Public Health Lawyer Investigates Corporate Ties to SNAP Program

Public health lawyer Michele Simon has published a June 2012 report that raises questions about the purported influence of food and banking corporations on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Titled “Food Stamps: Follow the Money,” the report focuses on food manufacturers, food retailers and large banks with “a critical stake in debates over SNAP,” which Simon describes as “the largest, most overlooked subsidy in the farm bill.” In particular, she alleges that food industry lobbyists have joined with anti-hunger groups to oppose state and federal efforts to disallow soda, candy and snack food purchases under the program.

“Among the most vocal opponents of health-oriented improvements to SNAP
purchases are several national anti-hunger groups, each of which accepts
significant funding from major players in the food industry,” opines Simon.
“While it’s not clear exactly how such relationships might influence policy positions, the potential for conflict exists. Other groups that do not take corporate money also oppose SNAP waivers to modify product purchases.”

Although it ultimately asks Congress not to cut SNAP benefits “at this time of extreme need,” the report nevertheless maintains that SNAP has disproportionately benefited a handful of major retailers as well as the banks that administer the ATM-style Electronic Benefits Transfer on behalf of states. While criticizing USDA for failing to gather national data about SNAP product purchases and “how much money banks make on SNAP,” Simon argues that banks “are reaping significant windfalls from the economic downturn and increasing SNAP participation.” She calls on USDA to improve the program’s transparency by collecting information about SNAP product purchases, bank fees and retailer redemptions and making these data available to the public.

“The debate over making health-oriented improvements to SNAP purchases
is currently at a standstill,” concludes Simon, who also urges USDA to grant
state waivers to experiment with program changes. “On one side are those
who insist soda is not a food, while others argue such policy changes only
hurt those in need. We must go beyond this rhetoric and examine the extent
to which SNAP has become a corporate subsidy. Then advocates should work
together to make improvements to SNAP that will truly benefit participants.”