Oh, SNAP – A Food Fight to Open Nutrition 2018 Posted on October 9, 2018 by Student IHL This article was first published on the ConscienHealth on June 10, 2018 by Leah Whigham PhD, FTOS Oh, SNAP – A Food Fight to Open Nutrition 2018 Marlene Schwartz did a fine job summarizing the main issues. Feasibility Foods come in so many forms and no one agrees on how to define “healthy.” Yet programs like WIC do it and there are technology advances that can help simplify the process. Justification Is it right to take choice away from people just because they have less ability to pay? Do we even know if SNAP participants eat a less healthy diet? Answer: we don’t know, and probably never will. Effectiveness Will it even work, or will people just use their own money to buy the unhealthy foods anyway? SNAP does not cover all food costs. Slippery Slope Do you include all “unhealthy” foods, what definition do you use, and what about focusing on the whole diet? There are some scoring systems out there, but they are far from perfect. In addition, as soon as you start eliminating foods from SNAP, powerful lobbying groups will almost certainly move in. Consistency The “N” in SNAP is for nutrition, but would a policy like this be a double standard since other government assistance programs don’t involve limited choices (e.g., educational grants, home mortgage interest deductions) Dignity Limiting choices sends the signal to participants that they are not capable of making well-informed decisions and could decrease participation, leading to higher rates of food insecurity. On the other hand, could restrictions on the foods purchased with SNAP lead to an improvement in public opinion of the program? Distrust Public health advocates and anti-hunger advocates are not always on the same side. Could this negative discourse simply provide politicians with fuel to justify shrinking the program? Putting People First? After all of this, a very important point came forward. No one is involving the people impacted the most in discussions of solutions, or studying the potential outcomes of those solutions. A few gaps were evident in the ensuing discussion, including an assumption by some that sugar sweetened beverages are the primary culprit of unhealthy diets. Another assumption was that a general consensus about healthy eating is good enough. So we don’t need to measure outcomes and collect more data around some of these potential strategies. Anyone who tells a room full of scientists that data collection is unnecessary can expect a fierce argument.