After recently voting to keep the government funded, Congress is expected to turn to a laundry list of pressing legislative items. Among these are tackling the fiscal year 2025 appropriations bills and reauthorizing the Farm Bill, which is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year. The Farm Bill is an incredibly important law that invests in our farmers to keep rural communities growing, helps export more American agriculture products abroad and ensures food security for tens of millions of lower-income families.
In the words of former President Obama, the Farm Bill is a “Swiss army knife” for the country, and it’s time for Congress to put pen to paper and deliver.
The Farm Bill is normally an incredibly bipartisan endeavor and often passes with broad bipartisan support. This time, things are likely to be a bit different as some leading Republicans, including a Maryland congressman, are seeking to poison legislative progress by seeking spending cuts to critical programs and product restrictions that would leave millions of our neighbors worse off.
As the party of choice, dignity, and compassion, Democrats should continue to stand up to the other sides efforts to disrupt the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and funding for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). This is a dual-track threat: calling for pilot programs to “test” restriction in the appropriations process and potential amendments to enact restrictions in the Farm Bill.
This issue is as real as ever. In recent weeks, some Republicans have stood as a roadblock to expanding funding to WIC as leverage to score a pilot program on product restrictions within SNAP.
In my view, extreme Republicans are wrong to play politics with anti-hunger funding for mothers and their children. These are real people, and politicians should put them in the crossfire in order to win a personal policy priority. As the National WIC Association said recently, these efforts are “unnecessary and harmful,” and undermines the “success of a program that has enjoyed decades of overwhelming bipartisan support.”
Essentially, the unrealistic demand is for a five-state pilot program to restrict retailers from accepting SNAP benefits for items that are not “nutrient-dense” foods. Their stated goal is to eliminate the ability for lower-income consumers to buy snacks, candy, and sodas and it also opens the question as to what it means to be “nutrient-dense” and how this program will be enforced in the real world. It could also add new burdens and headaches onto America’s 248,000 retailers, the overwhelming majority of which are small businesses, if this pilot were to go nationwide.
Thankfully, when Republicans were attempting to stuff this bad idea into one of the most recent funding bills, Democrats held strong and stopped its inclusion. As Democratic leadership noted, this policy is “extreme” and the Republican proposal “would have limited food choices for people on SNAP.”
Not only are these Republicans on the wrong side politically, but the policy position is also extreme. In addition to pushing a pilot program, there is also a misguided proposal floating around with an oft-named Healthy SNAP Act, a bill that would restrict consumer choice in the grocery store. Specifically, the proposal would prohibit recipients from purchasing certain food items such as soft beverages and snacks.
While this legislation seeks to lower obesity rates, it fails to consider that Americans get their food from more than one aisle of the grocery store.
The truth is choices lead to better outcomes, and the private sector is on the front lines of lowering caloric intake in their products. Take a walk through the soft drink or snack aisle — consumers today have more options than ever, with diet, zero calorie and reduced sugar options. Consumers should be empowered to make the best decisions for themselves and their families when they are purchasing products they enjoy. Republicans claim to believe in limited government, but in this case, they want to have the government limit consumer choice.
The proposal also infringes on the dignity of SNAP recipients, many of whom are people of color. Recipients of SNAP know the importance of a balanced diet, and they don’t need the government to make those decisions for them.
We all recognize that obesity in America is a real problem, but the solution for this complex issue won’t be found by banning soda, snacks and other products from the SNAP program. As the former CEO of Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital, noted in a recent piece, “There’s little reason to believe that the use of SNAP funds to purchase sodas would do much to reduce obesity at the population level. The Food and Drug Administration reports that, as of 2020, less than 6% of the typical diet is made up of sugar-sweetened beverages.”
As negotiations on the Farm Bill progress, let’s hope the Healthy SNAP Act and corresponding pilot programs are added to the shredder and not to the actual bill. Consumers and businesses would be better off with keeping the status quo.
Albert R. Wynn is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Maryland’s 4th Congressional District. While in the House, he served as a member of the Subcommittee on Health.
Most Popular
Comments / 0