Reply to study shows how 42M recipients spend their food stamps

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "study shows how 42M recipients spend their food stamps "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]https://www.brookings.edu/articles/pros-and-cons-of-restricting-snap-purchases/

A good analysis of the pros AND cons, which also says that categories of grocery spending by SNAP recipients is very similar to non-SNAP consumers. 
One pilot study gave recipients rebates for purchasing fruits and vegetables from a narrow range of choices, and did result in increased consumption of those items. 
Administrative burden of restrictions would be costly and disproportionately affect smaller businesses. (Which could mean those businesses losing the ability to participate in SNAP at all, resulting in greater food deserts).

"The complexities arise in part because of the sheer number of products that would need to be classified. Consumers have vast differences in their tastes and preferences, and the market responds by providing variety. There are more than 650,000 food and beverage products on the market today, and 20,000 more are introduced annually.6 The complexity is multiplied because there is no clear standard for defining foods as “healthy” or “unhealthy,” or as luxury goods. Creating such standards would be difficult at best, and would entail substantial administrative costs to categorize and track the nutritional profile of each good to produce a SNAP-eligible foods list. The list would have to be maintained continuously and communicated to retailers and consumers in real time. My prediction is that the additional bureaucracy needed to support such an undertaking is not likely to save taxpayer money."

Narrow restrictions--the article specifically mentions soda--would mean that, since the majority of households spend cash as well as SNAP on groceries including those items, they would simply shift to paying cash for those items. If you think about it, someone receiving benefits going to the store is getting not just food (and soda), they are also getting dish detergent, tylenol, toilet paper, paper towels, and such. They have to fork over cash for those items. So the soda would simply end up being part of the cash portion of the entire transaction. So you would add another layer of regulatory enforcement and cost, with zero change in terms of people's consumption.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics