The Problem With Restricting What People Buy With SNAP Benefits

Yes, Iowa Republicans are awful. But so is healthism.

Photo: Carol M. Highsmith / The Noun Project

In January, Republican lawmakers in Iowa drafted a bill that would have restricted those who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, a.k.a. "food stamp") benefits to purchases from a very short and specific list of foods. SNAP recipients can currently use their benefits to buy almost any type of food or non-alcoholic beverage in a supermarket or corner store, but this proposed change would have restricted them to the food list for the Women Infants and Children (WIC) program, a list created to meet the specific dietary needs of pregnant and breastfeeding people and their young children. Foods like white bread, oil, spices, and of course the dreaded "junk foods" like soda, chips, and candy would not be allowed.

It is—like much conservative policy related to poverty—nonsensical and cruel, and preoccupied with making sure people are working. (Those on Medicaid would only be eligible if they worked at least 20 hours a week.) It is also very much in line with attitudes about poverty that have persisted since Victorian England, when a law separated the "deserving" from the "undeserving poor." It is an attitude that shows up frequently in food programs, made acceptable today because it is presented as concern for health rather than paternalistic meddling. But are those two mutually exclusive categories?

The Poor Laws were designed to address poverty in England, beginning in the 16th century until post-World War II, and amended over the years. One significant change occurred in 1834, in response to the rising cost of using public funds to supplement the sub-living wages of those working, but still living in poverty. This lesson plan from the National Archives sums it up neatly, while also making it clear that we have not escaped the general sentiment behind this law, which is almost 200 years old:

Before 1834, the cost of looking after the poor was growing more expensive every year. This cost was paid for by the middle and upper classes in each town through their local taxes. There was a real suspicion amongst the middle and upper classes that they were paying the poor to be lazy and avoid work.

Representative Ann Meyer, an Iowa Republican, addressed the proposed SNAP changes at a public meeting in late January:

Meyer said she agrees the targeted programs are important safety nets to help people out of poverty. The legislation is meant to ensure both that people in need continue to get SNAP and Medicaid benefits, but that those who aren’t eligible cannot access the programs’ funds.

“They’re all your tax dollars,” Meyer said. “We want to make sure that we’re giving them to the right people.”

The Poor Laws of 1834 aimed to reduce eligibility for public assistance, and therefore the tax burden on middle- and upper-income households. Only those who could not work (such as the elderly or those with disabilities) were eligible—they were the "deserving poor." Those who were physically able to work were only offered a place in the workhouses, which were intentionally made to be unpleasant, so that only the most desperate would utilize the help—they were the "undeserving poor."

The conservative parroting of this false dichotomy is too obvious ("the right people"?!) to even bother digging into. It's gross and inhumane. Food should be a human right, full stop. What is more interesting to me is when this Victorian attitude pops up in food programs in a more acceptable form, and these days, it seems to be wearing the sheep's clothing of concern for health.

There was a lot of public outcry over the proposed Iowa bill when the news first emerged, with national coverage on how the bill would not allow the purchase of items like fresh meat, bagged salads, or sliced cheese. Since then, the House Health and Human Services subcommittee has announced that they plan to amend the bill and remove most of the restrictions—except for its restriction on candy and sugar-sweetened soda. Recipients would not be able to buy those items with their SNAP benefits. Rep. Ann Meyer explained why:

“We talked about healthy eating,” Meyer said. “You can’t point anything out of those two items that are healthy.”

(Does Rep. Meyer ever buy candy or soda? Does she ever purchase food that falls outside her definition of "healthy"? Since she is a human being, I'm going to guess yes—yet no one is threatening to take away her ability to buy what she wants.)

I haven't seen the same anger directed toward these proposed restrictions. Maybe it will emerge if and when the actual amendment is released, but somehow I doubt it will be as controversial as the restriction of fresh meat and salads. Because our culture also has a lot of unexamined healthism mixed in with our ideas about who does and does not deserve help. It's a real messy dish.

Aubrey Gordon has a good explainer of healthism and its impacts, especially on those with marginalized identities. In brief:

Healthism was coined by Robert Crawford in a 1980 paper for the International Journal of Health Services….He defined healthism as “the preoccupation with personal health as a primary—often the primary—focus for the definition and achievement of well-being; a goal which is to be attained primarily through the modification of life styles.” That is, for Crawford, healthism flattened the health of whole populations from a dynamic and multifaceted issue with many and varied influences, to a simple matter of personal responsibility. Crawford saw health as inherently political, a reflection of systems that create and perpetuate poverty, racism, misogyny, and more. But under healthism, health was an individual matter, not a systemic one, which meant that the individual was primarily responsible for their own health. 

According to healthism, buying candy and soda becomes an individual moral failing. Using public benefits to buy candy and soda then mixes in the morality of poverty, and suddenly the idea of someone "deserving" SNAP benefits because they are buying fresh vegetables and canned beans, versus someone "not deserving" benefits because they are buying soda, chips, and candy becomes less abhorrent. Maybe it even makes sense. Healthism teaches us that those who are doing the personal work of supporting their health and the health of their families "deserve" all the help they can get. And those who aren't? Healthism says it's better for them in the long run if we don't support their bad choices.

Viewing food choices as reflections on our morality ignores all the systemic issues behind what food is available to us and why we make the choices we do. (See also the essay below, on why food education is not the answer.) 

Teaching Poor People About Food Is Not the Answer

Focusing on individuals distracts us from food apartheid, and the fact that US food companies disproportionately target Black and Hispanic children, teens, and adults with advertisements for fast food, chips, candy, and soda. We spend so much more time scolding people for buying soda than we do talking about how systemic racism inhibits access to clean, safe drinking water in places with disproportionately Black, low-income populations like Flint, Michigan or Jackson, Mississippi. In my mind, that's where the moral failing is—in society's inability to guarantee food and clean drinking water for everyone.

Photo: Oxfam Behind the Brands

Why do we spend so much time holding people accountable for their individual purchases, instead of holding the ten food companies who control most of the food and drinks in grocery stores accountable for their choices? If we really cared about population health, that’s where we’d start.

Is this topic relevant to the work you do? I offer a presentation, “Untangling Whiteness in Philanthropy,” that covers the problematic history of philanthropy, how white supremacy shows up in food programs, and how nonprofits can make their programs more participatory and empowering for those they serve. Get in touch if you are interested in bringing it to your organization.