Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Hoosiers could be prohibited from purchasing soda and candy with their food benefits as early as January, but researchers and retailers question the effectiveness of the move — noting how difficult it could be to implement.
Teas and other, non-milk based beverages may be out but candy bars with flour — like Twix or Butterfingers — are fine, a confusing distinction for clerks and cashiers to explain.
Last month, the federal government approved the state’s application to exclude the treats based on loose definitions added to Indiana’s code more than two decades ago. Gov. Mike Braun and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith are fans — and so is U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
But Joe Lackey, president of the Indiana Grocery and Convenience Store Association, said the decision came without much warning for the retailers responsible for face-to-face communication with the consumers enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program.
“The day after they held the press conference and announced they were doing it, they asked the industry to come to a meeting to talk about it and we basically said, ‘This meeting should have happened a couple of days ago before you made the decision,’” said Lackey, a longtime lobbyist.
“I think it’s probably the end of the program (nationwide). I think food stamps and SNAP are going to just go away,” Lackey continued. “That was the intent, I think, to start with in Washington.”
He said SNAP retailers near the border will be hit hardest by the change, since benefits apply across state lines. Indiana cannot restrict what a SNAP enrollee purchases in neighboring states.
The approved waiver has an explicit goal to help “low-income households … obtain a more nutritious diet” to combat the nationwide “health epidemic further induced by diet-related chronic disease.”
But even that impact is far less clear for the 610,000 Hoosier enrollees.
“I think, as a person who tends to think about these things from more of an economic point of view, it’s probably just going to shift (SNAP expenses to) other places,” said Dan Knudsen, a professor emeritus of geography at Indiana University and part of the IU Food Institute.
Knudsen approaches food benefits from a mathematical perspective, analyzing the pros and cons of the Thrifty Food Plan used to calculate benefit allocations under SNAP. He noted that many beneficiaries might not have regular access to refrigeration, a stove or transportation — limiting their food options to whatever’s accessible and shelf stable.
“Our current read from our most recent literature would indicate that SNAP benefits, right now, given the rise in food costs, are getting people through somewhere between 15 and 21 days of the month,” said Knudsen. “And then you need to take into account the fact that somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60% of the SNAP benefit is typically utilized in a single purchase.”
SNAP enrollees already can’t purchase alcoholic beverages, tobacco or hot/prepared foods under federal rules.
More about the waiver
Indiana’s soda and candy exemption waiver was signed the same day as Iowa’s, the latter of which includes snacks in addition to candy. Both came just a few days after Nebraska’s approved move to ban soda and energy drinks from SNAP purchases.
But their definitions, though overlapping, are distinct from Indiana’s. For example, Nebraska’s definition of soft drinks is more narrow and focuses on carbonation, but specifies that sports drinks like Gatorade are not included.
On Tuesday, Braun went to Washington D.C. as part of a press conference at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, for a ceremonial signing to exempt certain foods in Arkansas, Idaho and Utah.
All are part of a growing number of state leaders seeking to limit food benefits, including lawmakers in at least a dozen states that explored legislative options earlier this year. The federal government pays for the program’s benefits, only shuffling some administrative costs to states, and must approve any changes to SNAP.
Lackey pointed to a pair of failed bills earlier this year as evidence of a lack of widespread support, saying he and a coalition of anti-poverty advocates alongside industry lobbyists opposed the legislative efforts.
“I don’t know anyone in Indiana — except for the governor — that’s for it,” said Lackey.
Indiana’s waiver bans soft drinks, which defined in Indiana code are “nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. The term does not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or greater than fifty percent (50%) of vegetable or fruit juice by volume.”
Candy is defined as “a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. The term does not include any preparation containing flour or requiring refrigeration.”
The loose definition of these terms appears to ban popular items like bottled teas and granola bars from purchase. Yet candy bars with flour, such as Kit Kats, and sugary bakery items are fine.
The state is required to notify beneficiaries and will even provide informative posters to retailers, retailers will have to reprogram their computers to align with the new rules. And clerks and cashiers will likely be the ones telling SNAP enrollees.
“They’re the ones that are going to have to try to explain to the customers why they can no longer buy soft drinks or why they can no longer buy a candy item,” Lackey said. “This is going to be a real problem and a lot of stores, major stores throughout the state, have said they’re seriously considering dropping (SNAP).”
Such purchases can make up 20% of a convenience store’s sales, Lackey said. The hit also comes on top of the state’s long-proposed cigarette tax increase, which Lackey said would also hurt his members.
But will it help?
The waiver itself cites several studies concluding that SNAP enrollees consume more sugary drinks and snacks than their peers — and the consumption of both has been linked to higher rates of obesity and diabetes.
A similar public health effort to improve health by increasing taxes on soda has split experts, with researchers at the University of California in Berkeley finding such moves decrease consumption in low-income neighborhoods while Tax Foundation analysts argue that reducing obesity and sugar intake requires a more complicated plan.
Knudsen pointed to many other sources of sugar in the typical American diet — including his personal favorite, bread, which some European countries classify as confections because of the high sugar content in American brands.
“Taxes on sugar and taxes on candy are just the tip of the iceberg of the sugar consumption of the average American,” he said.
Instead, SNAP supporters point to programs that allow enrollees to “double up” on fruits and vegetables with their benefits card by offering a discounted rate on certain produce at participating farmers markets and stores. An Indiana University study on SNAP beneficiaries at farmers markets concluded that “economic incentives (like double bucks) are a critical means for enhancing access to local fresh fruits and vegetables by subsidizing further purchasing power for low-income individuals,” though transportation posed a big barrier for SNAP enrollees.
However, Knudsen noted that such studies like the above — which was produced by a former student of his — also struggle to connect those efforts to long-term health goals.
And more change could be coming. Lackey said he’s heard that the state plans to exclude other foods from SNAP, adding to the burden on retailers.
“It’s grown to a point where they just can’t fund it anymore, which is pretty scary,” said Lackey. “But do it on a national basis; don’t do it on a restricted, state-by-state basis where you have inconsistency.”
Also on the horizon: work requirements for SNAP enrollees, which Knudsen called a “red herring” since many beneficiaries are children, disabled or retired seniors.
“Why are we punishing the poor?” Knudsen asked. “… it’s really important that any changes to SNAP are thought about from the point of view of individuals who are on SNAP who are food insecure.”
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, nonprofit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.