Published February 10, 2025
Recent reignited proposals to impose restrictions on the types of food available for purchase through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are misguided. These proposals fail to recognize that the real solution to improving health outcomes a lies not in further restricting SNAP, but in addressing the systemic factors that affect health in the U.S. — particularly those contributing to food insecurity and poor health outcomes.
In 2023, approximately 47.4 million people in the U.S. lived in food-insecure households, including 13.8 million children.[1] Food insecurity — defined as the lack of consistent access to enough nutritious food for an active, healthy life[2] — is a critical issue linked to poor dietary quality and an increased risk of diet-related diseases, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer.[3] This food insecurity limits individuals’ and families’ ability to follow a healthy dietary pattern.[4]
Those experiencing poverty, material hardship, unemployment, and racial discrimination — are particularly at risk for food insecurity.[5] The Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) emphasizes that a healthy diet can only be achieved when adequate resources, affordable food, and support are available in the places where people live, work, and gather.[6] The DGA further highlights that access to healthy food is impacted by factors such as proximity to food retail outlets, the ability to prepare meals independently, and access to transportation.[7] Socioeconomic characteristics of a neighborhood can also affect an individual’s ability to access nutritious food.[8]
The Critical Role of SNAP
SNAP is an essential safety net for millions of Americans, providing support to households with low- and no-income. It plays a key role in improving not only food security but also the health, well-being, and economic stability of individuals and families across the nation.[9]
SNAP benefits are based on the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP), which represents the most economical of the four major food plans the federal government uses to determine food assistance levels.[10] The TFP sets the maximum monthly amount that SNAP recipients can receive, and participants can use their benefits via an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card to purchase food for home consumption. Benefits are adjusted according to income, with households earning little or no income receiving the full TFP amount. However, the purchasing power of these benefits can fluctuate due to rising food prices, fuel costs, and other economic factors, making it more difficult to maintain a nutritious diet.[11]
Despite a 2021 update to the TFP, the maximum benefit still rarely covers the cost of a modest meal, forcing families to choose between feeding their loved ones or paying for essential needs like shelter.[12],[13] Even with minimal benefits, SNAP is a valuable resource that improves the ability to purchase nutritious food. Beyond addressing hunger, SNAP has a significant impact on reducing poverty, as it frees up income for other essential needs and enhances the economic stability of vulnerable families.[14] The program also contributes positively to public health outcomes: Research has shown that SNAP users, especially older adults, experience lower emergency room visits while on benefits, and some studies suggest SNAP participation can reduce long-term care admissions and health care costs.[15],[16]
The Challenges of Restricting Food Choices
Past attempts to limit the types of foods available through SNAP have consistently demonstrated how burdensome and complicated such restrictions can be. For instance, when food restrictions were proposed in the 1964 Food Stamp Act, the Senate Agriculture Committee rejected the idea due to the significant administrative burden it would impose.[17] Similarly, the 1977 Farm Bill recognized that food restrictions would not address the root causes of food insecurity and would only complicate the program.[18] Since then, the focus has shifted to more effective approaches, such as providing produce incentives, as seen in the 2008 Farm Bill. These initiatives have successfully encouraged healthier food choices without infringing on the autonomy and dignity of individuals.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has also evaluated food restrictions, concluding that limiting the food choices of SNAP recipients is both conceptually flawed and impractical.[19] Implementing such restrictions would require retailers to update their systems, while states would need to increase budgets to train staff, update and distribute new materials, and ensure proper coordination and communication for retailer compliance. This would be particularly challenging as states continue to run the program with limited resources. Additionally, state agencies are already grappling with outdated systems and technology, as well as a limited and sometimes underpaid workforce, causing SNAP recipients to experience lengthy delays for their benefits.[20] Any new program proposals would further complicate the efforts of states to improve program efficiency and achieve cost savings.
According to USDA, promoting healthier diets is better achieved through incentive-based approaches rather than restrictions.[21] Providing nutrition education and supporting policies that encourage the purchase of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy options are far more effective than limiting choice. As the testing of the USDA Healthy Incentives Pilot (HIP) found, pure price reduction of 30 percent would increase fruit and vegetable consumption by about 20 percent of SNAP participants. [22]
Maintaining Autonomy and Dignity
Ensuring that individuals can select foods that align with their dietary needs, preferences, and cultural values is crucial for preserving their dignity and autonomy. It is paternalistic to dictate what foods SNAP participants are allowed to eat, as it assumes they are incapable of making their own food choices simply because they have limited income. Research indicates that SNAP recipients already make wise shopping choices to stretch their limited resources, purchasing essential foods like vegetables, fruits, grains, and proteins. Evidence is lacking to suggest that SNAP recipients are more likely to purchase unhealthy foods, than other individuals with low incomes.[23],[24] Restricting access to food would not solve the broader societal factors contributing to poor health, including high food prices, marketing practices, and limited access to healthy food outlets. The most common barrier reported by 61 percent of SNAP participants to achieving a healthy diet was the affordability of foods that are part of a healthy diet.[25]
It also further increases the stigma individuals who rely on SNAP already face. Discussions about the program are often filled with stereotypes, casting low-wage workers who use SNAP as “other” or less deserving, as though they are less valuable than those with higher incomes. Many SNAP recipients report feeling judged by elected leaders, the media, fellow shoppers in line, and even grocery store cashiers.[26]
The Long-Term Solution: Addressing Root Causes
Restrictions set a dangerous precedent that could undermine the SNAP program, making it harder to administer and creating operational challenges. Previous Farm Bills have shown that such actions would be costly, and it is unclear who would shoulder the financial burden — the federal government, already underfunded state programs, or retailers, who might pass on these costs to all consumers.
Advocates for SNAP must remain vigilant to prevent any potential threats or cuts to the program. As America grapples with poor health outcomes, it is crucial that a small segment of the population — whose health and dietary patterns are similar to those of the broader public — does not become the target of misguided restrictive measures. Imposing food restrictions on SNAP recipients would only make the program more complicated and exacerbate food insecurity. Instead, attention should shift to proven, long-term solutions that benefit society as a whole, such as improving job opportunities for full-time living- wage employment, increasing access to healthy food, and enhancing transportation networks.
Increasing benefit adequacy in SNAP so that individuals have resources to purchase healthier food, increasing incentive-based programs, such as produce discounts, and expanding nutrition education have proven to be effective and widely supported strategies that can bring about meaningful change. By focusing on expanding access to resources and healthier foods, and not stigmatizing SNAP recipients, food insecurity can be reduced while promoting better health outcomes for all people in America.
End Notes
[1] Rabbitt, M. P., Reed-Jones, M., Hales, L. J., & Burke, M. P. (2024). Household food security in the United States in 2023 (Report No. ERR-337). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. https://doi.org/10.32747/2024.8583175.ers
[2] United States Department of Agriculture ERS, Food Security in the US, Food Security in the U.S. | Economic Research Service
[3] Gundersen, C., & Ziliak, J. P. (2015). Food insecurity and health outcomes. Health Affairs, 34(11), 1830–1839. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.0645
[4] USDA. (2020). Dietary guidelines for Americans 2020-2025. In Dietary Guidelines for Americans. USDA. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf
[5] Marriott, J. P., Fiechtner, L., Birk, N. W., Taitelbaum, D., Odoms-Young, A., Wilson, N. L., Clay, L. A., & Zack, R. M. (2022). Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Food Pantry Use and Barriers in Massachusetts during the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Nutrients, 14(12), 2531. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14122531; Yu, M., Lombe, M., & Nebbitt, V. E. (2010). Food stamp program participation, informal supports, household food security and child food security: A comparison of african american and caucasian households in poverty. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(5), 767–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.01.015; Burke, M. P., Jones, S. J., Frongillo, E. A., Fram, M. S., Blake, C. E., & Freedman, D. A. (2018). Severity of household food insecurity and lifetime racial discrimination among African-American households in South Carolina. Ethnicity & health, 23(3), 276-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2016.1263286
[6] USDA. (2020). Dietary guidelines for Americans 2020-2025. In Dietary Guidelines for Americans. USDA. https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf
[7] Dietary guidelines for Americans 2020-2025 at 50.
[8] Dietary guidelines for Americans 2020-2025 at 50.
[9] Hartline–Grafton, H. Vollinger, E., & Weill, J. (2019). A Review of Strategies to Bolster SNAP’s Role in Improving Nutrition as well as Food Security Washington, DC: Food Research & Action Center. https://frac.org/research/resource-library/review-strategies-bolster-snaps-role-improving-nutrition-well-food-security
[10] USDA Food Plans | Food and Nutrition Service. Usda.gov. https://www.fns.usda.gov/research/cnpp/usda-food-plans
[11] Caswell, J. A., & Yaktine, A. L. (2013, April 23). History, Background, and Goals of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Nih.gov; National Academies Press (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206907/
[12] Waxman, E., Gupta, P., Gundersen, C., Spinner, B., Baird, C., Marconi, R., Chartoff, B., Dallman, A., Marazzi, M., Kenney, R., Lei, S., & Peiffer, E. (2023, June 12). Does SNAP Cover the Cost of a Meal in Your County?: In 2023, SNAP benefits did not cover the cost of a meal in 99 percent of counties. Urban Institute. https://www.urban.org/data-tools/does-snap-cover-cost-meal-your-county?utm_=
[13] King, J. (2024, December 23). November 2024 Pulse Survey. Propel. https://www.propel.app/insights/november-2024-pulse-survey/
[14] Beyond hunger: The role of SNAP in alleviating financial strain for low-income households. (n.d.). Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/beyond-hunger-the-role-of-snap-in-alleviating-financial-strain-for-low-income-households/
[15] Cotti, C. D., Gordanier, J. M., & Ozturk, O. D. (2020). Hunger pains? SNAP timing and emergency room visits. Journal of Health Economics, 71, 102313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhealeco.2020.102313
[16] Berkowitz, S. A., Palakshappa, D., Rigdon, J., Seligman, H. K., & Basu, S. (2021). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Health Care Use in Older Adults. Annals of Internal Medicine, 174(12). https://doi.org/10.7326/m21-1588
[17] 90th Congress, 1st session, House Agriculture Committee Report No. 95–464, p. 321 (June 1977).
[18] Caswell, J. A., & Yaktine, A. L. (2013, April 23). History, Background, and Goals of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Nih.gov; National Academies Press (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206907/
[19] USDA -Food and Nutrition Service IMPLICATIONS OF RESTRICTING THE USE OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS -SUMMARY. (2007). https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf
[20] MSN. (2025). Msn.com. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-issues-snap-benefits-warning-as-it-faces-losing-millions-in-funding/ar-AA1uzBSh?ocid=BingNewsVerp; Riordan, K. (2025, January 14). Tennessee faces lawsuit over delays in processing SNAP benefits. Wbir.com; WBIR. https://www.wbir.com/article/news/local/tennessee-being-sued-over-allegations-it-failed-to-legally-process-snap-benefits/51-ff6adc89-55ab-408a-8482-593f581f5c97; Stevens, A. D. (2025, January 13). Federal judge orders Alaska to address SNAP backlog amid growing food crisis. Salon; Salon.com. https://www.salon.com/2025/01/13/alaskas-snap-failures-highlight-national-struggles-with-assistance/; MSN. (2025). Msn.com. https://www.msn.com/en-us/public-safety-and-emergencies/health-and-safety-alerts/georgia-s-snap-backlog-persists-as-another-thanksgiving-arrives/ar-AA1uNTJz?ocid=BingNewsVerp
[21] USDA -Food and Nutrition Service IMPLICATIONS OF RESTRICTING THE USE OF FOOD STAMP BENEFITS -SUMMARY. (2007). https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/FSPFoodRestrictions.pdf
[22] Klerman, J. A., Bartlett, S., Wilde, P., & Olsho, L. (2014). The Short‐Run Impact of the Healthy Incentives Pilot Program on fruit and vegetable intake. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 96(5), 1372–1382. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau023
[23] Research on the impact of SNAP is challenging due to factors like participant diversity (age, race, geography, and short-term benefits), selection bias, and misreporting of participation in surveys. Households in most need of food assistance and diet improvement are more likely to participate in SNAP, complicating comparisons with nonparticipants. Income differences do not fully resolve this bias, and variations in benefit amounts further complicate the assessment of program outcomes. Additionally, ethical constraints prevent experimental designs, and inaccuracies in survey data (misreporting of 19 percent-25 percent of participants) limit the reliability of findings. Andreyeva, T., Tripp, A. S., & Schwartz, M. B. (2015). Dietary Quality of Americans by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Status. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49(4), 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.04.035
[24] USDA ERS – Restricting Sugar-Sweetened Beverages From SNAP Purchases Not Likely To Lower Consumption. (n.d.). Www.ers.usda.gov. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2015/march/restricting-sugar-sweetened-beverages-from-snap-purchases-not-likely-to-lower-consumption
[25] Barriers That Constrain the Adequacy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Allotments: In-depth Interview Findings Nutrition Assistance Program Report Food and Nutrition Service Office of Policy Support. (2021). https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/SNAP-Barriers-QualitativeReport.pdf
[26] Gaines-Turner, T., Simmons, J. C., & Chilton, M. (2019). Recommendations from SNAP participants to improve wages and end stigma. American Journal of Public Health, 109(12), 1664–1667. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.305362
