The
Connection Between SNAP Benefits And Obesity
Jason
Jones
Liberty
University
Abstract
The food stamp
program or SNAP is available for lower income level participants in order to
bolster the consumption of foods that have nutritional value. However, there is the proposed link between
obesity and the SNAP program. Studies indicate the link is due to the fact that
participants in the SNAP program have acquisition to unhealthy food
options. With the epidemic of obesity in
the Unites States, in both adults and children, health advocates suggest
options in conjunction with SNAP to decrease the consumption of unhealthy food
sources. Some possible reasons for the connection can be attributed to lower
income status, food shortages, food insecurity, and inadequate education. Concerning educational standards, proponents
of healthy lifestyles advocate nutrition labeling, taxation on specific unhealthy
food sources, such as sugary beverages, and ways to utilize SNAP benefits to
promote healthy living. Ethical dilemmas
need to be considered when proposing options such as taxation on food sources
due to individuality and the right to choose, and societal stigma that already
exists concerning the participation in the SNAP program. The federal government has provided funding
in regards to the promotion of a healthier lifestyle. The implementation of funding to build more
supermarkets in impoverished areas, allowing already existing establishments
the ability to purchase healthier food options, and the increased growth in the
use of SNAP benefits at farmers markets may help in the fight against obesity.
Although research exists concerning the link between obesity and the use of
SNAP benefits, further study is warranted.
Keywords:
Obesity,
SNAP, Food Stamps, Food Insecurity, Nutritional Labeling
The
Connection Between SNAP Benefits And Obesity
Increased awareness to the problem
of obesity has led to different methods of counteracting the epidemic on a
national scale. With the prevalence of
economical pitfalls and unemployment rates, many families have participated in
the SNAP program to ensure their family’s need for nutritional
sustainability. However, there have been
studies to suggest a correlation between the use of SNAP benefits and the
obesity epidemic. This is due to the
fact that SNAP benefits enable the buyer to purchase a wide range of foods,
from organic, nutritional foods to unhealthy, energy dense, nutritionally
bereft food sources.
Defining Supplemental Assistance
Program (SNAP)
Because
of food insecurities, food scarcity in impoverished areas, the low cost of
unhealthy processed food sources, and the higher cost of some fruits and
vegetables, many lower income families who are assisted by the SNAP program are
more than likely to purchase unhealthy, energy dense food sources in order to
provide enough sustenance to get through times of scarcity. Because of food
scarcity and the inability to purchase expensive, higher quality food sources,
the consumption of lower cost, nutritionally deficient foods may be a
contributing factor to the problem of obesity.
Originally
introduced in 1939, the federal food stamp program allowed families access to sustenance
immediately following the Great Depression.
This introduction became paramount as families were struggling to find
autonomy after the depression. Access to
food sources were only available to individuals who qualified according to
standards defined by the United States government (Grieger & Danziger,
2011). After 1943, the food stamp
program was terminated only to be reestablished in 1964 on a national
scale. By 1974, new suitability
guidelines were administered along with testing to evaluate individual need
according to their possessions and monetary means (Grieger & Danziger,
2011). According to Shenkin and Jacobson
(2010)
essentially the
acquisition of food sources through the food stamp program are typically
available to those of a lower income status for better health and nutrition.
As of 2006, in order for an
individual to gain access to the food stamp program, he or she must only have
access to $2000 dollars or under. This
is omitting home and vehicle possession (Grieger & Danziger, 2011). Subsequently,
a recent study suggested that 29% of U.S. adults receive benefits at some point
in their lives between the ages of 25 and 62 (Grieger & Danziger, 2011). In October 2008, the federal food stamp
program was relabeled as the Supplemental Assistance Program or SNAP (Grieger
& Danziger, 2011). In 1974,
according to the USDA, those individuals who acquired access to SNAP benefits were
14 million which increased by 2009 to roughly 39 million individuals (USDA,
2010; Grieger & Danziger, 2011). Those who participated included the
undereducated, the disabled, minority groups, and those who have taken
advantage of the program before (Grieger & Danziger, 2011). Although the numbers have increased since
1974, many individuals do not participate because of the social backlash in combination
with how welfare is perceived, inability to understand eligibility
instructions, other assistance that is available, and resentment concerning
those who are employed and the usage of their tax money to provide for those
who do not have jobs (Zhang, Chen, Diawara, & Wang, 2011).
Obesity in the United
States
Obesity is
defined by body mass index estimates.
BMI is specified when calculations are done based on an individual’s
weight and height. Health officials
indicate that anyone with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 are considered
obese (Zhang et al., 2011). Increases in food intake, lack of physical
activity, and the shift from an agricultural based economy to a technological
based economy, has furthered the obesity pandemic in the United States. Obesity
is a
contributing factor in the prevalence of preventable illnesses that range from
heart disease, diabetes, and stroke (Robinson & Zheng, 2011). In conjunction with these findings, a study
done in 2005 indicated nearly 112,000 deaths associated with obesity (Flegal,
Graubard, Williamson, & Gail, 2005).
According to the Center of Disease Control (CDC), over 70% of obese
children may increase the likelihood of obesity into their adult years
(Robinson & Zheng, 2011).
Studies indicated factors such as
socioeconomic status and lower income levels as growing contributors to the
obesity epidemic. It is asserted that
while any individual regardless of race and creed can be affected by obesity,
studies show that individuals who have decreased monetary means and a lower
economic status fair worse than their more affluent counterparts (Zhang, et
al., 2011). Likewise, changes in
lifestyles can be responsible for the increased obesity rates. Chang and Lauderdale
(2005) state larger serving sizes, considerable increases of prepared foods,
and the onset of technological developments as contributions to the epidemic.
Childhood
Obesity
Comparatively, along with the adult population
and the obesity crisis, children are, unfortunately, participants in the
epidemic as well. Research indicates
that roughly one-third of U.S. children are overweight along with 16% of
children facing obesity (Kimbro & Rigby, 2010). With the onset of obesity
causing a multitude of health problems both in terms of adulthood and childhood,
obesity can start to manifest within children during the early years of
development (Kimbro & Rigby, 2010).
Many factors can be present in combination with childhood obesity. Most notably, children have increased risk of
obesity when faced with monetary insecurity (Kimbro & Rigby, 2010). Studies indicate, in agreement with Robinson
& Zheng (2011) that obese children are in danger of becoming obese adults
more so than their normal weight counterparts (Kimbro & Rigby, 2010). Furthermore, in a study measuring obesity
risk among
homeless adolescents, research indicated that 50% of the sample studied did not
partake in the utilization of fruits, vegetables and dairy although there was
the indulgence of extreme amounts of fats, oils, and sweets (Franklin, et al., 2012).
Connection between SNAP
Benefits and Obesity
As discussed,
SNAP benefits are distributed in order to facilitate better health and
nutrition among individuals of a lower income level. However, recent studies have concluded that
there may be a connection between the acquisition of SNAP benefits and the
recent trends in obesity. It has been
suggested that lower income levels may contribute to the decline in healthy
eating habits because of lower education levels (Bhargava, 2004). Because SNAP benefits are a contribution to
the household income, those who participate in the program may increase food consumption
(Bhargava, 2004). Franklin, et al.
(2012) suggest that along with lower income levels, gender, marital status,
life stress, and food stamp participation may intensify the obesity epidemic
(Franklin, et al., 2012).
Food
Insecurity
Lower income levels may contribute
to a lack of food or food insecurity. A standard definition of food insecurity
involves the inability to access nutritious food sources safely or
comparatively the inability to obtain these food sources in a socially
acceptable manner (Franklin, et al., 2012).
When food insecurity is present in a lower income household, the effects
can be negative. For instance
individuals who suffer from food insecurity may increase the intake of energy
dense foods that do not have any nutritional value (Franklin, et al., 2012).
Likewise, in a food insecure situation,
individuals may over eat or eat foods that are unpleasant to the palate because
of food shortage (Franklin, et al., 2012). Additionally, in a food
shortage, the
consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables are decreased because of storage
difficulty and their expensive cost (Bhargava, 2004). Furthermore because the need for lower food expenses,
the dependence on energy dense foods is paramount because of their
affordability and the pleasant taste of such foods (Zhang et al., 2011).
The connection between food
insecurity and acquisition of SNAP benefits is sufficient. Recent studies
suggest that participation in the food stamp program can affect an individual’s
dietary intake to a level that facilitates a risk for obesity (Zhang, et al.,
2011). It is suggested that individuals
who take advantage of SNAP have an increased ability to buy foods that are
nutritionally deficient such as soda and juice because the SNAP benefit
increases the ability to purchase (Zhang, et al., 2011). Likewise, if those who
received SNAP benefits were given cash instead, an estimated 20 to 30% of
individuals would use less on food compared to when they obtained benefits
(Zhang, et al., 2011).
The risk of obesity in individuals
who obtain SNAP benefits can be observed during the few days right after
receiving the benefit. Studies indicate
that higher spending was prevalent within the first three days of receiving the
benefit (Zhang et al., 2011).
Comparatively the lower pricing of nutritionally deficient foods
contributed to weight gain among those who participated in SNAP in variation to
those who did not participate (Zhang et al., 2011). Franck, Grandi, & Eisenberg (2013) suggest that lower
costs of unwholesome foods compared to produce, furthers the overconsumption of
the unhealthy food sources.
Possible Treatments
A response to
the link between SNAP and obesity is warranted. Low income levels may
contribute to the educational deficit. Many attempts have been made in order to
provide information toward nutrition, consequences to an unhealthy lifestyle
and the acquisition of poor
food
choices. Education is imperative in
regards to decision making among individuals as a whole. This education can come through such means as
nutrition labeling, possible taxation on nutritionally deficient foods, and
using SNAP to increase healthy living.
Nutritional
Labeling
As a result of
the growing epidemic of obesity, health officials and federal governmental
agencies have taken steps to offset the problem. In regards to this demand, the Nutritional
Food Labeling and Education Act became law in November of 1990 (McArthur,
Chamberlain, & Howard, 2001). This
legislation is representative of changes within the system that was already in
place. Newer labels were added in order to provide a simpler process of
providing nutritional information to the consumer than previous methods
(McArthur et al., 2001). This was an
attempt to counter the rising problem of obesity while caring for the health of
the public (McArthur et al., 2001).
Studies indicated the prevalence of
preventative diseases due to the obesity epidemic. Nutritional labeling attempted to delay or
avert such diseases. Conditions such as
heart disease, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, some forms of cancer, as well as
obesity are responsible for many deaths in the United States (McArthur et al., 2001). Prevention of these diseases require the
implementation of education utilized by nutritional labeling. Health professionals are inclined to obtain
this information in order for lower income level families to have access to
helpful, nutritional guidelines (McArthur et al., 2001). It has been noted that nutritional
information is vital for those who are economically challenged in order to
reduce the susceptibility to debilitating diseases (McArthur et al., 2001).
Comparatively, studies suggested that the Food
and Drug Administration administer improved labeling additions to food (Shenkin
& Jacobson, 2010). For instance
front label
packaging would
improve educational standards by stating food contents such as calories,
saturated and trans fat, sodium and added sugars which are cause for alarm
among health officials (Shenkin & Jacobson, 2010).
Other
implementations by the FDA include labeling designs such as “better for you”
logos on foods high in nutrients, red, yellow, and green dots indicating high,
medium, or low levels of problematic additives and non-nutrient sources to food
options (Shenkin & Jacobson, 2010).
Most soft drink bottling companies have implemented this idea of front
labeling stating nutrient contents (Shenkin & Jacobson, 2010). Likewise, in
comparison, warning labels on tobacco products have significantly decreased the
consumption of these products in combination with other measures such as
increased taxation (Shenkin & Jacobson, 2010).
Taxation
of Nutrient Deficient Foods
While food
labeling is widely utilized to increase public awareness to unhealthy food
consumption, recently the exploration into the implementation of a food tax has
been hotly debated. Studies indicate that food consumption and food expense has
drastically increased since 1970 (Franck et al., 2013). This revelation has scientists and
researchers on a mission to find ways of battling the obesity epidemic (Franck
et al., 2013). One of the answers to
this topic is the proposal of a tax on unhealthy food sources (Franck et al.,
2013). Taxation on unhealthy food options has gained world momentum. Denmark, Hungary, and France have implemented
taxation on specific unhealthy food sources to counter the epidemic of obesity (Franck,
et al., 2013). However, in Denmark for
instance, the tax was terminated due to the fact that individuals were crossing
borders into Germany and Sweden to buy food already taxed in that country
(Franck, et al., 2013). Furthermore, longitudinal studies are to be considered
in these countries in order to understand the effect of taxation on obesity
(Franck et al., 2013).
While the implementation of an
unhealthy food tax may decrease the consumption of nutrient deficient foods, it
is imperative to look at the ethical dilemma that exists. One ethical dilemma
is the deterioration of an individual’s right to choose for his or herself
(Franck et al., 2013). Likewise it has
been asserted that the implementation of a tax is unethical because unlike
tobacco products and alcohol, nutritious food sources is a basic need for
sustaining life (Franck et al., 2013). Advocates
of unhealthy food taxation, however, consider the strain of obesity on the
American public and the healthcare system to be toxic (Franck et al.,
2013). Studies suggest that obesity has
produced an unnecessary burden upon society and medical costs due to the
obesity epidemic, in 2008 alone totaled 147 billion in the United States (Franck
et al., 2013).
Studies suggest foods that are
pleasing to the mouth have the same effect on the brain as an addiction to
drugs by recreating a euphoric response for the individual (Franck et al.,
2013). Furthermore the indication of
this euphoric response may be correlated to the intensified convenience and
exposure to nutritionally deficient foods (Franck et al., 2013). Recent findings suggest and support the
correlation between addiction and the challenge of sustaining a healthy
lifestyle (Franck et al., 2013). Thus advocates would suggest unhealthy food
choices have the same addictive qualities of gambling, smoking, consumption of
alcohol and prescription drugs therefore taxation would be beneficial (Franck
et al., 2013).
Use
of SNAP Benefits to Promote Healthy Lifestyles
Currently,
research for the exclusion of certain unhealthy foods from the SNAP program is
ongoing in an attempt to facilitate healthier buying options for consumers. However
in the consideration of these exclusions, educational efforts are needed in
order for individuals who
participate in
the program to understand what food choices are excluded. Recently the state of New York has petitioned
the U.S. government concerning limitations on the purchase of sugary beverages
with SNAP benefits (Barnhill, 2011).
Likewise another study concluded that the obvious way to improve diet
and health of low income Americans was to limit the purchase of nutrient
deficient food choices from the SNAP program (Shenkin & Jacobson,
2010). It is noted that studies indicate
that limitations to purchase unhealthy foods, although problematic, can be
successful due to the fact that measures to deter unhealthy behaviors such as
smoking, consumption of alcohol, refusal to wear seat belts, and the
implementation of helmet laws, produce positive outcomes (Barnhill, 2011).
In
addition to this, advocates of healthy lifestyles propose, for instance, the
inclusion of certain monetary amounts added back to an EBT (electronic benefits
transfer) card for every SNAP dollar used to purchase healthier food options
(Shenkin & Jacobson, 2010). With the
added funds to the SNAP dollar amount, the USDA indicated, that for every 10%
decrease in the price of fruits and vegetables, the purchase of these healthier
items would increase by 6% to 7% (Shenkin & Jacobson, 2010). Furthermore, the federal government has
invested 400 million dollars for the expansion of supermarkets in impoverished
areas to counteract food scarcity, support smaller stores to increase their
healthier options, and to implement the accessibility of farmers markets that allow
SNAP benefits (Shenkin & Jacobson, 2010). In regards to a farmers market
approach, the state of New York implemented a Health Bucks program which gives
those who are currently on SNAP benefits, who spend 5 dollars in benefits at a
farmers market, an additional 2 dollars to spend at a farmers market (Barnhill,
2011).
Ethical
Considerations
The
concern for ethical issues are warranted.
Individuals who participate in the SNAP program already feel the
societal pressure of their lower income status.
A new restriction on the purchase of unhealthy foods would impede on an
individual’s need to benefit from the program. One concern has to do with the
stigma already implemented by society (Barnhill, 2011). Individuals who are unaware of the
restriction would attempt to purchase these excluded unhealthy items and in the
attempt to pay for them with SNAP benefits, they would be told that they cannot
purchase the items, which would cause embarrassment (Barnhill, 2011). This would ultimately dissuade eligible low
income individuals from participation from the program’s original intent
(Barnhill, 2011). In conjunction with these findings, 14% of those eligible
would not participate because of the social stigma (Barnhill, 2011).
Conclusion
The question
remains, how can lower income families, whose resources are limited, maintain
healthy lifestyles, have access to healthy food choices, all while acquiring
SNAP benefits to buffer their slender income? When it comes to the issue of the
usage of SNAP benefits versus obesity, one word that can be thought of is
provision.
Ultimately SNAP benefits are used to
battle food scarcity and food shortages as well as supplying the need for
nutrition while subconsciously engaging in survival mode. The understanding for some lower income
families may be the thought of where will the next meal come from. In lower income families, survival mode may
be prevalent in most cases. There is a
reason why those who participate in the SNAP program use their benefits fairly
quickly. The reason can be attributed to the understanding of immediate
provision.
Studies have shown the connection
between obesity and SNAP benefits.
Although there is research conducted, further study is warranted. Education seems to be the key to success. Nutritional labeling along with education in
ways to acquire a healthy lifestyle even in the midst of poverty can be
successful when health educators and professionals have access to information.
While
one would believe that it is necessary for the government to fund such
educational programs, the cost can be steep indeed but trends are
promising. For instance, SNAP-ED is a leading
national nutrition education effort and is funded through SNAP, itself (Shenkin
& Jacobson, 2010). This education could be used in providing information
for those who utilize SNAP benefits in order to promote healthy living (Shenkin
& Jacobson, 2010). The government
provides an additional 400 million in order to fund state initiatives to support
lower income consumers in their choice for a healthier lifestyle (Shenkin &
Jacobson, 2010).
Along
with the governing authorities, it is also important to realize the impact of
other individuals as well as the community at large. Scripture is not silent when it comes to this
aspect of the human experience. There
are examples of God’s provision and grace for those who are underserved or
neglected. Leviticus states the following, “When you reap the harvest of your land, do not
reap to the very edges
of your field or gather the gleanings
of your harvest. Leave them
for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you.
I am the Lord your
God.” (Leviticus 23:22, New International Version).
References
Barnhill, A. (2011). Impact and
ethics of excluding sweetened beverages from the SNAP program. American Journal of Public Health, 101(11),
2037 – 2043. doi:10.2105/ AJPH.2011.300225
Bhargava, A. (2004). Socio-economic
and behavioral factors are predictors of food use in the national food stamp
program survey. British Journal of
Nutrition, 92(3), 497 – 506.
doi:10.1079/BJN20041210
Chang, V. W., & Lauderdale, D.
S. (2005). Income disparities in body mass index and obesity in the United
States, 1971 – 2002. Archives of Internal
Medicine, 165(18), 2122 – 2128. doi:10.1001/archinte.165.18.2122
Flegal, K. M., Graubard, B. I.,
Williamson, D. F., & Gail, M. H. (2005). Excess deaths associated with
underweight, overweight, and obesity. The
Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(15), 1861 – 1867. doi:10.1001/jama.293.15.1861
Franck, C., Grandi, S. M., &
Eisenberg, M. J. (2013). Taxing junk food to counter obesity. American Journal of Public Health, 103(11),
1949 – 1953. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301279
Franklin, B., Jones, A., Love, D.,
Puckett, S., Macklin, J., & White-Means, S. (2012). Exploring mediators of
food insecurity and obesity: A review of recent literature. Journal of Community Health, 37(1), 253
– 264. doi:10.1007/s10900-011-9420-4
Grieger, L. D., & Danziger, S.
H. (2011). Who receives food stamps during adulthood? Analyzing repeatable
events with incomplete event histories. Demography,
48(4), 1601 – 1614.
doi:10.1007/s13524-011-0056x
Kimbro R. T., & Rigby, E.
(2010). Federal food policy and childhood obesity: A solution or part of the
problem? Health Affairs, 29(3), 411 –
418. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0731
McArthur, L., Chamberlain, V.,
& Howard, A. B. (2001). Behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge of low-income
consumers regarding nutrition labels. Journal
of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 12(4), 415 – 428. Retrieved from http://www.liberty.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/220584342?accountid=12085
Robinson C. A., & Zheng, X.
(2011). Household food stamp program participation and childhood obesity. Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 36(1), 1 – 13. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01751.
Shenkin, J. D., & Jacobson, M.
F. (2010). Using the food stamp program and other methods to promote healthy
diets for low-income consumers. American
Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1562 – 1564. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.198549
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
(2010). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34snapmonthly.htm
Zhang, Q., Chen, Z., Diawara, N.,
& Wang, Y. (2011). Prices of unhealthy foods, food stamp program
participation and body weight status among U.S. low-income women. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 32(2),
245 – 256. doi:10.1007/s10834-010-9228-x
Assurance Mobile is a small phone that comes with 250 minutes and 250 texts. It is not fancy, it is a not a smart phone, but it gets great reception on campus and is great for emergencies. For you non TN residents there are many other states that have this program. It can be hard switching from the traditional phone plan where you pay monthly and have unlimited texting, data, and voice. The price is perfect on this phone, free. You can upgrade and pay a small monthly fee for more minutes.