Smart 1

Myndi Smart
English 1010-40
Sean M. George
08 December 2015
Oh, SNAP!
Its all over the news and social media: Food Stamp (SNAP) Reform. Whether its a
taxpayer cussing up a storm about what the person in front of them at the grocery store
purchased with their EBT card, a SNAP participant complaining about their benefits being cut, or
a news program arguing over requirements for government assistance everyone wants the same
thing: to help the poor. Unfortunately, there are many who take advantage and use government
programs in unethical ways. This casts a negative stereotype on the honest, hardworking, law
abiding participants that just need help getting back on their feet. SNAP needs to be adapted to
discourage drug use and assist participants that are looking for temporary help. This program
should encourage participants to eat healthy foods and be able to purchase household necessities.
It is no surprise to learn that the Food Stamp Program first began during the Great
Depression and was set up like todays coupon system. The US government allowed participants
to purchase orange stamps for $1 each. These stamps were worth exactly what the participant
paid for them. The benefit was that for every orange stamp purchased, the government would
issue the participant a blue stamp worth fifty cents that could only be used to buy food that was
classified as surplus. This program benefited both the participants and the farmers that were
struggling to sell their crops. However, once unemployment rates and crop surpluses dropped so
did this program. It was reintroduced in 1961, with only mild alterations. Since the nation was

Smart 2

not experiencing food surpluses, the program allowed participants to use their blue stamps to
purchase any perishable product. In 1964, the program was adjusted to include the purchase of
all consumable goods, except alcohol and imported foods. By 1970, seeds and plants that
produced food for human consumption were added, and eligibility was expanded to include
drug addicts and alcoholics in rehabilitation programs. As technology advanced, the paper
stamps were eliminated and EBT cards were issued and the program name was changed to
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). To date, more than 46 million Americans
participate in the SNAP program. This is depleting the SNAP funding at a rapid rate. What can
be done to ensure that Americans receive food assistance when necessary without creating
dependence on the program? (SNAP par. 5-28)
Many Americans are tired of hearing stories about SNAP participants using their benefits
to purchase junk food, but have they considered why these people are choosing to eat this
way? Obviously, the reasons vary by individual, but one reason is that unhealthy food is actually
cheaper. According to a study conducted by Harvard School of Public Health, eating a healthy
diet of fresh fruits, vegetables, nuts and fish costs, on average, $1.50 per day (per person) more
than eating an unhealthy diet of high processed foods. That may not sound like much, but do the
math and anyone can see that this adds up extremely fast. This explains why so many Americans
are struggling with obesity, especially when considering the number of Americans currently
participating in the SNAP program. (Dwyer par. 5)
One possible answer is applying a junk food tax that would apply to all Americans.
Many European countries have enacted this tax with reported success (Fat Taxes Do Work
par. 10-13). Another report suggests that Americans would consume at least 175 fewer calories
per day on average (Nguyen 102). This would benefit the entire country, but what does it have to

Smart 3

do with SNAP? Any food falling under this tax should be excluded from the SNAP program. The
purpose of SNAP is to help low-income families with nutritional assistance. If a participant
wants junk food, they should have to pay the price that every other taxpayer pays for such treats.
Unhealthy eating leads to obesity and many other health problems, which should
encourage people to eat healthier, but consider that most SNAP participants are also on
Medicaid. Medicaid participants receive medical care for free, or with very low deductibles, so
they probably arent seeing the added expense to their dietary choices. This means that taxpayers
are not only paying for unhealthy eating habits, but also for the health costs associated with
unhealthy eating.
Another taxpayer concern is the number of active drug users receiving government
assistance. Drug abuse is most common among welfare recipients. It is believed that the added
stress and depression on unemployment/underemployment leads many to drug use as a way to
cope, but many taxpayers feel that if a person can afford to smoke, drink alcohol, or use illegal
drugs they should be able to feed their family. Another concern is that many participants are
abusing the program either by selling their benefits or returning food purchased in exchange for a
cash refund. Many stores, like Walmart and Target, will give cash refunds for items returned
without a receipt. SNAP participants have taken advantage of these programs by purposefully
returning food purchased with an EBT card in exchange for cash. This is fraud, and perpetrators
should be prosecuted accordingly. Simply banning a person from participating in the program is
not enough. There are far too many ways to get around such penalties. If a person were facing a
felony charge with jail time and fines they would be less likely to participate in such schemes.
(Drug Testing 340)

Smart 4

One common concern among SNAP participants is the desire to purchase basic
household necessities such as soap, cleaning supplies, diapers and toilet paper. Cleaning supplies
kill germs and bacteria which prevents illness. Since many SNAP participants are also on
Medicaid, money would be saved on medical expense programs by allowing participants to
purchase cleaning supplies. Dr. Jeremy Johnson claims that low-income families are at a higher
risk of developing tooth decay because of lack of access to care. He believes that the best way
for low-income families to prevent tooth decay is by using fluoride toothpaste twice per day and
limiting soda and juice consumption. (Low-income families par. 2-19)
Of course, there are many concerns with SNAP reform. Many states are considering
requiring applicants to pass a drug test before they are eligible for benefits while others deem it
unconstitutional and unreasonable search, but what is the difference between this practice and
employers requiring employees to comply with random drug testing? By meeting the
requirements of random drug testing, participants are showing a commitment to improve their
familys situation. One of the biggest debates is, should the government be able to force
someone to eat healthy? There is no easy answer to this question. No one likes to have their
choices taken away, but many taxpayers feel that low-income families have an attitude of
entitlement. Rather than being grateful for the assistance they are receiving they choose to
complain about the luxuries they are missing out on. Even by reforming SNAP, participants
arent forced to eat healthy. They would still be more than welcome to purchase all the junk food
they wantwith their own hard earned money, just like every other American. People will
always find a way to get around such notions, but it would make eating healthy more affordable
for those who wish to try. SNAP was never designed to be a long-term income source; it was

Smart 5

intended to be a temporary assistance program for families who are trying to recover from some
sort of crises.
How do we settle the argument of SNAP reform? There is no one answer that will make
everyone happy, but there are ways we can use the SNAP program in the way it was originally
intended: to benefit those who truly need it. Individuals who choose to misuse the program need
to be punished to the full extent of the law and random drug testing should be a requirement for
all participants. By limiting products that can be purchased to healthy foods and household
necessities, and implementing a junk food tax for all Americans we can help to improve the
health of over 46 million Americans.

Smart 6

Works Cited
Delva, Jorge, et al. "Drug Use Among Welfare Recipients in the United States." The American
Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 26.2 (2000): 335-42. Web. 22 November 2015.
Drug Testing for Welfare Recipients and Public Assistance. 27 July 2015. Web. 8 December
2015. <http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-publicassistance.aspx>.
Dwyer, Marge. "Eating healthy vs. unhealthy diet costs about $1.50 more per day." 5 December
2013. Harvard.edu. Web. 8 December 2015. <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/healthy-vs-unhealthy-diet-costs-1-50-more/>.
'Fat taxes' do work, EU report finds. 28 July 2014. Web. 8 Decemeber 2015.
<http://www.euractiv.com/sections/agriculture-food/fat-taxes-do-work-eu-report-finds303748>.
Herman, Dena R., et al. "Effect of a Targeted Subsidy on Intake of Fruits and Vegetables Among
Low-Income Women in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children." American Journal of Public Health 98.1 (2008): 98-105. Web. 22
November 2015.
Low-income families most at risk for dental problems, lack of care access. 31 May 2015. Web. 8
December 2015.
<http://cqrcengage.com/adea/app/document/7989718;jsessionid=iL9nbl8R9vRMs4sSkp
XZ38bp.undefined>.

Smart 7

Nguyen, Binh T., et al. "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Food Insecurity, Diet
Quality, and Obesity Among US Adults." American Journal of Public Health 105.7
(2015): 98-105. Web. 22 November 2015.
Sacks, G, et al. "'Traffic-light' nutrition labelling and 'junk-food' tax: a modelled comparison of
cost-effectiveness for obesity prevention." International Journal fo Obesity 35 (2011):
1001-9. Web. 22 November 2015.
The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP): A Short History of SNAP. 20
November 2014. Web. 8 December 2015. <http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/short-historysnap>.