NEWSFOOD STAMPS

For the last two years, the Food Research and Action Center has been tracking food hardship in the U.S. Its latest food hardship report (pdf) delivers some good news — and a warning.

First a bit of explanation. Food hardship is similar to the food insecurity (pdf) tracked by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. People are counted as food hardship cases when there have been times during the year that they didn't have enough money to buy enough food for themselves or their family.

Now the good news. The food stamp program is working. Program participation continues to set record levels, as it should during this deep recession. It was up to more than 42.3 million people in August — 17 percent more (pdf) than just a year ago.

At the same time, the percent of households experiencing food hardship has declined somewhat since the early phase of the recession. In January 2008, the food hardship rate was 16.5 percent. By the end of the year, it had risen to 19.4 percent.

Then Congress approved a 13.6 percent boost in maximum food stamp benefits as part of the Recovery Act. And the food hardship rate began to go down. The average rate for the last four months of 2009 was 18.5 percent.

For the current year thus far, the rate has averaged 17.7 percent — still disturbingly high, but considerably below the November 2008 peak of 20.3 percent.

It's also a fairly encouraging number, given the ongoing jobs crisis. In fact, says Deborah Weinstein, Executive Director of the Coalition on Human Needs, "given continued unemployment and underemployment, the food hardship rates should actually be much higher."

And now the warning.

What is your typical food budget in a month? According to a Department of Labor survey, most Americans spend about $500 a month or about $6,000 a year on food. But what about the growing number of families who rely on government assistance? Here in Philadelphia, the average amount of money a family gets on food stamps is just $258 a month, and many families are running out of food three weeks in to the month.

That is why, when benefits kick in on the first of the month, stores are seeing a surge in sales, often at midnight. Walmart noticed this trend too, and Bill Simon, CEO of Walmart US, nailed it right on the head when he said, "The only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they've been waiting for it."

Unfortunately, the problem is growing, in Philadelphia and across the country. Since December 2008, food stamp enrollment has jumped from 31.7 million to more than 40 million. That's a record: 1 in 8 Americans are now on food stamps. In Philadelphia, 416,587 people are receiving food stamps, up from 329,903 in December 2007. What do they do when it's only the 21st of the month and they're out of benefits? The Philadelphia Enquirer reveals a broken safety net for the hungry.

Many turn to food pantries, but those can be tricky to navigate. Some are only open one day a week, or only allow families to visit once a month. And many food pantries can only give out a few days of food to each visitor and have to turn people away when they completely run out of food. So Pennsylvania runs a program called the State Food Purchase Program (SFPP) that funds food purchases just for pantries. In 2007, 223,221 Philadelphians received food that was funded in-part through the SFPP; this year the number has nearly doubled to 411,075. Close to 40 percent of those people are children. Despite the skyrocketing number of families that rely on this program, the State Food Purchase Program's budget has been slashed. After a cut in 2007, the state legislature cut $487,000 this year.

Fellow PiA blogger Greg Plotkin and I have been exchanging views about New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to prohibit food stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy soft drinks — or as Greg says, revealing his East Coast roots, soda.

Greg launched the dialogue with a post supporting the ban. I responded by arguing that it's bad public policy. We could have gone back and forth in comments. Instead, I invited him to a friendly public exchange. We both hope you'll chime in.

G. People ask, isn't a ban on soda ineffective in improving the health of food stamp recipients? Maybe. That's why a pilot program such as Mayor Bloomberg is proposing is so necessary. Shouldn't we have at least some research to back up the claims of inefficiency or effectiveness? Either way, I think it's worth finding out just what effects such a ban would have.

K. We do, in fact, have a considerable amount of research on the effectiveness of different strategies for modifying consumer behavior. Academics have churned out books and articles. Companies that make and sell consumer products have funded vast amounts of marketing research to tell them how to impact choice.

Yet there's certainly a lot we don't know. The obesity epidemic is proof positive. I might be more in favor of Bloomberg's experiment if independent researchers had systematically tested other, less punitive strategies and found that they didn't work. Also if he'd taken account of research indicating that his ban won't.

Researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture looked at the potential impacts of banning "empty calorie" foods about four years ago. They doubted that prohibiting them would cause food stamp recipients to switch to fruits, vegetables and the like. Consumers with a sweet tooth might just buy more cakes and cookies, they said. This has the authentic ring of human nature, I think.

I also might feel differently if I had more confidence in the assessments that New York City agencies will make. The proposal to USDA shows that they haven't come up with a sound, feasible methodology for measuring impact. As I've suggested elsewhere, Mayor Bloomberg seems to have a very personal investment in reshaping other people's diets. To me, this doesn't bode well.

Finally, I'm concerned about where the experiment could lead. To me, it's a slippery slope, ending in a conversion of the food stamp program into a broader version of WIC, i.e., a very limited list of permitted foods and beverages, with set purchase amounts for different groups. The difference is that WIC really is a supplemental nutrition assistance program. Notwithstanding its new official name, the food stamp program isn't.

Fellow PiA blogger Greg Plotkin has voiced his support for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposal to prohibit food stamp recipients from using any part of their benefits to purchase soft drinks and other sugary beverages.

He expects, however, that "advocates for the poor" will criticize the ban for unfairly stigmatizing people who receive federal nutrition assistance. In fact, the proposed ban had barely hit the newswires when advocates — not only for poor people, but for hunger prevention and healthy diet policies — began raising objections.

Ellen Vollinger, the legal director at the Food Research and Action Center, the leading anti-hunger advocacy organization in the country, points out that the ban runs counter to the basic principles of dietary guidelines because it sets up good food-bad food categories. It can also make people "less likely to want to participate in the program," she says. Hardly good policy when a third of eligible people don't participate now.

Marion Nestle, a professor in New York University's Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health and a well-known author of books on food politics and policies is, as she says, "no fan of sodas." She notes, however, that the ban is based on the never-proved notion that food stamp recipients make worse food choices than everyone else.

While she favors New York's proposed tax on sugary drinks, she's not endorsing the soft drink ban. She says she'd "much prefer incentives," e.g., doubling the value of food stamp benefits when spent on fresh or single-ingredient frozen fruits and vegetables.

Joel Berg, who can hardly be characterized as just one of those "advocates for the poor," strikes a similar note. "There's not an iota of evidence that poor people in the food stamp program shop any less nutritiously than anyone else," he says. "We have no problem giving subsidies to Goldman Sachs, but when it comes to poor people, we want to say, 'I want to make damn well sure that every penny goes where I think it's supposed to go."

Berg is a former U.S. Department of Agriculture official, Executive Director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger and a nationally-recognized authority on federal food policies.

Just because you're eligible for SNAP benefits (food stamps) doesn't mean you get enough to eat. Just because you live paycheck to paycheck doesn't mean each paycheck can be stretched far enough. Need proof? Read or listen to any of the dozen stories about midnight grocery shopping from the past two weeks. Apparently, it just occurred to everyone from National Public Radio to the Associated Press that poor and working class families can't get by on minimum wage, tips and government subsidies.

Midnight shopping is a fairly common occurrence that's self-explanatory: because government benefits are deposited at midnight on the first day of the month, it means poor families — or just parents, while the kids are at home asleep — head out to 24-hour groceries like Walmart at 11 p.m. on the last day of the month. At midnight, people start unloading several hundred dollars worth of food and household supplies like toilet paper to last for the next month. Most families interviewed say they receive a lot less than what they'll actually need to cover a full month's expenses, and it's easy to see why things get desperate at the end of month. By then, shelves are empty and everything is being rationed — even that precious toilet paper.

The pattern has caused giant stories like Walmart to start stocking accordingly. They make sure that more bulk items are available at the beginning of the month, especially formula and diapers and staples like milk, bread and detergent. But the one thing big box stores aren't adjusting is how prices have gone up this year. Largely due to the rise in fuel prices, the cost of milk is up 21 percent and eggs are a staggering 44 percent more expensive.

In an effort to curb the rising tide of obesity that is costing Empire State taxpayers $8 billion per year in health care expenses, a proposal is being considered in New York City that will ban the 1.7 million city residents receiving food stamps from purchasing soda and other sugary drinks with their benefit cards.

According to reports, New York Governor David Paterson and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will ask the United States Department of Agriculture to temporarily add sugary beverages to the food stamp program's list of banned items alongside cigarettes and alcohol (among others). If approved, it will be the first time in the history of the food stamp program that an item has been banned solely because of its lack of nutritional value.

The facts related to obesity in New York City show that action is necessary and must be taken now in order to ensure that the city's children are able to grow up into healthy adults. Currently, 57 percent of adults and 40 percent of children in New York City are overweight or obese, with these numbers even higher in low-income communities.

New York is requesting a temporary change to the food stamp program so that over the next two years researchers can study the effects that a sugary drink ban would have on broader public health in the state and throughout the nation. However, it is still likely to come under criticism from advocates for the poor who say that restricting what items can be purchased with food stamps benefits unfairly stigmatizes those that are receiving federal assistance. In fact, this is the reaction many Change.org readers had when I proposed a similar ban a year ago.

Drama! Last week, a war-of-words went down between former Speaker of the House (and current insufferable windbag) Newt Gingrich and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the stimulative effect of food stamps. Allow me break it down:

October 5: Gingrich issues a memo to Republican candidates in the upcoming Congressional race that calls Democrats the "party of food stamps" and urges candidates to brand the GOP as the "party of paychecks." He writes, "It is an unassailable fact that in June, more food stamps were distributed by the government than ever before in American history.  (It turns out that Barack Obama's idea of spreading the wealth around was spreading more food stamps around.)"

October 6: Pelosi responds to the Gingrich memo, noting that "there is some subliminal message that is being sent out there about us and them, meaning people who need food stamps and the rest of the country, which I think is an unfortunate course to go down. It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance — the biggest bang for the buck."

Later that night: Gingrich fires back at Pelosi in a FOX News interview: "She says that for every dollar a person receives in food stamps, $1.79 is put back in the economy ... Well, you know, I carry around a bumper sticker that says 2 plus 2 equals 4. So I'd be very curious how a dollar given to somebody becomes a $1.79. And I think if we could get that to work with the U.S. Treasuries, so if people gave the Treasury $1,000, it became $1,790, we could pay off the federal debt and never worry about spending or anything. I mean, I — you know, somehow, I don't understand how liberal math turns $1 into $1.79."

A warning: don't be fooled by Gingrich's faux naiveté about food stamps. He is as aware as anyone else that food stamps really do have a stimulative effect on the economy. (In fact, the effect is even stronger than what Pelosi claimed — for every dollar spent on food stamps, $1.84 is put back into the economy, according to the USDA).

Awhile back, when some were outraged that people were using their food stamps at Whole Foods, we asked if food stamps should buy organic salmon. Now outrage is being directed at the other end of the spectrum. New York City is hoping to ban food stamp recipients from using their benefits to buy soda or other sugary drinks.

As part of his push to lower obesity rates, Mayor Michael Bloomberg is asking the USDA for a two-year ban on buying soda for its 1.7 million food stamp families.

Not all public health advocates are in line with the proposal.

"The world would be better, I think, if people limited their purchases of sugared beverages," said George Hacker,  senior policy adviser for the health promotion project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "However, there are a great many ethical reasons to consider why one would not want to stigmatize people on food stamps."

The proposal may limit the amount of sugary drinks getting into the hands of children whose families are on food stamps, but it won't change the fundamental problem with food in America — lousy food is just cheaper than nutritious fare, so poor families will stock up on whatever fills their bellies and fits their budgets.

Even with a ban, soda will still be cheaper than bottled water. A two-liter of Coke still costs less than a carton of Juicy Juice. Potato chips cost less than actual potatoes.

Minnesota officials tried to ban junk food purchases by food stamp users a few years back, but the USDA didn't let them. The USDA said the ban would "'perpetuate the myth' that food-stamp users made poor shopping decisions," according to the New York Times.

Could you eat on $30 a week? That's about $4.50 a day for your breakfast, lunch and dinner.

That's what Feeding Illinois — an association of state food banks — recently challenged the public to do with the SNAP challenge. Its message: "More than 1.6 million people in our state live on $4.50 a day — can you?"

A number of bloggers and journalists have taken up the challenge, documenting their efforts to live on what they would get if they were food stamp recipients. But is this just another poverty simulation that gives the wealthy a reason to feel grateful for what they have and then go on their merry way?

Chicago Tribune reporter Monica Eng doesn't think so.

"I can see how some readers feel this is a voyeuristic, elitist exercise. I won't speak for the readers, but this has certainly been an eye opener for me," she writes.

Over the week, Eng documented her efforts to eat well on very little — buying beans, rice and lentils and shopping at a farmer's market that doubles the money of food stamp recipients. Emphasis on effort. One of the things Eng shares is the sheer amount of time, effort and space that it takes to make decent food on such a small amount of cash.

"I spent much of Saturday and Sunday making beef stock, boiling pots of barley, roasting kale, washing beet tops, stewing kale, baking bread, roasting beets and sweet potatoes, making banana oatmeal, soaking black beans, simmering pinto beans and cooking up a rice and lentil pilaf," writes Eng. "Then I spent as much time finding a place to store all of this cooked food."

How do you say "woohoo" in Hawaiian?

The exclamation is definitely called for now that the Aloha State is expanding eligibility for food stamps for its residents. Starting next month, Hawaii will abide by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's (SNAP) upper limit, letting Hawaiians making up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level to get food assistance. About half of all states operate at the maximum.

That means that a family of four making up to $50,736 could get food stamps. (Right now the cutoff is 130 percent of the poverty threshold, or $32,976.) It also means that 22,000 more people will be eligible for help, earning Hawaii tens of millions more in federal food stamp money.

Food stamps have seen an enormous boost in enrollment nationwide since the start of the recession. Forty million Americans currently rely on food stamps. In Hawaii, more than one in 10 residents does. The state's program has grown a staggering 62 percent since 2007. Food stamps are arguably the most middle class-friendly federal assistance program, since many people who are eligible for them earn too much to qualify for cash assistance through TANF or medical assistance through Medicaid.