Avoidi ng a c os t ly cu t to th e

Su ppl eme nta l Nu tri tion A ssi s ta nce Pro gr am ( S NAP)

Who is eligible for SNAP?
Households with a monthly gross
income of less than 130% of the federal poverty level ($2,422 for a family
of four in 2012), a monthly net income less than 100% federal poverty
level, and assets less than $2,000 are
eligible. Households with elderly or
disabled members with assets less
than $3,250 and net incomes under
the federal poverty level are also
eligible. Additional categorical eligibility allows households with disposable
income below the federal poverty
level. Eligible households must also
meet citizenship and work requirements (USDA, 2012).

August 4, 2013

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

The Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly
known as the Food Stamp Program) is
the largest federal food aid program in
the United States. SNAP provides financial assistance to low and no income
Americans for the explicit purpose of
purchasing non-prepared food. With an
annual budget of $75.6 billion (2012
fiscal year), SNAP serves over 14% of
the population (46.2 million people) and
has average monthly benefits of approx-

Key benefits of SNAP:

What is the Farm Bill?

The Farm Bills beginning dates back
to the 1930s during the Great Depression and Dust Bowl. The governments intent was to both support
agrarian economies and relieve unemployment by limiting specific crop
cultivation, supporting soil conservation practices, stabilizing crop prices
by limiting supply, and buying excess
crops. The federal Farm Bill governs
national agriculture and food policies
and is reauthorized by Congress approximately every 5 years. The Farm
Bill impacts public health in four major ways. First, it provides nutrition
assistance to low-income Americans
through the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, previously known as the food stamp program). Second, it produces affordable
foods through crop insurance, subsidies, market promotion, distribution,
and conservation. Third, the Farm
Bill aims to improve food access via
provisions that govern regional and
local food systems. Finally, sustainable food systems and environmentally sustainable agriculture is promoted
by the Farm Bill (Elliot & Raziano,
2012).

imately $134 per participant (Center for

the Study of the Presidency and Congress [CSPC], 2012; United State Department of Agriculture [USDA], 2012;
USDA, 2013b). SNAP is administered
by the USDA; however, the benefits are
distributed by the individual states
(USDA, 2012). SNAP has received criticism for contributing to the obesity epidemic, fraud, and promoting dependency on welfare programs (Lee, 2013;
USDA, 2012).

SNAP improves beneficiaries ac-

cess to food, leading to decreased
hunger, food insecurity, malnutrition, and obesity (Center for Hunger-Free Communities, 2012;
USDA, 2012).
SNAP benefits lifted 3.9 million
Americans out of poverty in 2010
and aids millions more Americans
that live in poverty. (Thompson &
Garrett-Peltier, 2012; USDA, 2012).

SNAP largely serves vulnerable

populations, such as children, the
elderly, and the disabled (USDA,
2012).
SNAP provides a fiscal boost to the
economy by supporting agriculture
and local economies (Center for
Hunger-Free Communities, 2012;
USDA, 2012).
SNAP provides nutrition education
to help beneficiaries make healthy
food choices (USDA, 2012).

Current Situation
On July 11th, 2013, the U.S.
House of Representatives passed a version of the Agriculture Reform, Food
and Jobs Act of 2013 (the Farm Bill)
without a nutrition title for the first
time since 1973 (OKeefe, 2013; Weisman & Nixon, 2013). The nutrition title,
which funds SNAP, historically consti-

tutes approximately 80% of Farm Bill

funding (Weisman & Nixon, 2013). The
House of Representatives plan to bring
up a separate nutrition bill in September
that would cut SNAP and other nutrition spending by $40 billion over ten
years, primarily by reducing eligibility
and benefits (Abbott, 2013).

2013 Farm Bill Timeline

January 1st
U.S. Congress passes
2008 Farm
Bill extension
as part of
package to
avoid Fiscal
Cliff

June 10th
Senate passes
a Farm Bill
with $4 billion in cuts to
nutrition
spending

June 20th
House fails to
pass version
of Farm Bill
with $20
billion in cuts
to nutrition
funding over
10 years

July 11th
House passes
version of
Farm Bill
stripped of
nutrition
title

September
House to
propose nutrition bill
with $40
billion cuts to
nutrition
programs
over 10 years

October 1st
Current
Farm Bill
Extensions
Expire

(Abbott, 2013; OKeefe, 2013; Nixon; 2013; Weisman & Nixon, 2013)

Justification for cuts:

There is bipartisan agreement that federal
nutrition programs should be cut for the
sake of fiscal responsibility; however, there
is a large discrepancy over the issue of how
much. The Senate approved a version of the
Farm Bill in June that would cut nutrition
program funding by $4 billion over the next
10 years (Nixon, 2013). In early June, the
House failed to pass their version of the
Farm Bill with approximately $20 billion in
nutrition title cuts over the same period
(Abbott, 2013; Weisman & Nixon, 2013).
The primary impetus to cut nutrition title
spending is to trim the federal deficit and
control spending. SNAP participation in
2012 was 46.2 million people, an increase of
over 60% since 2007s 26.6 million participants (CSPC, 2012). This corresponds with
an increase in SNAP spending from an annual $33.2 billion in 2007 to $78.4 billion in
2012 (USDA, 2013b). The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and spending
was brought on by economic recession due
to the 2008 financial crisis, rather than
changes to eligibility criteria (USDA, 2012).

(Rosenbaum, & Dean, 2013)

Opposition to cuts:
SNAP is important safety-net program that
decreases hunger and food insecurity for
approximately 45 million Americans (USDA,
2012). Prevention of food insecurity and
hunger prevents many costly secondary
problems such as malnutrition, obesity, and
loss of jobs (Thompson & Garrett-Peltier,
2012; USDA, 2012).
Cuts will reduce SNAP eligibility for
several million people.
Hundreds of thousands of low-income
children will lose eligibility for free
school lunches.
If categorical eligibility is cut, poor
working families will lose SNAP benefits
due to modest assets, even though
their disposable income is below the
federal poverty level.
Nutrition education funding will be reduced.
It is predicted that the recent increase
in SNAP costs will subside once the
economy recovers and poverty and
unemployment levels begin to decline
(Rosenbaum & Dean, 2013).
Food stamps stimulate the economy
(Thompson & Garrett-Peltier, 2012).
SNAP eligibility has work requirements
and there is evidence that SNAP participation does not promote dependency
on aid programs (Lee, 2013).
Reducing nutritional aid will cause increase in healthcare costs in the future
by increasing heath issues related to
poverty and food insecurity, including
low birth weight, asthma, dental problems, mental illness, accidental death,
depression, and obesity (CSPC, 2012;
USDA, 2012).

Recommendation
There is agreement in Washington that the
Farm Bills nutritional title and SNAP need
improvement, particularly with controlling
growth, promoting healthy behavior, and
improving efficiency. However, funding cuts
that restrict eligibility and lower benefits
will increase healthcare costs in the future.
More troubling is the House of Representatives Farm Bill includes no provisions for
nutrition title funding. SNAP is a permanent
and required program, but passing a farm
bill without the nutrition title puts its funding at risk. Without specific nutrition funding legislation, funding of SNAP will fall to
Congressional approval through appropriations bills, which may or may not fully fund
the program (USDA, 2013a). Another con-

cerning scenario is the possibility that if the

Farm Bills nutrition title and crop subsidies
and insurance are split into separate bills,
neither bill will pass through Congress due
to political roadblocks. It is up to the populace to encourage their senators to not
consider a Farm Bill without the nutrition
title, to encourage their House Representatives to accept a Farm Bill with modest to
moderate nutrition title cuts, and encourage
the president to veto any such bill that separates the Farm Bill or makes deep cuts to
SNAP that would reduce eligibility and benefits. Failure to do so will result in diminished quality of life and health of millions of
Americans, and will dramatically increase
future healthcare costs.

References
Abbott, C. (2013, August 1). House Republicans plan
to seek a $40 billion cut in food stamps for the poor,
the head of the House Agriculture Committee said
on Thursday, double the amount previously sought
by conservatives. Reuters. Retrieved from http://
www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-usa-congress
-foodstamps-idUSBRE97012420130801
Center for Hunger-Free Communities. (2013). The
Cost of Cutting SNAP. Retrieved from http://
www.centerforhungerfreecommunities.org/sites/
default/files/pdfs/SNAP%20Policy%20Brief%
20Final.pdf
Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress
(CSPC). (2012). SNAP to Health: A Fresh Approach
to Strengthening the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Retrieved from http://
www.thepresidency.org/storage/documents/
CSPC_SNAP_Report.pdf
Elliot, P., & Raziano, A. (2012). The Farm Bill and
Public Health: A Primer for Public Health Professionals. Retrieved from http://www.apha.org/NR/
rdonlyres/71D6995A-C346-4227-BDE0DAB37EF5F16E/0/FarmBillandPublicHealth.pdf
Lee, H. (2013). SNAP Works: SNAP Work Requirements and Time Limits. Retrieved from http://
www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/SNAPWork-Requirements-and-Time-Limits-ABAWD.pdf
Nixon, R. (2013, June 10). Senate Passes Farm Bill;
House Vote Is Less Sure. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/us/
politics/senate-passes-farm-bill-house-vote-is-lesssure.html
OKeefe, E. (2013, July 11). Farm bill passes narrowly
in House, without food stamp funding. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://
articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-11/
politics/40514353_1_house-republicans-farm-billfood-stamp-program
Rosenbaum, D. & Dean, S. (2013). House Agriculture
Committee Farm Bill Would Cut Nearly 2 Million
People off SNAP. Retrieved from http://
www.cbpp.org/files/5-13-13fa.pdf
Thompson, J. & Garrett-Peltier, H. (2012). The
Economic Consequences of Cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Retrieved
from http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/
uploads/issues/2012/03/pdf/snap_report.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
(2012). Building a Healthy America: A Profile of the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/
Published/snap/FILES/Other/
BuildingHealthyAmerica.pdf
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
(2013a). A Short History of SNAP. Retrieved from
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/Legislation/
about.htm
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
(2013b). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
Participation and Costs. Retrieved from: http://
www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm
Weisman, J. & Nixon, R. (2013, July 11). House
Republicans Push Through Farm Bill, Without Food
Stamps. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://
www.nytimes.com/2013/07/12/us/politics/house-billwould-split-farm-and-food-stamp-programs.html?
pagewanted=all