Cutting SNAP affects economy

The President’s proposed budget calls for reducing SNAP by $192 billion over the next decade. This is despite the government's own research that shows food stamps don't just pay for themselves — they have a return on investment. A 2010 USDA study found that every $1 spent on SNAP generates $1.79 in GDP. Besides putting food on the table, the stimulus SNAP spending grows the retail, wholesale and transportation economies that get it there, according to the report. And every $1 billion increase in SNAP creates 9,000 full-time jobs.

More than 260,000 locations were authorized to accept SNAP credits last year. Superstores such as Wal-Mart and Target got 52% of redemptions, supermarkets got 30%, and convenience stores got about 6%, according to the USDA . After the 2013 rollback in benefits, Wal-Mart blamed a 0.4% quarterly sales decline on the reduction, though the sales figure was down for the company's entire fiscal year. Dollar General, which has said it gets about 5% of its sales from SNAP benefits, said its traffic slowed tremendously after cuts last year. The proposed budget suggests that retailers pay a fee for authorization to accept SNAP. Companies currently don't pay to participate. The proposal estimates the fees would raise about $2.4 billion over 10 years. Imposing a fee could result in smaller stores or chains deciding not to seek authorization.

Source: ABC News, 5/24/17, SNAP Cuts Hurt the Economy

What would happen if proposed SNAP cuts are implemented?

The President’s proposed budget calls for reducing SNAP by $4.6 billion next year and $192 billion over the next decade. The budget lists four items that are expected to achieve these savings.

1. The budget proposes requiring states to shoulder some of SNAP’s benefit costs beginning in 2020, with an average match of 10% increasing to an average of 25% by 2023. This proposed shift will likely pressure states to reduce SNAP participation through reducing eligibility, employing more complex administrative procedures, or implementing more stringent work requirements.
2. The budget calls for requiring able-bodied adults to work. Able Bodied Adults without Dependents are 18- to 49-year-olds who do not have dependents and are not disabled. They are already limited to three months of SNAP participation within a 36-month period. In fiscal year 2015, only 19% of SNAP households fit the main criteria for ABAWD status and that many of them cycle in and out of wor. It is unlikely that the dramatic savings envisioned could be squeezed from this group alone.  
3. Trump wants to “target benefits to the neediest households.”  In 2015, 42% of SNAP households had gross monthly income less than or equal to 50% of the federal poverty level, and those households received 57% of all benefits. And most SNAP participants are children, elderly, or disabled.
4. Finally, the budget calls for closing eligibility loopholes. In fiscal year 2015, state-calculated error rates averaged 3.66%, ranging from 0.42% in Florida to 7.61% in Nevada.   

Source: Urban Institute, 5/30/17, SNAP Cut Proposal

DOCTORS IN THE KITCHEN

A broad and growing movement in US medicine shifts the focus away from simply treating disease toward caring for the whole person. Across the country, hospitals are setting up food banks and medical schools are putting cooking classes on the curriculum. Nonprofits are connecting medical centers with community resources to ensure that low-income Americans have access to fresh fruits and vegetables. In 2002, Boston Medical Center set up an on-site food pantry, which has since evolved into a kind of nutrition center where primary care providers send patients for food. Today the pantry hosts free cooking classes and serves about 7,000 people a month. The Greater Boston Food Bank has also launched its own initiatives, striking partnerships with four community health centers across the state to offer free mobile produce markets that have served more than 800 households. The organization also helped develop tool kits that map local pantries, markets that accept government food vouchers, and other resources.

Source: Christian Science Monitor, 5/31/17, Food as Medicine

FARM BILL COULD ADDRESS FOOD WASTE

Government agencies such as the USDA and the EPA set a goal in 2015 to reduce food waste by half by the year 2030. A new report by the Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic suggests that the upcoming 2018 Farm Bill presents Congress with an opportunity to prioritize the topic of food waste, identifying four areas of focus: food waste reduction, food recovery and redistribution, food waste recycling, and food waste reduction administration. The report recommends modifying existing legislation, or creating new legislation, that will allocate funding to create awareness about food waste and incentivize behavior. Among their proposals, the report’s authors call for federally standardized quality and safety labeling and providing funds to educate and incentivize elementary and secondary schools, huge sources of food waste at more than 360,000 tons of wasted food per year; and grants to support state and local efforts of organic waste bans and waste prevention plans, as well as provide financial support for recycling infrastructure and technology.

Source: FoodTank, 5/17/, Food Waste

2017 Local Food Guide is out!

The 2017 Local Food Guide has been mailed and some of us have already received it!

Look for yours and if it hasn't come soon, feel free to be in touch and we'll send another!

HOW FOOD INSECURITY IMPACTS SENIORS

Because of limited financial resources, food-insecure adults often need to stretch constrained budgets. The strategies they use--forgoing medical care; purchasing low-cost, nutrient-poor foods; and making trade-offs between food and other basic necessities, such as medication--can harm their health. Older adults experiencing food insecurity have lower overall dietary quality than their food-secure counterparts. They consume fewer calories, less protein, and fewer essential vitamins and minerals when compared to their food-secure peers. Research shows that older adults who are food insecure are more likely to experience diabetes, congestive heart failure, hypertension, gum disease, and limitations on activities of daily living, among other negative health outcomes. Additionally, compared to their food-secure counterparts, older adults struggling against food insecurity are at higher risk of depression.  Often, food-insecure older adults have more doctor’s office visits and emergency room visits, and more frequent hospitalizations.

Source: Food Research & Action Council, 5/19/17, Senior Food Insecurity

FOOD INSECURITY AND WOMEN’S HEALTH

Data consistently show that women are especially vulnerable to food insecurity and its health consequences. Literature reviews reveal strong and consistent evidence of a higher risk of obesity among food-insecure women, but not for food-insecure men or children.  Another serious risk facing many women is maternal depression, which can increase the incidence — or be a consequence — of food insecurity. Food insecurity during pregnancy has been linked with gestational diabetes, iron deficiency, and low birth weight.  But, according to recent studies, mothers of young children in food-insecure households who received SNAP were less likely to experience symptoms of maternal depression and less likely to be in poor health, compared to mothers in food-insecure households not receiving SNAP.

Source: Food Research & Action Council, 5/19/17, Food Insecurity & Women's Health