Healthier food should be affordable food too

In the current economy, thousands of Delawareans continue to struggle to find long-term employment opportunities that provide livable wages. These individuals face the immense stresses of chronic underemployment and the rising cost of living every day. Those who are supporting a family are particularly vulnerable.

Thankfully, programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are in place to provide critical support to our neighbors during times of hardship. A recent survey by the Food Action Research Council found that the majority of American voters take pride that we live in a country where we refuse to accept empty pantries and empty stomachs as an inevitable product of a slowly recovering economy.

Despite these realities, the media continues to stigmatize low-income Americans as lazy and unmotivated. They portray the programs that fight poverty as wasteful and ineffective, frequently accusing the SNAP program of discouraging work. The truth is that 86 percent of Delaware households include seniors and/or children, and nationally, participants leave the program after an average of eight to 10 months. Other objections include that the SNAP program fosters fraud and hinders economic growth. However, this couldn't be further from the case – the program boasts one of the lowest rates of fraudulent activity in the federal government, at 2 percent, and generates $9 in the local economy for every $5 spent in benefits.

Unfortunately, these stereotypes and misconceptions occasionally manage to inform legislation, leading to the proposal of misguided bills. The most recent case is found in Delaware's own State Legislature, in a recently introduced bill that seeks to restrict SNAP purchases to a "list of foods, food products and beverages with proven beneficial nutritional value," sponsored by Representatives Dukes, D. Short, and Senator Lavelle. The premise of the bill, according to its sponsors, is to improve the health status of SNAP participants.

While the intentions might be noble, this legislation makes a dangerous and discriminatory assumption: that Americans currently participating in SNAP are somehow less capable of making healthy choices than Americans who do not currently participate. In the eyes of this bill, if you were to lose your job tomorrow and enroll in SNAP to keep food on the table, the state of Delaware assumes you are in need of oversight by the Department of Health and Social Services to establish and maintain good nutrition. There is no research that supports this idea.

It also presumes that the state can create a "list of foods, food products, and beverages [eligible for SNAP purchase] with proven beneficial nutritional value" in a practical and reasonable way. Unlike WIC, which is directed at a very specific population, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes a food of "proven beneficial nutritional value" for each and every person receiving SNAP benefits, especially considering the vast and constantly changing array of foods available at grocery stores. These restrictions will hurt retailers by stigmatizing SNAP customers at the cash register and through the burden of increased regulation of their inventory process.

The biggest barrier between low-income Delawareans and a healthy diet is not a lack of will or self-control, but a lack of affordability and accessibility. A 2013 report by the Institute of Medicine found that SNAP allotments are inadequate to afford a sufficiently healthy diet. Additionally, the Consumer Price Index shows that the cost of fruits and vegetables has risen by 40 percent since 1980; in that same period, the cost of processed foods decreased by 20 percent to 30 percent, largely due to federal subsidies that encourage the cheap production of crops used in these food products. And for Delawareans living in "food deserts," more expensive foods of increased nutritional value aren't even an available option.

Although federal subsidies for processed foods are separate issues all their own that merit serious discussions with our congressmen, taking advantage of the USDA's "Heat and Eat" provision remains a tenable way that our state legislators can improve the health status of SNAP participants. Legislators should move to claim the federal funds for this program that are currently being left on the table. The SNAP reductions in November cut $16 million from the state's economy and slashed the budgets of hungry Delawareans, making healthy foods even more difficult to afford.

Implementing Heat and Eat would boost SNAP benefits by coordinating nutrition assistance with utility assistance, costing the state only $300,000 in increased utility assistance to increase SNAP funding by $6 million. Expanding the family food budget through Heat and Eat would do more to fight obesity than purchasing restrictions ever could. Moreover, it would do so without stigmatizing struggling citizens and burdening our businesses. Food for thought.

Patricia Beebe and Dan Reyes are with the Food Bank of Delaware. The article was co-signed by the Delaware Food Industry Council.