SNAP rule would worsen food deserts

When you think of a desert, your first thought may be of Death Valley or the Sahara. But there’s a type of desert that exists in every state and in communities both rural and urban: the food desert.

Food deserts are areas that lack easy access to a supermarket or large grocery store, and a new rule from the Obama administration could make the problem worse, further reducing low-income Americans’ access to nutritious food.

{mosads}Food deserts come in different shapes and sizes. In rural areas, the nearest grocery store might be dozens of miles away. In urban areas, it could take an hours-long trek on public transportation just to buy fresh food. Whether rural or urban, food deserts often mean that the most affordable and easiest — or only — access to groceries is at a neighborhood convenience store.

Living in a food desert shouldn’t mean being cut off from fruits and vegetables. In recognition of this, Republicans and Democrats came together to craft a provision in the 2014 farm bill to require stores participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, to carry more types and greater quantities of nutritious food. The provision struck a careful balance between the quantity required and the limited shelf space at convenience stores and other small retail establishments.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s implementation went far beyond what Congress intended. The expansive rule released in February by the Department of Agriculture would make it impractical, if not impossible, for these small food retailers to continue their participation in SNAP, pushing 23.5 million Americans deeper into the food desert where inaccessible grocery chains are their only option.

Take my congressional district, for instance. In the 2nd District of Indiana, Casey’s General Store has 10 locations, all of which serve SNAP recipients and some of which are located in food deserts. At a recent hearing of the House Agriculture Committee, of which I am a member, an executive from Casey’s testified that nearly all of their stores would be disqualified from SNAP under the administration’s rule. Similarly, 7-Eleven has 27 SNAP-eligible locations in my district, some of which are in food deserts. In comments submitted to the Department of
Agriculture, 7-Eleven noted that the rule would make 80 percent of its stores ineligible. These are only two retailers and one congressional district, but the same story is repeating itself all over the nation.

There are well-documented differences on both sides of the aisle over the size and scope of the SNAP program. However, this rule was not and is not a part of that debate. Rather, it is a bipartisan effort to ensure that the program works, that the safety net is effectively serving those that need it. SNAP helps people who have lost their jobs while they get back on their feet, but it also aids low-income seniors and disabled veterans. Forcing them to venture farther to use their benefits only keeps them trapped in the cycle of poverty.

Congress found a way to come together to increase low-income Americans’ access to nutritious food, but the Obama administration found a way to do the opposite. The Department of Agriculture’s SNAP retailer rule will turn food deserts from a sand dune into the Sahara. That can’t happen. The Obama administration would be wise to go back to the drawing board. 

Walorski represents the 2nd Congressional District of Indiana, serving as chairwoman of the Nutrition Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture.