Life of my family.
Cause man, these goddamn food stamps don't buy diapers and there's no movie.
There's no mckay pfeiffer.
For decades, food stamps have been shorthand for needing some government help to get by.
And for all of those decades they've been relied on, but they've also been resented, vilified and threatened.
Even though food stamps themselves technically haven't existed for the past 20 years.
That's because it's called SNAP today and people are still fighting over it.
Millions of low-income Americans are receiving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, also known as SNAP.
They're getting hit with a massive change, a lot of them, in fact, that go into effect today.
And it comes as Trump's one big, beautiful bill cut nearly $190 billion in funding to the program.
We'll get into what those changes are later in the show, but this is just the most recent battle in an ongoing war about if and how we should help feed the hungry here in America.
We are going to find out who wins and who loses here at Gastropod, the podcast that looks at food through the lens of science and history.
I'm Cynthia Graber.
And I'm Nicola Twilley.
And this episode we are all in on welfare queens and government cheese, on our quest to figure out whether SNAP works.
Why does our government give people money just for food instead of cash?
Does it work better that way?
And does it make sense to limit the food that this assistance can be used for, like by banning sodas and candy bars?
Why are people still hungry when American farmers produce more food than we can even eat?
And are food stamps meant to help deal with that surplus?
All that, plus a heck of a lot of prunes, as we try to make sense of one of America's oldest and weirdest government food programs.
This episode was supported in part by the Alfred P Sloan Foundation for the Public Understanding of Science, Technology and Economics.
Gastropod is part of the Vox Media Podcast Network in partnership with Eater.
Not all journalism is the same.
Take The Guardian.
Our coverage has something unique, fierce independence.
Nobody owns us or tells us what we can and can't say, so we're free to report the whole picture.
We connect what's happening in Washington to the rest of the globe, expose corruption wherever we find it and give fresh perspective on everything from wellness and soccer to culture, the climate and more.
Read, watch, and listen to The Guardian for free This usually shocks people.
I have run 27 marathons plus a few ultra marathons, all while fueling my body with plants.
Yes, I get plenty of protein.
I'm Robin Arzon, VP of Fitness Programming and Head Instructor at Peloton.
And this week on my podcast Project Swagger, the fundamentals of a plant-based life, with nutritional takeaways for you to apply to your own life, no matter what your preferred diet is.
Follow Project Swagger wherever you get your podcasts.
1929, all America's illusions exploded in her face.
The United States was hurled from incredible wealth to day's poverty in a single afternoon.
In general, the 1930s were a disastrous time in America.
Black Tuesday, the bottom dropped out and the market crashed.
Jobs, savings and homes were wiped out.
The Great Depression was here.
You had widespread deprivation.
You had entire communities where people were without income and often without food.
You have urban centers where you have massive unemployment, and there's no safety net to speak of.
Christopher Basso is professor of public policy and politics at Northeastern and author of the book Why SNAP Works A Political History and Defense of the Food Stamp Program.
To understand where SNAP comes from, we have to go back to this time in history, to the Great Depression, when about a third of Americans were hungry.
And like Chris says, there was no real system to get food to them.
I mean some states and localities have relief agencies with some modest, very modest cash assistance and modest other kinds of assistance.
But it was much thinner, much more feeble welfare state than even we think we have today, which made the deprivation that much more visible.
At the same time, you had this paradox that farmers were overproducing food.
And this has been happening for years.
American farms had become much more productive with the introduction of tractors and synthetic fertilizer, but no one had the money to buy the food they produced anymore, because Americans were broke.
First of all, the Depression decreased demand.
When people make less money, they're going to buy cheaper and less food.
You also had a global depression, which decreased the demand in terms of the export market.
Herbert Hoover was the president at the beginning of the 30s, when there were all these agricultural surpluses that nobody was buying.
Farmers were begging for government intervention.
The cost of harvesting crops was more than they sold for.
Hoover was reluctant to get involved, but he did decide to have the government buy up some of the wheat that otherwise would rot in the field.
But he didn't know what to do with it.
Fortunately, Hoover lost the 1932 election, so it wasn't his problem anymore.
The new president, Franklin Roosevelt, his administration had to deal with this mountain of surplus wheat.
So they gave the wheat over the opposition originally of the flour millers and wheat industry.
They gave the wheat to the Red Cross, which distributed the wheat the surplus wheat to local relief agencies in the various states.
But this was a one-off.
They decided this was a one-off kind of thing.
So the issue of a glut of crops was still a problem, and there was no system to deal with it.
People were hungry, farmers weren't making money, and food was going to waste.
This whole time was kind of a shocking moment in American history.
People were standing in lines for hours at soup kitchens, but then farmers had these immense surpluses that nobody could afford to buy.
So you have this paradox again.
You have on one hand, farmers being terribly productive.
You know, the United States is a place of immense resources.
And you have this overproduction of crops and animals, leading to literally massive surpluses of everything.
And on the other side you have people literally standing in red lines, pawing through piles of potatoes.
It was really not a good look.
All this hunger and yet all this perfectly good food going to waste.
And it was about to get worse.
First, the government decided to buy those crops themselves so the farmers would have some income.
For example, they bought up all the extra pigs farmers couldn't sell.
But then instead of giving it away as pork, they would turn it into sludge and fertilizer.
Nearly 80% of all pigs slaughtered in the U.S. in 1933 to 1934 were destroyed.
Their meat wasn't eaten.
You start seeing the same thing with milk.
You just pour milk down the drain, literally. or grain, you would burn the grain.
This outraged people.
Nobody was happy about the idea of destroying food while there's hunger.
Roosevelt had to do something different.
He instructed his secretary of agriculture and other farm experts to come up with some plans.
One thing they considered was paying farmers not to produce particular crops on some of their land, But the farmers hated that idea.
They didn't want the government telling them what to do.
Another option was for the government to intervene and set the prices of commodities like wheat and milk, so that farmers could make a decent living.
But that kind of price fixing wasn't a popular solution either.
Well, the objections were that you had 25 unemployment and massive inability of people to afford food.
And here's the dilemma for government.
I mean, you want prices to be high enough that farmers can make a living.
Okay, fair enough.
You want food to be inexpensive enough so that consumers can buy it.
Notice the tension.
So the government decided that they'd buy up the extra food.
This helped keep the prices from plunging.
And then they'd give away the surplus that they used tax money to buy.
This is the important point.
They're going to give that food away to those who need it, as determined by local relief agencies.
It's the box, literally the box of food that you might think of as if at a food pantry today.
So far, so great.
But although this plan sounds simple, take the surplus, give it to the hungry, in practice there were some challenges.
There just wasn't a good national distribution network to store and share the harvest in an efficient way.
And then another problem was that these boxes weren't put together, thinking through like what a family might need to get them through the week.
It was really just, OK, what do we have too much of?
Let's ship that out.
And sometimes people got stuff they didn't like or didn't know how to prepare.
So you would literally sometimes get 30 pounds of citrus fruit in your box and maybe some cabbage.
There are famous stories of Midwestern grandmothers getting grapefruit and not knowing how to prepare a grapefruit and boiling the grapefruit because they don't know what it was.
In May 1938 lucky families in Chicago got four pounds of prunes, two pounds of dried beans and 12 pounds of cabbage which, I guess at least, would have kept them regular.
It wasn't just the people on the receiving end who had some issues with these boxes, though.
Shop owners weren't fans either, because the people who got them were less likely to go to the neighborhood grocer, or certainly at least they'd spend less money there.
And so you can imagine retailers are very upset.
It's like competition as far as they're concerned.
You're giving away food that you already spend taxpayers' money on.
Meanwhile, the local retailers are struggling because people don't have the money to spend in their stores.
This wasn't just a gripe.
It was a real problem.
Flour millers, bakers and retailers had all taken a severe hit when that initial one-off government purchase and donation of wheat to the Red Cross took place.
In theory, the government could have helped out farmers and also given money cash, directly to poor people so they could buy food, which would have supported both local stores and farmers.
But no, a lot of frankly, a lot of Southern conservatives opposed the idea.
Conservatives in particular, but Southern conservatives especially, really opposed the idea of giving cash to poor people.
It was a racial dimension of this in the South, as you can imagine, but not just the South.
But it was also just this visceral not wanting to give cash to poor people because they didn't think poor people would spend the cash wisely.
And that's where the idea of the food stamp program comes from.
The basic idea behind the food stamp program was to have poor people use vouchers to pay for food.
The way it was set up was kind of a complicated system.
People would use orange vouchers to pay for regular food and blue vouchers to pay for surplus foods.
And they'd have to buy some of those vouchers, the orange ones.
I would come into my relief agency and I would have to spend a dollar at minimum.
And in return for the dollar, I would get a dollar's worth of orange stamps.
And I could use those orange stamps at any food item in the store, just like cash.
But I would get 50 cents in a bonus of blue stamps.
And the blue stamps could be used for any food in the store declared surplus that month by the US government.
The idea was that you'd keep buying your normal food.
That's why you had those orange stamps that you'd paid for.
And then you'd get extra free bonus, the blue stamps that you could use on surpluses.
That was to boost the spending of poor people and give them more food.
But they'd have to use that extra spending only on surpluses, like, say, prunes.
You would go to the store and there's a box of prunes on the shelf and it's 25 cents.
Let's say you would use your blue stamps of 25 cents or your blue stamps to purchase that box of prunes.
Just like maybe your neighbor using regular currency would use the same amount of regular currency 25 cents to purchase the same box.
It's the same box, no different.
Same price, it's just different form of currency.
And then the retailers took all the stamps blue and orange to the bank and the bank gave them cash and billed the government, aka the taxpayer.
It all sounds a little complicated, but Chris says it actually worked really pretty well.
People today may be surprised to know it was actually very popular for a couple of reasons.
One, it reduced the stigma of standing in line for the box of food.
Do not underestimate how much people hate that idea of standing in line for a box of food.
It's demoralizing.
And when it came to the box, you didn't have any choice.
At least with the food stamps, you could choose if you wanted surplus prunes or surplus cabbage.
And people using those stamps could do their shopping at a regular grocery store just like everyone else in the neighborhood.
And so retailers loved it, too.
Did it make a huge dent in the surplus?
Maybe not.
But it stimulated interest. more consumption and stimulated the markets.
And so it was very popular.
In fact, it was so popular that the government ran out of money to pay for it.
They hadn't anticipated the demand.
At its peak.
At the time there were about 4 million people using food stamps and studies showed they ate better and healthier diets compared to people who didn't have that assistance.
They tended to use the extra blue stamps on more expensive proteins like eggs and pork, and they bought fresh fruits and vegetables when those were available.
The food stamp program was launched in May 1939 and, despite its evident success and popularity, it ended just a few years later, in March 1943.
Because what happens with the war is the war stimulates consumption.
It does a couple things.
One, it reduces the surplus because now U.S. is shipping food to its military overseas.
It's shipping food to its allies.
So you're reducing the surplus on one hand.
Demand at home has risen because people are making money in the war industries.
Everybody's employed now.
And so there's no surplus, hardly any surplus to speak of.
But we do have food stamps or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.
What food stamps eventually turned into?
We still have that today.
And it's grown far beyond Roosevelt's wildest imagination.
How'd we get here?
That story after the break.
Hey, Kara Swisher here.
I want to let you know that Vox Media is returning to South by Southwest in Austin for live tapings of your favorite podcasts.
Join us from March 13th through the 15th for live tapings of Today Explained Teffy Talks, Prof G Markets and, of course, your two favorite podcasts, Pivot and On with Kara Swisher.
The stage will also feature sessions from Brene Brown and Adam Grant, Marques Brownlee, Keith Lee, Vivian Tu and Robin Arzon.
It's all part of the Vox Media podcast stage at South by Southwest, presented by Odoo.
Visit voxmediacom slash SXSW to pre-register and get your special discount on your innovation badge.
That's voxmedia.com slash SXSW to register.
Really, you should register.
We sell out and we hope to see you there.
Support for this episode comes in part from Square.
Small businesses make the world go round.
Without them, we'd just be living in a giant strip mall with all the same stores and restaurants.
Where's the fun in that?
My favorite restaurant in my neighborhood of LA Amiga More, which serves Mexican-Italian food, uses Square to take my payment for their delicious elote and miolote.
Every Saturday I go to the farmer's market and I shop at a good 10 or so different farmers or vendors, and nearly all of them use Square too.
Square makes it simple to run a small business no matter what it is.
Whether you're just starting out or whether you're growing your business into a franchise.
Square's easy to use hardware and software are built to make day-to-day operations feel simpler.
Things like tracking sales, managing inventory, and accessing reports in real time.
And Square's AI tools can help automate those routine tasks that are deceptively time consuming, so you can focus your attention on bigger picture goals.
Square brings payments, POS, inventory, staffing, and online sales together in one system.
With Square, you get all the tools to run your business with none of the contracts or complexity.
And why wait?
Right now you can get up to $200 off Square hardware at square.com slash go slash gastro.
That's S-Q-U-A-R-E dot com slash G-O slash gastro.
Run your business smarter with Square.
Get started today.
Ambassador Rahm Emanuel served as President Obama's chief of staff, an administration that had to deal with its fair share of global conflicts.
He dealt directly with Israel's prime minister and thought plenty about the threat from Iran.
But Emanuel told me that the pace of action from this president in the Middle East is giving him whiplash.
In 15 months, this president has taken military action against eight countries.
Now we got three more years to go.
In 15 months...
Iran twice, but you have Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Venezuela.
I'm losing Nigeria.
Today Explained, in your feed every weekday and on Saturdays, too.
Using planting machines, these modern tillers of the soil believe in mass production.
The job doesn't stop with nightfall.
American farmers are working overtime to produce the food to win the war.
World War II may have killed the food stamp, but it also sowed the seeds of its resurrection.
After ramping up during the war.
After the war, American farmers were producing more than ever before.
You also have less food being shipped over to our former allies, because they're producing their own food again.
So again, once again, farmers are outproducing the marketplace.
And to make it worse or better, depending on your perspective farmers became even more effective at farming in the 50s because and we've talked about this many times on Gastropod before this is when industrial agriculture really kicked into gear.
War machines were repurposed in the fields.
Wartime chemicals were repurposed as pesticides and herbicides.
Farm production soared and so did those surpluses.
That's also where international food aid comes from.
In the 1953 Food for Peace campaign.
We have a whole episode on this called how the US became the world's biggest food aid donor.
You should check it out.
But there was just so much food that the government couldn't give it away fast enough.
With grain elevators glutted by near-record wheat crops, the government turns to the mothball merchant fleets to solve the problem of storing 30 million bushels of surplus wheat.
So the government's buying surpluses and storing them in big warehouses, and you just have massive amounts of food being stored.
And it was costing the government a total fortune to store that food.
It cost billions of dollars.
It was, I think, the second or third biggest non-defense expenditure the government had by 1960.
It was that big.
Meanwhile, hunger in America still existed.
It wasn't anywhere near depression levels, but in 1955 the USDA estimated that more than 1 in 10 Americans was so poor that their diets were deficient.
And gradually, people were starting to talk about this issue of hunger again.
Some Democratic senators had been trying to bring back food stamps, including then-Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy.
By 1960, he was already on the campaign trail, and fighting hunger was a major part of his platform.
He talked about it when he was campaigning in West Virginia.
Well, now, one of the things which we send abroad is surplus food.
I've been the sponsor.
Some of the other senators sponsored a food stamp bill so that these people who are older and who have not been able to find a job, if they're going to receive assistance, it ought to be assistance they can use.
Kennedy in his own travels in the 1960 election begins to see these pockets of poverty in Appalachia in particular and is really troubled by that.
So you have by 1960, a growing consensus among Democrats in particular, but even among some Republicans, of the need to do something about surplus on one side and poverty growing awareness that there's hunger on the other side.
Spoiler alert Kennedy won the Democratic Convention and then the election, and he promised to take Americans to the moon, but also to deal with America's recurring surplus and hunger issue.
The new frontier is here, whether we seek it or not.
Beyond that frontier are uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered province of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus.
When Kennedy became president, he launched pilots around the country to try out a renewed food stamp program.
These totally did away with the two different colored stamps, because at this point it was really more about the poverty than the surplus.
What was more important, as far as they were concerned, was stimulating consumption.
And so the food stamp program was designed to enable low-income households to buy more and ideally, better food.
Because if you have more income, you tend to buy better quality food.
This was a big conceptual shift.
Like we said, the real priority for Food Stamps 20 was ending hunger rather than reducing surpluses.
But another aspect of the food stamp program stayed the same, at least at first.
You had to buy the stamps.
That was the part that was important.
They thought that people had to have skin in the game.
This idea that they had to buy stamps.
The pilots were successful, though of course they were just pilots.
They were small scale.
And then Kennedy was assassinated.
After Kennedy's death, Johnson had to take up the mantle of making sure that the program gets enacted into the Food Stamp Act of 1964.
And this administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.
Which is the basis of today's Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to this day?
So even with that hiatus during and just after World War II, food stamps are officially old now.
Many, many decades old.
And like anything that's been around that long, they've gone through some struggles.
One of the early problems that emerged was that buying stamps just wasn't feasible for the very poorest Americans.
Many didn't have the cash up front to buy the stamps to then get an extra bonus.
And also this new food stamp program replaced what the government had been doing, giving out occasional free commodities, surpluses.
And so some of the people who had relied on those handouts and who couldn't afford food stamps were now actually hungrier than before.
In any case, it turned out that making people pay for the stamps made the program less effective.
So Democrats kept trying to get that purchase requirement waived.
Meanwhile Republicans and some more conservative Southern Democrats didn't believe that people should get anything for free in America, at least not if they were poor.
So they had this notion that if you're going to get any kind of support, you should work for it.
This all led to lots of wheeling and dealing.
And so the defenders of agriculture, the commodity program promoters, would say all right, I'll support your food stamps in return for you supporting the cotton program.
Or I'll support more money for food stamps if you put in work requirements.
So there's all this bargaining going on in Congress.
The bargaining led to a pretty major change in the food stamp program in 1977, at the beginning of the Carter administration.
In return, you know, for getting rid of the purchase requirement.
This is one of the biggest changes to get rid of the purchase requirement.
In return, OK, there's going to be some more work requirements.
Regardless of these attempts to constrain who could get it, the food stamp program kept expanding.
Inflation in the 1970s had driven many more Americans into poverty, and inequality had started to expand dramatically as labor unions and progressive taxation were steadily diminished.
By 1980, one in 10 Americans was getting food stamps.
And the USDA was spending more on food stamps than it was on agricultural programs.
And then Reagan was elected.
And he was not a fan of helping out poor people.
He had all sorts of super offensive rhetoric about welfare queens, this idea that people were living large off government assistance.
It's not that there wasn't any fraud, but this really wasn't widespread at all.
So early 80s the Reagan administration slashes social welfare spending.
You know, cuts the food stamp program, cuts other nutrition programs, cuts welfare programs.
At the same time, you had the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.
Meanwhile, once again, the problem of surpluses was hitting the headlines.
In the 1977 Farm Bill, dairy farmers had been given particularly generous price supports, with predictable results in terms of overproduction by the 80s.
You have this massive amount of cheese being purchased and stored and butter and dried milk being purchased and stored by the government to keep dairy prices stable.
That led to Reagan wanting to give it all away.
The government shipped millions and millions of pounds of cheese and butter all around the country and nobody had the storage or the systems to hand it out.
It was a total mess.
At one point, people on government assistance got an entire five-pound block of American cheddar, which became known as government cheese.
Everybody say government cheese.
This government cheese business was widely mocked.
And to sort of rescue the whole thing, Congress ended up funding an entirely new program that would funnel dairy and other surpluses to states, while also funneling money to a whole new kind of organization that could distribute that excess.
And suddenly you had this organizational entity called a food bank that was going to be able to handle the commodity.
These food banks were kind of new.
They'd started to pop up in the late 70s and early 80s as a more organized way to try to feed people.
So you have the surpluses back, it's just not in the same way.
Suddenly it's being diverted to the food bank sector.
Which also raises the question, why do people need food banks when we already have food stamps?
We're going to come back to that.
But first of all we told you that food stamps are actually no longer technically called food stamps.
So how did that happen?
When Clinton was president, there was yet another battle over food stamps.
Republicans pushed again to limit who could receive food stamps and increase how much they'd have to be working.
These changes did end up getting incorporated into law.
But in that law was another change, the move from the physical world to the digital one.
And one of the provisions in there.
We would move to EBT electronic benefit transfer cards, debit cards, essentially to get rid of stamps.
So that's why it was relabeled SNAP in 2008, because there was no stamps anymore.
Lots of people still call SNAP benefits food stamps, because it is the same program just with a debit card and no paper stamps.
But that can ruffle some feathers.
Some people call it food stamps because it evokes negative images.
Those who usually defend SNAP call it SNAP.
But the change wasn't just a digital and a semantic one.
It did make a material difference in the experience of the people who were using it.
Under the old days and I know people who had food stamps in the old days you had to stand in line with your coupons and your cash and you had to sort of pay cash for some things and you had to use coupons for the other and people are behind you looking at oh, she's buying steak with her food stamps that kind of shaming dimension that goes on in lines.
And some big supermarkets would have separate food stamp lines, especially at the beginning of the month, where they would have a different cashier for those with food stamps.
So you can imagine how people felt about that.
But with the new EBT card, you just go into the store and use it like a credit card.
Another unanticipated benefit is that some non-food stamp shoppers the kind of people who might resent the idea that they, as taxpayers, are the ones paying for their neighbors to buy steak or shrimp or whatever whatever else they feel like is too ritzy for poor people to eat they can no longer see that someone is paying using EBT.
So that actually helps reduce one trigger that used to set people against food stamps.
Another benefit of the EBT cards was that they reduced fraud.
There's never been a huge amount of fraud in the system, despite what the haters may say, but there was some in the past and there's less now.
It's just harder to cheat.
The biggest source of cheating oftentimes is retailers.
Back in the old days, retailers would sort of do deals with customers or they would steal the stamps.
EBT cards reduce fraud.
Today, like we said, SNAP is America's longest-running food assistance program.
So on the level of pure lasting power, it's definitely a success.
But does it do what we want it to do?
Does it actually reduce hunger and help Americans get out of poverty and eat a healthier diet?
And could it do those things better?
It's judgment time for SNAP after this quick word from our sponsors.
It's time to evaluate SNAP.
And so one big question is, do we still need SNAP today?
We're one of the richest countries in the world.
But it turns out that about one in seven Americans are food insecure.
About a third of those are kids.
These are people who aren't sure they'll be able to buy enough groceries for their family each month.
And SNAP does help.
Yes.
And that's unequivocal.
I mean, there's every bit of evidence is that if nothing else, SNAP reduces food insecurity.
It enables households to buy more food.
All the studies that we've seen indicate that.
But that said, Chris says SNAP doesn't actually solve the problem of hunger and food insecurity in America for a variety of reasons.
It often isn't enough by itself.
SNAP benefits often don't last long through the whole month, especially with families with teenage kids, because SNAP benefits don't take into account the age of the children, just numbers of people in a household.
And everyone who's not in the federal government is perfectly aware that teens eat slightly more than toddlers do.
Also, SNAP benefits are based on something called a thrifty meal plan.
It's the idea that you'll be cooking things like beans and bulk rice.
It averages out at not much more than $3 per person per meal.
So it really relies on home cooking and bulk shopping.
That's not possible for everyone.
So even with SNAP roughly 50 percent there's some estimates of 50 percent of SNAP households end up going to food pantries at the end of the month.
Which is why we still have that whole food bank system.
Chris talked about where the government funds food banks through what they originally, 40-something years ago, called the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Program, but eventually gave up and just Took off the temporary.
So SNAP does reduce food insecurity, though it doesn't get rid of the problem of hunger entirely.
But then so how about nutrition and general well-being?
Do people who use SNAP eat food that's overall better for them than poor people who don't have access to it?
Chris says yes.
Higher SNAP benefits, the more that people can afford better quality, fresher and more nutritious food.
We know that.
Economists have proven that time and again.
If you have more income, you buy better quality food, better quality proteins, more fruits and vegetables.
One wrinkle is that, while receiving SNAP benefits tends to lead to a healthier diet overall, Chris told us it is super tricky to assess whether SNAP positively affects people's health.
Because SNAP enrollees tend to be poor.
They tend to have worse health to start off with, because of a whole list of reasons.
Poor people are typically more exposed to environmental toxins.
They have less access to quality health care, they have more chronic stress, etc.
SNAP can't deal with all that.
The only thing SNAP can do is give people money for food and, as Chris keeps saying, that has been shown to help them buy more, better and healthier food options.
But that doesn't stop some politicians and activists from wanting to put restrictions on what Snap users can buy, to force them away from sugary sodas and Doritos and toward healthier options.
There's a new effort to do that right now.
The Trump administration has allowed states to put these kinds of restrictions in place for the first time.
It is being called a major win for the Maha movement.
More states removing junk food from SNAP programs, that's food stamps, prioritizing real nutrition over processed snacks, sugary drinks.
That brings the total to 12 states, so one dozen so far, all restricting SNAP purchases of unhealthy foods beverages under the new USDA waivers.
Honestly, before we talked to Chris, that sounded kind of logical to us.
But Chris said there's no data that these restrictions encourage people to choose healthier options.
I've seen no evidence so far that restricting people on what they can use their SNAP benefits on will work.
For one thing, if I'll be blunt, if you want to buy your kids a two liter bottle of say Coca-Cola, which is available at the low low price of three dollars, thanks in part to the highly subsidized high fructose corn syrup that is its main ingredient,
And $3 is not a huge amount, even for folks who qualify for SNAP.
So if you can't use your SNAP dollars for it, you'll use other money for it.
So I don't think it'll have the intended impacts.
Also, it's kind of a bureaucratic nightmare.
Who is the person who's going to decide what's healthy and what's not?
Something might be called a granola bar, but it actually might be little better than a candy bar.
Who makes that decision?
The food companies?
Basically, limiting SNAP benefits sounds good in theory, but is unlikely to make a difference.
What does work is carrots, literally in the form of incentives to buy fresh fruit and vegetables.
A lot of states have what we call healthy incentives programs, where if you get SNAP dollars, maybe the state will kick in another 10 a month that you can use at the local farmer's market to buy fresh produce.
Those work.
So do higher benefits.
The point is, if you give people more money, however you do it, they use it again to buy better, more and better food.
Okay, so then what about overall poverty?
Does SNAP help reduce it?
Yes, actually.
The studies I've seen say that SNAP, if nothing else, reduces poverty because again, it's an income supplement.
We target it toward food, but at the end of the day, it's an income supplement.
And money of my own that I'm not having to spend on food I can use for other purposes.
Researchers have found that SNAP is particularly good at reducing extreme poverty and also poverty in families with children.
And kids in households that receive SNAP benefits are likelier to graduate high school, have better health and become economically self-sufficient than kids in low-income households that qualify for but are not enrolled in SNAP.
Making SNAP available to newly released prisoners even reduces their rate of reoffending.
It's also more effective as an anti-poverty program than a lot of our other anti-poverty programs like say, the child tax credit, because you don't have to be a parent or disabled or a veteran or whatever.
You just have to need it.
And it doesn't disappear once you go over a certain threshold like others do.
It's graduated.
You just get less of it when you don't need as much.
If you make more money...
You get fewer SNAP benefits, but you don't get cut off at the knees automatically.
And also, moving people out of poverty, as SNAP does, it helps everyone.
It turns out that each dollar of SNAP is money that's spent locally and generates even more economic activity.
Throughout SNAP's history, conservatives have worried that even if SNAP reduces poverty and hunger, it's still kind of morally questionable because it incentivizes people not to work so as not to lose their free food.
This is Reagan's whole welfare queen shtick.
And as we told you, there are work requirements built into SNAP as a result.
But Chris says that's actually counterproductive.
A lot of those folks have other things going on.
Mental illness, addiction.
They have educational deficiencies.
They have other kinds of deficiencies.
And so it's not quite clear that these people have an easy time holding a job, period.
Now, again, there's a fair percentage of SNAP households where people are already working.
So it's not going to incentivize those folks anymore because they're already working.
They just don't make enough money.
But that hasn't stopped the people who want to make sure anyone who's getting assistance is working hard for it.
The Trump administration's most recent bill made work requirements even more strict.
And so, frankly, more people are going to go hungry.
42 million Americans participate in SNAP, but Rollins says 800000 have moved off food stamps, in part because of the administration's expansion of work requirements.
That could sound like a saving, but Chris says in reality, it just means pain.
Not just in terms of more hungry people, but also they're a pain for the states to implement.
A lot of states would rather not do them.
They require a lot of bureaucracy.
And so frankly, a lot of states would rather not be burdened by doing work requirements because there's no evidence, or very little evidence, that they actually incentivize work.
But they are a pain to administer.
The point here is not that states are lazy and don't want to do this.
It's that the bureaucracy of making sure SNAP recipients are fulfilling their work requirements costs money, often as much, if not more, money as the state might save by kicking people off SNAP who are not fulfilling the requirements.
And all those people being moved off SNAP.
It's not like they suddenly can afford all the food they need.
They're totally fine.
They're not.
And the food bank system does not have enough food or infrastructure to take the place of SNAP.
So, frankly, more people are going to go hungry.
These initiatives aside, Chris says in general, SNAP is still doing what it's supposed to do reducing hunger while boosting nutrition, and also reducing poverty while not encouraging people to laze around.
But it's not the only tool that exists. to achieve those goals.
So would other things work better?
The president wants to put government issued food in boxes and have it delivered to the people directly.
Now they compare it to Blue Apron, that food delivery service for young professionals, young millennials.
It ain't that.
This is prepackaged food.
It is canned meat.
It is shelf stable milk.
It is that kind of stuff that then would be delivered.
In a move that sounded suspiciously like the original boxes of 30 pounds of citrus or four pounds of prunes, Trump officials, in his first time in office, suggested that instead of SNAP, people in need would be sent a so-called harvest box.
We've already seen why this doesn't work.
It was widely ridiculed among everybody as impractical, convoluted, and robbed people of choice.
Retailers also hated the box concept because, just like before in the days of four pounds of prunes, it would have bypassed them.
And one thing to know about Snap is it is actually a huge benefit to retailers in the food industry in general.
Big food companies like Kraft and PepsiCo and retailers like Walmart and Target.
They benefit from and process tens of billions of dollars worth of Snap money every year, which is a decent chunk of their annual revenue.
What's interesting about a lot of these major companies is that they don't just benefit from processing Snap.
Also, they pay such a low wage minimum wage and they lobby for a low minimum wage that a lot of their workers are on SNAP assistance.
In fact, Walmart and McDonald's are among the top companies in terms of workers who rely on SNAP.
We are subsidizing that for them.
Yeah, I mean.
The critique is, of course, that it enables retailers, in particular, people in the food system in particular, to have low wages.
One of the charges levied is that SNAP is a big subsidy for Walmart, for example.
The entire food system is dependent, in many respects, on cheap labor.
And cheap labor can only happen, in many respects, if you provide SNAP or other supports.
It's sort of perverse in that sense.
So if we're looking at other options instead of SNAP, it seems like we could definitely spend a lot less on SNAP as a nation if we raised the minimum wage to a living wage.
Would that work?
Chris says, yes, but.
So everybody says, well, higher minimum wages will lead to higher prices.
That's probably true.
Again, we're subsidizing low prices already through the tax system and through the welfare system.
I mean, in some respects, we already are paying the price just differently.
So if we were paying a higher price for foods the argument goes because of higher cost of labor it'd be a more honest way of actually how we approach food.
Neither Chris nor I are optimistic enough to think that we're going to achieve that kind of honesty in our relationship with food in America anytime soon, sadly.
So, yeah, we can dream and also vote for politicians who support a higher minimum wage.
But food costs way more. wouldn't necessarily soar with a higher minimum wage.
These companies, like Walmart, that pay their workers so little that the workers need federal assistance.
They often have executives that make kind of insane amounts of money.
They could just pay some of that to their workers as salary and they'd barely notice.
Also, we could afford to help out people who can't work with programs like SNAP if those companies and their owners paid their fair share of taxes.
Well, okay, I'll go there.
Again.
I mean if we just revoked all the tax cuts given under the last three Republican presidents, we wouldn't have this discussion.
And renewed last year, a trillion dollar tax cut for billionaires on the backs of poor people.
That's not very scholarly of me, but as a citizen, I think it's unconscionable.
I mean we could easily pay for this, but it would force us to actually confront the fact that we're just giving away massive amounts of money to rich people who don't really have anything to do with it.
It's not like they're going to buy more food.
I mean, how many yachts can Bezos have?
While we're heading out to the barricades here, let's just go all the way and ask why not just give poor people cash rather than an EBT card they can only use on food.
That famously liberal president Richard Nixon even thought this was a great idea back in the 1970s.
It was actually a fair number of moderate Republicans and others in the early 70s who thought wait a minute, why don't we redo the tax system so that people are given a guaranteed minimum income through the tax system instead of this sort of the convoluted system of welfare?
Let's simplify things and use the tax system in a way that people are guaranteed a minimum income.
And so there was serious effort behind this, but it got derailed for a lot of reasons.
We've pointed this out before, but the primary reason is that we not us personally, but we as a country we don't have a lot of faith that poor people can make good decisions.
We don't trust poor people to spend their money wisely.
So we, you know, we make everything, again, a voucher or tax credit.
This is not very smart of us, because every single study that has been done on cash assistance, or what is often called UBI or universal basic income these days every single study has found that it is the single most efficient and effective way to help poor people.
And in fact no other country does what we do, this weird food assistance thing rather than cash assistance.
Other countries that have welfare programs do cash assistance for poor people.
It might be tax credits, but it's still money.
Not like you have to use this to buy food.
And poverty rates and inequality are lower there.
So theoretically, we should replace SNAP with cash.
Well, economists would think so.
I mean, cash is the easiest thing to do at all.
But that's going to be highly unlikely for a while.
I don't see us anytime soon in this country expanding cash assistance.
I just don't see it ideologically or politically happening.
It's this odd compromise we've had to make in America.
Giving people cash in the form of food benefits means that fewer people are against it.
In a country where people are famously against welfare, at least in the abstract sense.
They also don't want to see their fellow Americans go hungry.
In fact, when you quiz people, when there's public opinion polls and you ask people well, what do you think about welfare?
In some abstract sense,
Everybody's against it.
But if you ask them about more support for specific kinds of programs like nutrition support, people are for it.
So people programmatically are supporting SNAP because it's about food.
This weird logic where a weakness of SNAP that is less efficient than cash is actually a strength because it means more people support it.
That's one of the main insights of Chris's new book, Why SNAP Works.
SNAP works because it doesn't 100% make sense.
Another big strength of SNAP is another thing that really made no sense to either of us until we read this book.
SNAP is part of the Farm Bill, and it comes under the authority of the Department of Agriculture.
Other than SNAP, the Farm Bill is mostly subsidies for corn soybeans wheat rice, dairy and sugar, with some crop insurance, conservation programs, loans and research in there too.
Helping hungry people and helping farmers.
Those two things were connected in the original food stamp program, but they haven't been for decades.
So it seems weird to keep SNAP in the farm bill, but Chris says this is why it's still around.
It comes down to political horse trading.
The farmers need SNAP because it gives politicians from states with big commodity farms something to negotiate over to make sure politicians who don't have commodity farmers among their constituents still support all the subsidies, and so on.
Those who are promoting agricultural programs are a smaller and smaller group.
So they recognize that they have a sort of, it's a bit of hostage taking.
They're going to leverage support for food stamps in return for liberals' support for commodity programs.
Though we should point out that there are a lot of SNAP recipients in rural areas as well, so politicians in those more rural states should also support SNAP.
But in any case, if you separated out SNAP from the Farm Bill, the farmers would lose.
Nice commodity program you have there.
Too bad about it.
Why would I vote for that?
Why would I support something that's essentially welfare for affluent farmers?
That's the way it'll be seen.
So if I'm the ag sector folks, I'd be very careful about what I wish for, because this can come back to haunt you.
But also, if you separated out SNAP from the Farm Bill, SNAP would lose.
Chris says that, even though it's a tiny chunk of the federal budget way, way less than what we spend on, for example, defense or servicing the national debt or, for that matter, Social Security it would be vulnerable out there on its own.
It'd be too easy to sort of go at it as welfare.
Whereas if it's sort of shielded within the Farm Bill to some extent, it becomes, you can bargain.
And so call me a bit skeptical about calls to move SNAP out of the USDA and out of the Agricultural Act, because and I've said this to people who are nutrition folks, who think it'd be better off on its own I say not in terms of the real politics.
I think in real politics terms, you want all the friends you can get.
So basically, even with all its challenges, Chris says that SNAP works.
It's kind of the best we can do with our current political situation.
Chris says what would make SNAP better would be to just make it easier to qualify for it.
From my perspective, you want to enable everybody who is eligible technically eligible because of income to get their benefits.
But we throw up a lot of hurdles.
I think under the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act, they've made it harder.
We're going to force states to actually pay more in administrative costs.
We're going to force states to pay a portion of the benefits for the first time in history.
These are all bad things.
From my perspective, SNAP works, so I think you want to make it as easy as possible for those who are eligible to apply for their benefits and get their benefits period.
End of discussion.
Thanks this episode to Chris Bosso.
His new book is called Why Snap Works, and we have a link to it on our website, gastropod.com.
Thanks also to our fantastic producer, Claudia Geib.
We'll be back in a couple of weeks with a brand new episode.
Till then.
