephanie Johnson, is something I could relate to with my role as the Graduate Assistant for The Store, GW’s on-campus food pantry. Johnson discussed the difficulty with communicating with shoppers about new ineligible items, unclear guidance from states to grocery stores, and the possibility of harming smaller businesses for those who may now not meet the standard stocking requirements with excluded items. I have seen firsthand the complexity of communicating to shoppers about changes in policies and procedures, and the amount of work it takes to keep institutions like food pantries and grocery stores up and running. Therefore, I can understand why many grocery stores are opposed to the waivers.
My main takeaway from this panel is that SNAP waivers are an understandingly controversial topic, and we as a country have a chance to conduct rigorous evaluations to determine their effectiveness with this new rollout. However, providing all stakeholders with appropriate communication and resources to implement this successfully is clearly lacking, and essential. People using SNAP benefits deserve a dignified grocery shopping experience where they have access to nutritious food that they want to eat and that they have a clear understanding of items excluded from their benefits. I am hoping all parties can work together for an effective implementation to be able to test whether these waivers can make a significant public health impact.