Some of the public conversation about SNAP gets it wrong

Here are a couple of examples of things you may have heard or read in the media about SNAP and a different point of view on each:

Snap Growth Due To Recession, Not Expanded Eligibility

The recession and long-term unemployment are behind SNAP participation increases, not state eligibility changes as a recent Wall Street Journal article suggests, writes Stacey Dean in a Huffington Post editorial. She quotes the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which stated, “the primary reason for the increase in the number of [SNAP] participants was the deep recession…and subsequent slow recovery.” The 1996 welfare law allowed states to adopt “broad-based categorical eligibility” for SNAP, meaning many applicants (mostly working families and seniors) with gross assets just above the SNAP income limits could receive assistance. Repealing the option, CBO stated last year, would save only 2% of SNAP costs. SNAP participation should decrease as the economy improves, CBO projects.

(Source: Huffington Post, 3/28/13, SNAP Growth)

Snap Helps Kids’ Nutrition, Doesn’t Promote Obesity

After the March publication of an article in Pediatrics about the relationship between SNAP and childhood nutrition and obesity, several press reports inaccurately characterized the findings with the headline "Food Stamps Don't Help Improve Nutrition for Children."  Now, pediatric and public health researchers reject those inaccuracies.  In fact, they note, the article reported that SNAP was associated with “small but statistically significant odds of improved intake of water and three key micronutrients – calcium, folate and iron – all essential for children’s bone, cognitive, and neurodevelopmental health, which are insufficient in many diets. In addition, the study’s national sample of more than 5,000 low-income children age 4-19 found that SNAP participation was not associated with “increased macronutrient intake, overweight or obesity.”

(Source: Pediatrics, 3/25/13, SNAP Helps Kids)