Keeping SNAP in Line with Global Evidence on Food Security

This perspective critiques bipartisan proposals to impose nutrition based restrictions (e.g., banning sugar-sweetened beverages) on the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), arguing that such measures overlook global evidence favoring cash transfers over restrictive vouchers. While proponents claim restrictions could reduce diet related chronic diseases, the author highlights logistical challenges, ethical concerns about autonomy, and mixed efficacy from pilot programs. Comparative evidence from international cash transfer programs demonstrates improved health outcomes by empowering households to allocate resources flexibly. The article urges U.S. policymakers to align SNAP with global trends toward unconditional cash assistance rather than adopting politically expedient but ineffective restrictions.

This perspective critiques bipartisan proposals to impose nutrition based restrictions (e.g., banning sugar-sweetened beverages) on the U.S. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), arguing that such measures overlook global evidence favoring cash transfers over restrictive vouchers. While proponents claim restrictions could reduce diet related chronic diseases, the author highlights logistical challenges, ethical concerns about autonomy, and mixed efficacy from pilot programs. Comparative evidence from international cash transfer programs demonstrates improved health outcomes by empowering households to allocate resources flexibly. The article urges U.S. policymakers to align SNAP with global trends toward unconditional cash assistance rather than adopting politically expedient but ineffective restrictions.