Tea Church is a stay-at-home mom with five kids. She says SNAP is a big part of what keeps her family afloat each month.
Jay Fram/For NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Jay Fram/For NPR
Millions of people who use the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) are facing changes, not only to what kinds of food they can buy, but how much money they receive, what they have to do to be eligible for the program, or if they qualify for benefits at all.
The Trump administration last week allowed more states to stop people from using benefits to buy sugary food and drinks. And the budget reconciliation bill currently includes deep cuts to the program. Some say they cannot imagine how they will keep themselves and their families fed if these new proposals are approved.
“ It would start changing the calculation from ‘how do I make this stretch to meet my needs?’ to ‘how much food do I need to eat in order to survive?'” says Rook Smith, a graduating college student in Oregon who receives a little over $300 a month in benefits.
Smith does not receive family support and pays for college through a combination of loans and work — current SNAP rules require students to work 20 hours a week to receive benefits. One study estimated that nearly a quarter of undergraduate college students are food insecure.
“ Without it I would’ve had to make major changes, if not just drop out of college entirely,” Smith says.
Analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office suggests the cuts would reduce SNAP by nearly $300 billion — the largest cut in the program’s history. More than 40 million people in the U.S. receive food assistance; some food policy experts warn 1 in 4 could be affected. They caution that many recipients would see their benefits reduced substantially or eliminated completely. Some states — unable to make up for the federal cuts — may choose to abandon the program altogether.
“It’s hard to overstate how devastating that would be to low income families” says Katie Bergh, a policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “ I think it has flown under the radar a little bit that the Congressional Budget Office — Congress’s nonpartisan, official scorekeeper — has confirmed that some states could end their SNAP programs as a result of this provision.”
Tea Church quit her job to take care of her kids. She says a proposed work requirement for parents with kids older than 7 would be hard for her family.
Jay Fram/For NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Jay Fram/For NPR
For some, new work requirements may be formidable
The budget reconciliation bill passed by the House would impose new work requirements in order to qualify for SNAP. Among other changes, parents of children ages 7 and older would be required to work 20 hours a week to maintain eligibility.
“There’s no way,” says Tea Church, a single mom who lives in the rural town of The Dalles, Ore., about an hour outside Portland. Church has five children ranging in age from 10 to 18. “If the requirement was 20 hours a week, that would drastically, negatively impact our family.”
One of Church’s sons, whom she adopted after fostering, needs special care. “Chronologically he is 11,” says Church. “Socially and emotionally, he’s more like 6.”
Under current SNAP rules, some people qualify for an exemption from existing work requirements if they are caring for someone with a disability; it’s unclear if Church’s family would meet the requirements under the new rules.
She says finding child care for after-school and summer in her rural Oregon town is difficult and would be nearly impossible for a child with high needs.
“ It’s not that I don’t want to work or that I’m unable,” says Church, who quit a full-time job at a community college to care for her children. “ Working a regular job with a regular schedule isn’t an option for us.”
Her family’s current benefit is close to $450 a month, though it is increasing in the summer by $125 while her kids are home from school. SNAP she says, “is a huge part of what keeps us afloat every month.”
Soda and candy on the banned food list
Another flashpoint in the Trump administration’s rules around SNAP: sugar.
Last week, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that three more states — Utah, Idaho and Arkansas — would be eligible for waivers that would allow them to ban the purchase of sugary foods and drinks with SNAP benefits.
“Disallowing taxpayer funded benefits to purchase unhealthy items like soda, candy and other junk food” is part of an effort to improve the American diet, Rollins said at a press conference.
Six states now have such policies; more than a dozen are pursuing them, primarily led by Republican state legislators.
Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he would extend the ban to include ultra-processed food, though he acknowledged implementing such a policy would take time. Kennedy says these changes are part of a larger effort to mitigate chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
“If somebody wants to drink a soda pop, we have no problem with that, we believe that we have freedom of choice in this country,” Kennedy said at the same press conference. “It’s about nutrition and there’s no nutrition in these products. We shouldn’t be paying for them with taxpayer money.”
Critics — including food experts and SNAP recipients — say fighting disease is not as simple as creating a banned foods list.
On a recent shopping trip, Tea Church took several of her kids along with her. Her 11-year-old son, Solomon, pointed to the back of a cereal box and considered the balance of sugar and protein.
“Six grams and protein 9,” he said. “I think the protein should be more.”
Tea — who worked with a nutrition expert and lost over 100 pounds recently — says nutrition is important in their family, but she also values choice and the ability to give her kids an occasional treat.
“Being able to give them something that doesn’t negatively impact our budget is amazing,” she says.
For her teenagers, soda and energy drinks occupy a unique role. “It’s a kind of social currency for them,” she says.
Her 17-year-old daughter, Olivia, confirms this dynamic.
“ I feel like when you walk into first period in the morning, everyone has like a Red Bull, an energy drink — it’s a social construct for sure,” says Olivia.
Some of her peers come to school with Starbucks drinks that cost nearly $7 — a luxury she cannot afford. But having a Red Bull, she says, makes her feel more normal.
“I would never be able to be a part of that social pyramid if we didn’t have the SNAP benefits that would pay for those.”
Fewer choices for people with fewer resources
Some food policy experts stress there are meaningful ways to incentivize healthy eating, but proven strategies generally involve expanding benefits rather than just restricting them.
“ We do not have quality data that says that if you restrict access to candy and soda in SNAP, you are going to see improved diet quality, improved nutrition, reduced chronic disease,” says Joelle Johnson with the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “That data does not exist.”
Johnson cites successful pilot programs that encourage people to buy more fruits and vegetables through expanded access to these foods.
“ Just because somebody participates in SNAP doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve the same food choices that somebody who doesn’t participate in SNAP has,” says Johnson.
Some research suggests people who use SNAP drink about the same amount of soda as those who do not receive the subsidy.
Standing in the grocery store parking lot after her shopping, Church says she feels like the changes the administration is proposing don’t take into account the fundamental purpose of the program.
“That’s why these programs were created,” she says, “to be able to care for members of our community.”
About The Author
