House Republicans clashed with Democrats at a hearing Wednesday over a proposed pilot program that would restrict access to excessively sugary foods and drinks for food stamps recipients, sparring over matters of food science amid the nationwide obesity epidemic.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, grew exasperated with colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle who insisted that his proposed pilot program would be a cut in funding for families in need, calling their arguments straw-man attacks.
“I want to see it in black and white where it has been suggested that my proposal would cut benefits,” Harris said. “It wouldn’t cut benefits — it would redirect spending. People have a very low opinion of Congress, and what you experienced today is the reason for that very low opinion.”
Harris has been a longtime advocate of a pilot program directed toward incentivizing healthy food options for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that also restricts access to high-sugar products. The proposal program was included in the Department of Agriculture’s fiscal 2023 Research and Evaluation Plan and was a key part of discussions during budget deals this spring.
The debate comes as nearly 75% of healthcare spending is on chronic disease burden, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, and Type II diabetes.
“We find ourselves in an obesity epidemic where 3 in 4 adults age 20 or older have either overweight or obesity and nearly 1 in 5 children have obesity,” Harris said. “Now, 10% of children have nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, with some even requiring liver transplants. This was previously unheard of.”
The leading Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA), said, however, that the costs of healthier food options, such as fresh fruits and vegetables, require an increase in SNAP benefits, not cuts to the program.
“If the other side is going to argue that people using SNAP should be limited to healthier options,” Bishop said, “they need to join us in the 21st century and realize that a healthy diet costs more than the average of $2 per person per meal that SNAP provides.”
A study published this month by the Urban Institute found that SNAP benefits were not large enough to pay for a “modestly priced meal” in 98% of counties in the United States.
Bishop called Harris’s proposal “at best a half-baked idea, and at worst a negligent suggestion that misses the mark.”
Echoing points from the ranking member, Rep. Lauren Underwood (D-IL) said healthier food purchases under SNAP would only increase if recipient payouts were increased rather than restricting choices for sugary, processed products.
“Instead of grappling with the reality of what our communities are facing and the evolving problem of food insecurity, the proposal that we’re debating today is completely divorced from the needs of families and small businesses we represent,” Underwood said.
Harris emphasized in the hearing that the program would not be aimed at the entire country, but rather would be “limited to pilots to test the concept and provide data” for policy change in the future.
Other food assistance programs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, have purchasing restrictions that allow recipients to use federal dollars for only certain health food products.
Expert panelists testified before the subcommittee that incentives for purchasing healthy foods tend to increase purchases of fresh produce, but they alone do not curb purchases of products with high sugar and trans-fat content.
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) took a middle-of-the-road posture between the competing interests on the subcommittee, saying government programs need to cultivate greater appreciation for natural food production and move away from processed foods more generally.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Kaptur took aim at the USDA, which manages SNAP benefits, saying it is “very frustrating” to work with despite “good people” in its employ.
“The whole USDA is set up so that the benefit goes to sort of the countryside for production knowledge of how to be more efficient, but the dollars go to the SNAP programs, the food programs, and there’s a total disconnect,” Kaptur said.