My name is Christine Woody. I am the Food Security Policy Manager for a statewide non-profit organization called Empower Missouri. We lead a statewide coalition working to end hunger in our state. Thank you for hearing my testimony today.
HB 1222 which asks Missouri to submit a waiver to USDA to allow The Department of Social Services to implement SNAP purchase restrictions is unnecessary, an ineffective policy that burdens small businesses and stigmatizes the over 600,000 MIssourians with low incomes who rely on SNAP every month.
First, imposing purchasing restrictions on what a family can buy at the grocery store with their SNAP dollars creates more hoops to access this vital benefit– this time at the point of sale at the grocery store.
Additionally, with Missouri being a state that borders more states than any other- with 8. It would make sense for many of those SNAP families to just cross the border and do their shopping where they will not have to sort through their shopping cart or ask the cashier which items can be purchased with SNAP dollars and which ones can not.
This will also be burdensome to our local grocers.
As stated above many people in MIssouri live in counties that border a different state which would not be implementing these same purchase restrictions. If these SNAP participating families drive across the border to do their shopping our local grocery stores will be hurt financially. Just as an example, let’s look at Newton County, the county of chairman Baker, over $14 million dollars in SNAP benefits were spent in that county in 2023 at the 65 retailers that accept SNAP. There is a Walmart supercenter over the border in Oklahoma about 45 minutes away from Neosho. It would be an easy drive for a family to take once every couple of weeks for a large shopping trip to purchase groceries and other necessities for their family without having the scrutiny and stigma this bill would bring to them in Missouri.
Additionally, the uncertainty about what items would be covered and what items would not, will put a huge burden on the front line staff of grocery stores. The cashiers, many of whom are just teenagers, would have to navigate difficult and uncomfortable conversations about what the clients can or cannot purchase based on the Missouri tax code.
While the bill is intended to prohibit the use of SNAP for unhealthy foods it doesn’t provide a workable list of what “those foods” are. The job of deciding that is harder than it seems. The presence or absence of certain nutrients, or ingredient lists, offers no clear answer as to whether a food is “healthy’’ or “junk.’’ Some granola bars have more fat and sodium than soft drinks. Some brands of potato chips have less sodium than some of the most popular brands of breakfast cereal. Some candy bars have less saturated fat than a serving of cheddar cheese. Additionally, classifying certain foods as “good” or “bad” runs contrary to consensus among researchers, public health experts and registered dietitians about a healthy diet.
And there is vast evidence that participating in SNAP is associated with better health behaviors. Multiple research studies show that SNAP participants eat a better diet, more frequently access preventative health care, adhere to medication, experience fewer hospitalizations and ER visits and have lower health care costs than those families not accessing SNAP benefits.
Additionally, SNAP participation improves health outcomes at every age, compared to similar people who don’t participate in SNAP:
- Children who are not facing hunger have fewer hospitalizations, lower asthma rates, lower risk of cognitive/behavioral problems, and lower rates of depression and suicidal ideation as adolescents. Long-term, this means better health outcomes, including lower rates of diabetes, obesity and hypertension.
- Among working-age adults, food security is associated with better diet quality, fewer chronic conditions, including hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, kidney disease, and better general and mental health.
- For older adults food security is linked to better diets, fewer chronic conditions such as diabetes and anemia, better general health, and longer times living independently.
Missouri ranks poorly in health outcomes and we should be doing more to improve access to nutritious foods, not limiting it.
The best way to do that would be to strengthen SNAP and other safety net programs, not restrict them. For example, instead, Missouri could look to Increase funding for the Double Up Food Bucks Program, or increase support for the WIC and Seniors Farmers Market Programs or even increase funding for the very successful SNAP Nutrition Education Programs in our State. I am happy to talk to any of you more about any of these great programs.
And finally, previous state waivers on this have been denied, including during President Trump’s first term. The USDA has never approved a state waiver to establish or enforce these restrictions. In fact, when Maine submitted a similar waiver several years ago, it was rejected by the Trump administration. According to USDA, no clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or unhealthy.
Some argue that the original intent of the SNAP program was to provide folks with healthy food. In reality, yes, SNAP was established as an anti-hunger program but one that must use the “normal channels of trade” to “ increase the food purchasing power for all eligible households” for “any food or food product intended for human consumption except alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and hot foods and hot food products prepared for immediate consumption”. Not what is written in this legislation.
Instead of policing grocery carts, let’s focus on real solutions by expanding access to affordable healthy foods. For these reasons, I am asking you to NOT pass this bill through this committee.
Spanish 
English