Restriction vs. incentives: The complex reality of SNAP food policies
U-M expert: SNAP food restrictions don't improve health outcomes, while incentive programs show promise
In a move sparking debate across the nutrition policy landscape, several states are exploring restrictions on how Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits can be used. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has recently encouraged states to consider the move, while states including Texas, Montana, and Idaho are pushing to extend restrictions to items like chips and candy.
SNAP benefits are sometimes referred to as “food stamps” and are limited to people who meet income eligibility; they are different from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, called WIC for short, but individuals can be eligible for both at once.
Kate Bauer, associate professor of Nutritional Sciences at the University of Michigan School of Public Health and member of the Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, weighs in on what research has shown about whether such restrictions would improve public health outcomes or further complicate food access for low-income families already navigating limited resources.
What are your thoughts on this proposed approach to improving public health?
Restricting the types of foods allowed to be purchased with SNAP benefits has been debated for years. I understand that it is tempting to think that by not allowing SNAP recipients to purchase sugar-sweetened beverages or other less-nutritious foods, we could easily improve the health of families with low household incomes.
However, recent randomized controlled trials, which provide high-quality scientific evidence, along with an increased understanding of individuals’ experience of food insecurity, show that such efforts would likely not promote health and would have unintended, negative consequences.
Specifically, randomized controlled trials that have tested the effects of different limitations or incentives on SNAP purchases demonstrate that, while soda purchases may decrease when SNAP benefits are restricted, there are no meaningful differences on individuals’ overall dietary intake.
It’s also concerning that this proposed approach targets consumers rather than addressing systemic issues. If we truly care about public health, we should not be taking resources away from families. We should instead be investing more in supportive programs known to reduce food insecurity and improve health, including SNAP, Medicaid, and WIC. Further, we need to look to address unethical corporate practices that encourage soda intake, like the targeted marketing of sugary beverages to low-income communities of color.
How might restrictions on soda purchases impact families who rely on SNAP benefits?
Unfortunately, these restrictions would increase the already significant challenges that SNAP recipients face, most notably stigma and discrimination.
In a recent study we conducted with food-insecure families across Michigan, we heard countless stories of SNAP participants experiencing judgmental comments and humiliation while grocery shopping—strangers criticizing their food choices and even telling children that their parents shouldn't use food stamps.
By reinforcing the narrative that SNAP participants can’t be trusted to make food choices for their families, I have no doubt that this discrimination will intensify. This stigma harms both mental and physical health, adding another burden to those already struggling.
Additionally, restrictions would create confusion and delays at the grocery store checkout, which our research shows can prompt negative interactions and public shaming. We know that this stigma can result in people choosing to not use assistance.
It is for this reason that I fear that the current administration’s efforts to limit SNAP purchases are actually a strategy to reduce participation in federal food assistance programs and justify budget cuts, under the guise of wanting to promote health.
Programs like Michigan’s Double Up Food Bucks match SNAP dollars spent on fruits and vegetables. How do these incentive programs compare to restrictions in improving nutrition?
Incentive programs like Double Up Food Bucks represent a fundamentally different approach—they empower rather than restrict. While restrictions have not been shown to improve dietary intake in randomized controlled trials, incentive programs demonstrate much more promising results.
Making healthy options more affordable addresses one of the real barriers to healthy eating—cost—without adding stigma or complications. This particular program also acknowledges the dignity and agency of SNAP participants. If the administration wants to improve nutrition, expanding successful incentive programs would be a more evidence-based approach than imposing restrictions.
There is reported interest from some states to expand this type of restriction to other foods like chips and candy. What are the potential implications of broadening these restrictions?
Expanding restrictions to more food categories would amplify all the problems we predict with soda restrictions, plus create new ones. More restricted items means more confusion at checkout, more stigmatizing interactions, and more barriers for families trying to feed their children.
Restricting SNAP purchases based on often arbitrary determinations of dietary quality feeds into the incorrect belief that the public has a right to monitor and criticize what low-income families eat. The 42 million Americans who rely on SNAP are taxpayers, workers, and our neighbors who are struggling with rising food costs.
Broadening restrictions essentially tells these families they can't be trusted to make their own food choices, which is both demeaning and, according to the evidence, ineffective at improving nutrition behaviors. We all deserve dignity.
Food deserts and limited access to nutritious options are realities in many communities. How should consideration about food environments factor into policies that restrict food choices?
The food environment is critical and often overlooked in these policy discussions. Restricting food choices in communities with limited access to nutritious options doesn't solve the underlying problem—it just makes life harder for residents.
Before considering restrictions, we need to address structural barriers like food deserts, transportation limitations, and the higher cost of nutritious foods. The focus should be on improving food environments rather than restricting choices within inadequate environments.
This means investing in community infrastructure and addressing the practices of food and beverage companies that limit options in low-income areas.
Anything else we should consider on this topic?
We should consider the broader context of these proposed restrictions. The current administration has cut programs that demonstrably improve Americans' health.
Reducing SNAP benefits and making them harder to use appears more aligned with shrinking the program than improving health outcomes. If we're serious about nutrition, we should focus on corporate accountability—addressing business practices in the beverage industry and restricting unethical marketing practices targeting vulnerable communities.
The solution isn't to police the shopping carts of families struggling to make ends meet—it is to create environments where healthy choices are accessible, affordable, and appealing for everyone.
Media Contact
Destiny Cook
PR and Communications ManagerUniversity of Michigan School of Public Health734-647-8650