The proposal would condition Double Up Food Bucks program funding on a reduction of eligible products
A new bill in Iowa could restrict eligible foods under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) for state beneficiaries. The proposal, known as House Study Bill 216 (HSB 216), has sparked a strong debate among lawmakers, food security organizations, and industry representatives.
The stated goal of the bill is to encourage healthier eating among SNAP beneficiaries. However, opponents argue that the measure could increase the stigmatization of those dependent on the program, make it harder to buy food, and impact rural communities with limited access to fresh produce. Additionally, they warn it could dissuade retailers from participating in SNAP, reducing available options for beneficiaries.
A conditioned funding
Currently, the Iowa Senate has introduced a bill to allocate one million dollars to the Double Up Food Bucks program, which allows SNAP beneficiaries to double their purchasing power for fruits and vegetables. However, HSB 216 also proposes allocating the same amount, but under one condition: that the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services requests and obtains a waiver from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to restrict eligible foods.
Luke Elzinga, policy and advocacy manager for the Des Moines Area Religious Council, criticized the measure, arguing that the funding for Double Up Food Bucks is being «taken hostage» to impose restrictions on SNAP.
A more limited food list
The bill would limit the list of eligible foods in SNAP to the following products:
- Eggs, meat, and dairy products
- Bread, grains, cold and hot cereals
- Fruits and vegetables
- Peanut butter and nuts
- Pasta and legumes
- Any food currently allowed under the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program
This would exclude numerous products that beneficiaries can currently purchase, which concerns many food security experts.
Criticisms and concerns
Representative Rob Johnson, who was part of the subcommittee that reviewed the bill, expressed his doubts about the effectiveness of the measure. Sharing his own experience as a SNAP beneficiary in his childhood, Johnson indicated that many families, especially those with children, cannot base their diet solely on fresh foods and home-cooked meals. «There are nights when dad comes home… and Eli doesn’t want to eat fruits or vegetables. He wants his chicken nuggets and fries, and that’s all he’s going to eat,» he said, referring to his three-year-old son.
Paige Chickering, Iowa’s Save the Children Action Network manager, also warned that the requirement to cook from scratch doesn’t fit the reality of many working families. «Cooking at home is great, but for families with multiple jobs, spending an hour cooking every night is unrealistic», she said.
A 2021 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture supports this concern, indicating that 30% of SNAP beneficiaries consider lack of time a barrier to cooking healthy meals, while 61% cited the cost of healthy foods as an obstacle.
Impact on retailers and the local economy
Another point of controversy is the effect the measure would have on stores accepting SNAP. Dustin Miller, from the Iowa Grocery Industry Association, explained that the lack of uniformity with federal guidelines could create difficulties for retailers, especially for chains with branches in multiple states and small businesses that would have to adapt their payment systems.
Elzinga warned that the restrictions could lead to retailers stopping SNAP acceptance, as has already occurred with the WIC program in some cases. «What if we apply the same restrictions to SNAP?» he questioned. This would be particularly problematic in rural communities, where shopping options are limited.
An uncertain future for the bill
As lawmakers continue debating HSB 216, its opponents hope that the condition on the exemption will be removed or that the Senate will move forward with its own version of funding for Double Up Food Bucks without restrictions.
«We all want Iowans to eat healthier», said Chickering. «But implementing these restrictions could have far-reaching consequences for families who depend on SNAP».