SNAP changes will likely push small stores out

Should the federal government require clothing retailers, especially those that cater to low-income consumers, to carry bamboo fabric goods because they are environmentally sustainable and thus better for everyone?

Well, no. Not only would that level of meddling presume government bureaucrats know the local marketplace better than the business owners who live and operate in them, but also it ignores the ramifications of forcing business owners to buy, stock and absorb the cost of items they might never sell.

As anti-capitalism — heck anti-American — as that sounds, that is exactly what the U.S. Department of Agriculture is planning to do to small neighborhood and convenience stores. While those that accept food stamps already have to stock three varieties of fruits and vegetables; dairy; breads and cereals; and meats, poultry and fish, they could soon have to stock four more choices in each category, including perishable items in three of the four food groups.

It’s another case of nanny knows best — a well-intentioned overreach by bureaucrats to get food stamp recipients to eat healthier, with the onus on retailers to stock items, not on recipients to buy them.

Under the proposed rules for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), recipients could still use their benefits to buy soft drinks, mixers for alcoholic drinks, candy, cookies, even some energy drinks.

What changes is the opportunity to look at fresh produce, bread and meats while taking SNAP-covered items, such as Red Bull and Cheez-Its, to the checkout. Meanwhile, the store owner will have the opportunity to reduce prices or absorb losses before damaging out all the stale whole-wheat rolls, spoiled chicken and rotten bananas that didn’t sell.

Kevin Concannon, USDA undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, says “USDA is committed to expanding access for SNAP participants to the types of foods that are important to a healthy diet.” But human nature and habits being what they are, it is questionable “access” will translate into “purchase.”

The USDA has been trying to guide consumers to better dietary habits since 1917. Its first food guide ignored the advice of the department’s own agricultural chemist to limit fat and sugar intake, and instead emphasized vitamins and minerals. And we all know how that’s turned out.

The federal government needs to do a better job ensuring the nearly $75 billion spent on SNAP annually goes to items that honor the “N” in SNAP, namely nutrition. That would come with making sodium fat bombs like chips and crackers, and sugar overloads like candy bars and soft drinks ineligible for EBT purchases.

That would rightly place the responsibility for better food choices on the consumer, not the retailer.

Instead, the proposed rules make it likely small stores will opt out of SNAP. And that automatically reduces the access USDA sought in the first place.

— Albuquerque Journal